Written Communications (updated 12/3/2025) — Cupertino City Council, December 2, 2025 (part 1 of 2)

CC 12-02-2025
Oral
Communications
Written Comments
From: Shen Li
To: City Council; City Clerk; Public Comments; Tina Kapoor; Chad Mosley; Rachelle Sander Subject: Cupertino Memorial Park Pickleball
Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 10:57:25 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

City Clerk,
Please include this email as part of written communications for the 12/2/25 City Council meeting.

Dear City Council Members, City Manager Kapoor, and Directors Sander and Mosley, Thank you for taking the time to read our note. We’re Shen and Susan Li, and we’ve lived in Cupertino for 36 years in the Seven Springs neighborhood. Over the years, this city has become much more than just the place we live. It’s where we raised our family, where we vote, where we shop, and where we’ve built so many lasting connections. Cupertino truly feels like home, and that’s why we wanted to share a bit of our experience with you.

We started playing pickleball about three years ago, and these days we’re at Cupertino Memorial Park three to four times a week. We occasionally play in Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Los Altos, but we always find ourselves returning to Cupertino Memorial Park. There’s a friendliness and sense of community here that we haven’t found anywhere else.

What began as something new to try has turned into an activity that brings us joy, keeps us active, and gives us something to look forward to during the week. It’s been a positive influence on both our physical and mental wellbeing.

The biggest surprise has been the people. We’ve made friends we never would have met otherwise, and those friendships have grown into much more than time spent on the courts. We now get together for bridge, mahjong, hiking, and even the occasional meal out. It’s been remarkable to see how a simple game can spark such genuine connections.

On any given day at the courts, you’ll see children, seniors, parents, beginners, and experienced players all sharing the space and encouraging one another. It’s one of the rare activities that brings together people from all parts of our community. It’s amazing how you can show up not knowing anyone and leave feeling like you belong.

We know you’ve received a lot of information about court availability and demand, and those details matter. But just as important is the human side. Pickleball is accessible, affordable, and brings people outdoors in a way that encourages interaction, activity, and community building. It offers benefits that go beyond the game itself and contributes to the kind of healthy, welcoming community we’re all proud to be part of.

We hope the city will continue supporting this growing community of players, both residents and non-residents, who have found friendship and connection through this sport. We truly appreciate the work you do and the time you take to listen to residents like us. Thank you for your service and for considering our perspective.

Sincerely,
Shen and Susan Li
From: Robert George
To: City Council; City Clerk; Public Comments; Tina Kapoor; Chad Mosley; Rachelle Sander Subject: Cupertino Memorial Park Pickleball
Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 10:39:04 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

City Clerk,
Please include this email as part of written communications for the 12/2/25 City Council meeting.

Dear City Council Members, City Manager Kapoor, and Directors Sander and Mosley, I am a resident of Cupertino and have been for over 25 years. I am also an active pickleball player at Memorial Park most mornings.

I live near Blackberry Farm Golf Course and walking trail so I'm VERY familiar with living near a popular location which can get noisy at times. I get it. I worked with the City Council to agree on the placement of the trail through the park and it has worked very well over the years. Sure there are folks who wander off the trail and poke around on our property but I kindly ask them to stay on the marked trails and enjoy what our community has to offer.

But we can't let the few dictact the benefits to the many. We can and should come up with solutions which help mitigate noise but let's not look at things as either black or white.

For morning play I have switched to a quiet paddle, I only play on the courts furthest from residents' homes and I help enforce quiet play during morning hours. I'm doing my part to be a good citizen but I also want the benefits offered by the great community we've built.

Seriously, I would be devastated if I couldn't play pickleball with my new found friends.

I helped put together a survey of players and we've found that not only is pickleball at the park an important part of our player community, it also leads to a lot of commerce in the area which benefits the entire city. Lets NOT turn our parks into uninviting destinations.

Thanks for your time and service,
--Robert George
22096 Dean Court, Cupertino
From: D L
To: City Council; City Clerk; Public Comments; Tina Kapoor; Chad Mosley; Rachelle Sander Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT for 12/2/25 Meeting - Permanent Sound Mitigation at CMP Date: Monday, December 1, 2025 11:06:57 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk,
Please include this email as part of written communications for the 12/2/25 City Council meeting.

Dear City Council Members, City Manager Kapoor, and Directors Sander and Mosley, I am writing as a Cupertino resident and a dedicated member of the thriving pickleball community at Cupertino Memorial Park (CMP). First, I want to congratulate City Manager Kapoor on her promotion. We also sincerely thank Directors Sander and Mosley for their continuing effort to collaborate with our pickleball community, and we thank the Council for providing permanent pickleball lines at CMP.

We are grateful for your past support and now urge the Council to implement a viable, permanent solution to ensure this valuable community asset can be sustained.

We must address the notion that over 90% of players are non-residents; this is incorrect. Our data shows over 30% are residents, and over 50% either live or work in Cupertino. We firmly oppose any policy that would discriminate against our non-Cupertino friends. This community contributes significantly to our local economy, visiting CMP for its friendly social setting, not just for free access.

Pickleball is an extremely efficient use of park resources. Our designated court area hosts an average of 28.5 players, a staggering number compared to the average of just 1.25 players on adjacent standard tennis courts.

The noise issue requires an urgent capital solution. For 1.5 years, I relied on morning pickleball for an hour before 8AM, 3-5 days a week, before dropping off my kids and starting work. This routine, essential for working professionals like myself, is now lost. I purchased a quiet paddle, but it negatively affected my play and provided no lasting relief to the neighbors.

In solidarity, I stopped playing in the morning. The current strategy is a failure for both parties.

We strongly request the City immediately invest in permanent sound attenuation barriers.

Please do this, not only to preserve this great community, but for the neighbors on Christensen Drive as well, some of whom are a part of our pickleball community. Limiting morning and evening access is unfair to the working population. We need structural change, not restricted hours or ineffective equipment mandates.

I urge the Council to support this community by prioritizing permanent sound mitigation.

Sincerely,
David Lim
From: Susan Bloomfield
To: Liang Chao
Subject: Pickleball and Sound Barriers
Date: Monday, December 1, 2025 9:19:39 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor, City Council members and staff
My name is Susan Bloomfield and I am a 35 year resident of Cupertino. I am very happy to have become a member of the vibrant pickleball community at Memorial Park from its inception. In the 30 years prior to that, in spite of being a city taxpayer, I never used the park.

Yet it never occurred to me that people who didn't live in Cupertino should not be able to use the facilities like the tennis courts. The whole point of a public park it that it is open to the public. Before Cupertino opened courts to pickleball players, and still to this day, I have played in Mountain View, Palo Alto and Menlo Park, where courts were free and still are free and open to all. This is how it must remain in Cupertino. We are a diverse and welcoming group of folks and we must remain so.

We do want to work with the city and neighbors to make things as good as possible and are requesting sound attenuating barriers around the courts.

Thank you for your consideration of these points.

Sincerely, Susan Bloomfield
From: Srivatsan Rajagopal
To: City Council; City Clerk; Public Comments; Tina Kapoor; Chad Mosley; Rachelle Sander Subject: Pickleball at Cupertino Memorial park
Date: Monday, December 1, 2025 9:13:31 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council Members, City Manager Kapoor, and Directors Sander and Mosley, I am a Cupertino resident and live close to Memorial Park. My kids attended Cupertino schools throughout (Gardengate, Lawson, Monta Vista) and I have been proud to call Cupertino my home.

I wanted to thank you for opening up Memorial Park for Pickleball as it has opened the community up to being a vibrant, fun loving and safe area filled with laughter and the happy side of society. For the last 16 years I have taken walks in Memorial Park almost every day, enjoyed watching my kids play and grow up there, attended the plays, music events, enjoyed the cherry blossoms and all fairs and festivals were just a stone's throw away.

My kids have now graduated and I was wondering how my life as an empty nester, single dad would shape out. I have begun playing pickleball regularly the last couple of years given the proximity, lights and a lot of fun people to hang out with. Both the game and lively people make my day a bit more cheerful and less lonely and monotonous. Cupertino is an expensive place to live and reasons like this remind me how fortunate and lucky I am to be living in this neighborhood and community.

The game of Pickleball at Cupertino Memorial Park is something everyone is able to afford (not as expensive as tennis or indoor courts or paid courts) and being a social-first game, this invaluable access to that social contact - of all ages and colors - has made this neighborhood a very desirable part of Cupertino. The Memorial Park neighborhood now has it all - sunshine, schools, and that social fabric.

I understand the noise concerns from the game and hope the city can address that part - by providing the much needed wall attenuators quickly - like several other cities have already done - so that we can continue to build on the unique strengths the Cupertino Memorial Park has accidentally stumbled upon through Pickleball.

Thank you for your time and wish you all a very happy holidays.

Regards
From: Carol Satterlee
To: City Council; City Clerk; Public Comments; Tina Kapoor; Rachelle Sander; Chad Mosley Subject: Pickleball for all at Memorial Park
Date: Monday, December 1, 2025 8:08:28 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

City Clerk,
Please include this email as part of written communications for the 12/2/25 City Council meeting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear City Council Members, City Manager Kapoor, and Directors Sander and Mosley, I am writing to express my thoughts regarding the ongoing discussions surrounding pickleball court usage at Memorial Park. As a resident of Cupertino for 32 years, I would like to highlight several important points that I believe merit consideration. **Residency Concerns:**
The assertion that over 90% of the Memorial Park pickleball players are non-residents is untrue. Our polling indicates that residents represent over 30% of the players, and when including those who work in Cupertino, this number exceeds 50%. Nearly all players at CMP, irrespective of residency or employment, contribute to the local economy by supporting our businesses.

It is noteworthy that players from other cities are not flocking to CMP solely because it is free; they have their own free courts. Instead, they come for the welcoming queuing system, friendly players, and the ideal social environment. Additionally, this is not a one-way street, as Cupertino residents also visit other cities to play on their free courts and frequent their local businesses.

Moreover, the claim that public park pickleball courts in San Francisco are restricted to residents is not accurate according to information from the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department.

As a member of the Cupertino community, I must express my opposition to any proposals that would discriminate against my friends who live outside our city. **Court Use Efficiency:**
Pickleball is an exceptionally efficient use of court space. Data from 128 observations reveals that an average of 28.5 individuals were utilizing each of the two tennis courts designated for pickleball, with nearly half of them in the queue. In contrast, only an average of 1.25 tennis players used each of the other four courts.
**Sound Reduction for Neighbors:**
Addressing sound reduction for our neighbors is both urgent and a worthy cause for our tax dollars. Implementing sound attenuation solutions is the only means to provide relief for neighbors while maintaining an inclusive and competitive pickleball experience.

Reducing access by limiting morning and evening hours would negatively impact many who work throughout the day. Today, pickleball has become a popular sport for all ages, and playing before or after work is essential for stress relief, subsequently enhancing our workforce productivity.

Concerns have been raised regarding the use of quieter paddles and balls, as they play differently and may not be feasible for competitive players or those with constrained budgets —the cost of these quiet balls is quite high, reaching up to $30 each. Since the request made by City Manager Kapoor at the end of June, players at CMP have already spent thousands of dollars on quieter paddles, yet these items are beginning to wear out, and the neighboring residents have noticed little to no significant change in sound levels.

Thank you for your attention to these matters. I believe that by considering the diverse perspectives and needs of our community, we can work toward solutions that benefit everyone involved.

Respectfully,
Carol Satterlee
From: irit go
To: City Council; City Clerk; Public Comments; Tina Kapoor; Chad Mosley; Rachelle Sander Subject: 12/2/25 City Council meeting.

Date: Monday, December 1, 2025 7:13:03 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dearest City Clerk,
Please include this email as part of the written communications for the 12/2/25 City Council meeting.

Dear City Council Members, City Manager Kapoor, and Directors Sander and Mosley,
I’m writing as a Sunnyvale resident who regularly plays at Memorial Park — even though we have free courts in my own city. And here’s the honest truth: CMP is simply the friendliest, most welcoming, most communityoriented pickleball environment in the entire area.

I also play at Mitchell Park and John Mise, so I get a pretty good sense of the culture across different cities. Nothing comes close to the warmth, fairness, and camaraderie of Memorial Park.

Because of that, I want to share a few observations that matter deeply.

On residency:

The idea that 90+ percent of players are non-residents just isn’t accurate.

Polling shows more than 30 percent are Cupertino residents — and if you include people who work in Cupertino, it rises above 50 percent. These are people who shop here, eat here, buy coffee here, and pour money into your local businesses every week.

And let’s be real — people aren’t driving from other cities because it’s free.

We all have free courts where we live. We come because the queuing system is fair, the atmosphere is friendly, and the players treat newcomers like family.

Cupertino residents also play in other cities — Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Palo Alto — and support their businesses too. That’s how community recreation works. It’s reciprocal.

On the claim that SF parks limit access to residents:

This is not correct. Their published policies say otherwise, and the information is publicly available.

I may not live in Cupertino, but I am strongly opposed to anything that would discriminate against non-residents. Some of the kindest, most generous players I know travel between cities, and we all lift the community up together.

On court efficiency:

Pickleball is an incredibly efficient use of space. Data from 128 samples shows an average of 28.5 players using the two converted tennis courts — nearly half of them in the queue — compared to 1.25 tennis players on each of the remaining tennis courts. This is a staggering difference.

Personally, every evening I visit CMP, I see 40+ paddles in queue waiting for one of just eight courts to finish a game. That’s a sign of a thriving community — and a huge unmet recreational demand.

On sound concerns:

The real and only sustainable solution is a proper sound attenuation project.

It’s urgent, and it’s the only path that both supports neighbors and preserves inclusive pickleball play.

Restricting morning or evening play would exclude most working adults — and pickleball is no longer a retirees-only sport. Many players rely on early or late hours to manage stress, stay active, and build community.

Quiet paddles and balls simply aren’t a viable long-term fix. They play differently, they’re expensive, and even after thousands of dollars spent by players since June, neighbors report little to no improvement.

Thank you so much for considering these perspectives. It would be so great if you could kindly focus on solutions that strengthen community access rather than limit it.

All my very best,
Irit Eizips
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
From: DD
To: City Council; City Clerk; Public Comments; Tina Kapoor; Chad Mosley; Rachelle Sander Subject: Continued Support of Cupertino pickleball at Memorial Park Date: Monday, December 1, 2025 6:17:57 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

City Clerk,
Please include this email as part of written communications for the 12/2/25 City Council meeting.

Dear City Council Members, City Manager Kapoor, and Directors Sander and Mosley, Thank you for your ongoing support of Cupertino Memorial Park Pickleball and for the sense of community it has provided for many of us. Our group, now over 1,000 members strong, has benefitted immensely from the physical and mental health benefits of outdoor activity and social connection.

We recognize and respect the concerns raised by nearby residents about noise levels. Although many players have invested in quieter equipment and adhered to quiet hours, feedback indicates that noise can be disruptive throughout the day for some neighbors.

Thus, we really need to get the noise barriers installed on the fence, on just one side facing Christensen Drive. I've seen these barriers at Los Altos McKenzie Park or Mountain View's Rengstorff Park, and they are quite effective. The City Manager had mentioned previously that it was the next step for the City to install noise barriers. Please consider putting these plans back in place and install the barriers soon.

We appreciate the City’s attention to balancing recreation with neighborhood peace and the opportunity to keep this valuable community activity thriving. Our group remains committed to being good neighbors, and working collaboratively to minimize disruption while preserving the positive impact of pickleball on the community.

Sincerely,
Diana Yen
From: Chris Satterlee
To: City Council; City Clerk; Public Comments; Tina Kapoor; Rachelle Sander Subject: Pickleball for All at Memorial Park
Date: Monday, December 1, 2025 7:35:26 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

City Clerk,
Please include the below in the written communications for the 12/2/25 council meeting. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- City Council Members, City Manager Kapoor, and P&R Director Sander, My name is Chris Satterlee, and I have been a Cupertino homeowner, resident, taxpayer, and voter for 32 years. I am writing to respond to a submission to the 11/18/25 written communications that suggested drastically limiting or even banning pickleball at Memorial Park. I am also responding to some suggestions that were made at the 11/10/25 Mayor's chat.

In July, I wrote about how pickleball has changed my life for the better since I started playing

1.5 years ago. But I will get right to my points.

The pickleball community at Cupertino Memorial Park is a perfect blend of residents and our friends from nearby cities. It would be a tragic mistake to limit court usage to residents.

The assertion that 90+% of Memorial Park pickleball players are non-residents is untrue. Our polling indicates that residents make up over 30% of the players. Including players who work in Cupertino pushes the number over 50%.

Nearly all CMP players, regardless of residency or employment, contribute to the Cupertino economy by patronizing local businesses.

People do not come from other cities to play at CMP because it is free. They have their own free courts. They come for the friendly queuing system, friendly players, and the ideal social setting.

It's not all in one direction. Cupertino residents go to other cities to play on their free courts (and patronize their businesses) too.

The claim that SF public park pickleball courts are limited to residents is not true, according to https://sfrecpark.org/1584/Pickleball and
https://pickleballsf.com/locations/outdoor-venues/
I am opposed to implementing a use pass system at CMP. This would not be compatible with our queueing system, which is what makes CMP friendly for individual players.

Being able to just show up and play is essential to our community.

As a Cupertino resident, I am opposed to any proposal that would discriminate against my non-Cupertino friends.

There are currently 8 pickleball courts overlaid on two tennis courts. Any suggestion that tennis players are impacted by this is clearly untrue. Pickleball is a very efficient use of court space.

There are very few times when all tennis courts are in use. There are MANY times when none of the four are in use AND all eight pickleball courts are not only full, but there is a long waiting queue.

Based on 128 samples, an average of 28.5 people were using each of the two tennis courts allocated for pickleball (nearly half of them in the queue) compared to an average of 1.25 tennis players using each of the other four courts.

A sound attenuation solution is urgent and worthy of spending our tax dollars. It is the only way to give the neighbors relief while maintaining inclusive and competitive pickleball.

Reducing or constraining morning and evening hours would exclude most people who work. Pickleball is no longer a sport for retirees. Playing before or after work is the perfect way to reduce stress and results in a more productive workforce.

Quiet paddles and balls play differently and are not an option for the more competitive players and those on limited budgets (they are expensive - as much as $30 for one quiet ball!)
Collectively, players at CMP have spent thousands of dollars on quiet paddles since City Manager Kapoor's request at the end of June. They are already starting to wear out, and the neighbors have noticed little difference.

Please consider all of the benefits to the MANY Cupertino residents who play pickleball along with our friends from nearby communities, before making any changes. The one change that MUST happen is sound attenuation. I am optimistic that an affordable solution is possible and am working to facilitate that. However, even if it costs more than previously thought, it is necessary.

Chris Satterlee
From: Rhoda Fry
To: Public Comments; City Clerk; City Council
Subject: Oral Communications December 2 City Council councilmember conflict of interest Date: Sunday, November 30, 2025 5:52:06 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Oral Communications Cupertino City Council December 2, 2025 councilmember conflict of interest
Dear City Council,
It can be quite instructive to peruse public records requests. The following request was not submitted by me, but has raised grave concerns regarding Councilmember JR Fruen’s potential conflict of interest toward benefitting his employer where he is chief of staff for San Jose City Councilmember Rosemary Kamei, at the expense of his duty as an elected official of the City of Cupertino. These documents demonstrate that Cupertino Councilmember Fruen has participated in small group meetings as a representative for the City of San Jose on the Stevens Creek Vision Study Steering Committee and Working Groups. I would ask that Councilmember Fruen recuse himself from any interagency decisions that come to Cupertino City Council that involve any discussion of the City of San Jose.

Link to the PRR: https://cityofcupertinoca.nextrequest.com/requests/25-256 Thanks,
Rhoda Fry
From: Cindy Lin
To: City Council; City Clerk; Public Comments; Tina Kapoor; Chad Mosley; Rachelle Sander Subject: YES TO PICKLEBALL IN CUPERTINO
Date: Friday, November 21, 2025 1:08:42 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To those that this may concern,
My name is Cindy Lin. I live right across the street from Cupertino High School and have been living in Cupertino for almost 5 years now. I graduated from CHS in 2024, but my family still lives there and I go back home regularly, and almost EVERYTIME I return to Cupertino, I utilize the public pickleball courts located at memorial park. Politely refuting Santosh Rao, No, Cupertino residents do not only make up 10% of the population that uses those pickleball courts, and No, if you had to say a sport was in high demand, I would 100% say that pickleball is the sport that is truly in high demand by Cupertino residents, as seen by the ridiculously long queues present for pickleball that isn't seen for tennis (AND I PLAY TENNIS TOO). Additionally, even if non-residents come to Cupertino to use our PUBLIC pickleball courts, it is most definitely beneficial to the city as well because they will purchase, shop, and dine in Cupertino. Last but not least, pickleball is more than merely "mini-tennis", it is a community that Cupertino residents have been fostering for years, bringing together different age groups, religions, race, cultures, and will continue to do so even in the face of those that oppose this amazing sport with false reasoning and bitter malice. Thank you for your time.

City Clerk,
Please include this email as part of written communications for the next City Council meeting.

Thank you.

Regards,
Cindy Lin
From: Walter Li
To: City Clerk; City Council; City Attorney"s Office; Tina Kapoor Subject: Mary Ave Villas -- Null and Void Due to Brown Act Violations, ROW Defects, SLA Conflicts, and Fire-Code Violations
Date: Wednesday, November 19, 2025 12:24:57 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below in written communication for the upcoming City Council meeting.

Dear Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, City Council, City Manager Kapoor, City Attorney, I am submitting this letter to formally object to the City’s claim that the Mary Avenue Villas housing development remains “pending,” and that this status eliminates the City’s exposure to Brown Act violations, Surplus Land Act violations, right‑of‑way defects, and setback liabilities.

This claim is legally incorrect, contradicted by the City’s own record, and inconsistent with governing state law.
---

1. Brown Act Violations Cannot Be Erased by “Pending” Status (Gov. Code §54950 et seq.)
Multiple actions were taken regarding Mary Avenue Villas without proper agendizing, including:
• Direction to staff related to the Mary Avenue ROW, which was never legally vacated • Discussions and steps concerning negotiation of lease terms for a parcel with no legally established boundaries
• Decisions made outside publicly noticed meetings
Because the ROW was never vacated, any movement toward lease negotiations or land‑use commitments occurred without a legal foundation.

Under these circumstances, the Brown Act violations cannot be cured.

This is consistent with International Longshoremen’s v. Los Angeles (2004), which held that Brown Act violations occur when decisions are made outside properly agendized public meetings and cannot be retroactively cured.
---

2. Setback Waivers Violate Mandatory State Fire-Safety Codes The setback waiver requests processed by the City (down to 4–7 feet) for Mary Avenue Villas violate multiple fire‑safety requirements:
• CFC §503.1 & §503.2.1 → minimum 20 ft fire access
• CBC Appendix D103.1 → apparatus roadways require 20 ft clearance • CBC Table 602 & §705.2 → exterior wall fire‑separation requirements • PRC §4290 & §4291 → defensible space requirements
• Title 19 CCR §3.05 & §3.07 → emergency operational clearance Under Gov. Code §65915(e)(1), the City must deny waivers that create unmitigable safety impacts. The requested setbacks cannot legally be approved. ---

3. The Mary Avenue Right-of-Way Was Never Vacated — Defect Cannot Be Cured (Streets & Highways Code §§8320–8325)
The City relied on an assumption that the ROW had been vacated. However:
• No ROW vacation was recorded
• No Council action occurred
• No public hearing was held as required
Because the ROW was never vacated:
• Parcel boundaries for Mary Avenue Villas were legally defective • Lease‑term negotiations occurred without authority
• Staff and Council actions relied on an invalid legal foundation This is consistent with City of Manhattan Beach v. Superior Court (1996), which held that ROW vacations require formal public action and cannot be implied or retroactively fixed. ---

4. Surplus Land Act (SLA) Violations Cannot Be Erased
(Gov. Code §54221)
The City attempted to treat the Mary Avenue Villas parcel as surplus after housing processing had already occurred. This violates the SLA, which prohibits surplus designation after a commitment to housing or public use. “Pending” status does not retroactively cure this statutory violation.
---

5. The “Pending” Label Cannot Be Used as a Liability Shield The City’s current position conflicts with:
• Its own acceptance and processing of Mary Avenue Villas • Setback waiver processing
• Staff reliance on an unvacated ROW
• SLA steps taken after housing commitment
Legal consequences arise from actions, not retroactive labels. ---

6. Project Must Be Halted
The Mary Avenue Villas housing development is null and void. The City Council must adopt a formal resolution to stop this project. Developers should be required to find an alternative location.

Cupertino City should not provide subsidies or incentives to developers without the explicit approval of Cupertino residents. Any continuation of the project under the current framework would violate state law, public safety requirements, and community trust.

I urge you to address the above immediately to avoid further legal exposure for the City.

Sincerely
Walter Li
Originator of the petition "Halt The Mary Aveune Villas Project at this Unsuitable Location" Working with the neighbors in opposition of the Mary Ave Villas Project [email protected]
408-781-7894
---
References / Oversight
• Brown Act: Gov. Code §54950 et seq.; International Longshoremen’s v. Los Angeles (2004) • ROW: Streets & Highways Code §§8320–8325; City of Manhattan Beach v. Superior Court (1996)
• Surplus Land Act: Gov. Code §54221
• Fire Codes: CFC, CBC, PRC, CCR provisions listed above From: Santosh Rao
To: City Council; Tina Kapoor; City Clerk; City Attorney"s Office; Chad Mosley; Benjamin Fu; Luke Connolly; Gian Martire
Subject: Brown Act Violations Require a Full Reset and Restart.

Date: Wednesday, November 19, 2025 10:51:46 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below in written communication for the upcoming City Council meeting. [Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino taxpayer, voter, resident] Dear Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, Council members, CM Kapoor, Subject: Brown Act Violations Require Reset. All prior Action Must Be Declared Void.

Dear Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, Council Members, CM Kapoor, and CAO, I am writing because Brown Act violations have already occurred. These violations cannot be cured. The only lawful path forward is to hit the reset button and start over.

1. July 15 Action Is Null and Void
The July 15 session must be declared null and void.

Liability attaches upon action, not approval.

The Brown Act is violated the moment decisions or commitments are made outside a properly noticed, agendized public meeting.

This has already happened.

International Longshoremen’s v. Los Angeles (2004) makes this clear:

Violations occur when decisions are made outside open meetings, not later in the approval phase.

2. The Application Must Be Rejected
The application received is improper.

The parcel has not been vacated.

It is still roadway and public right-of-way.

Under City of Manhattan Beach v. Superior Court (1996), ROW vacations require formal public action before any application or deal is processed.

Processing an application on an active ROW parcel is unlawful.

Again: liability attaches upon action, not approval.

3. The $3M Allocation Must Be Clawed Back
Funds were allocated based on an invalid, non-public process.

This action is tainted by Brown Act violations.

It must be reversed and reset.

4. Required Sequence to Comply With Law
You must return to first principles and follow the required statutory order:

1. Community noticing to collect input on whether the public ROW should even be vacated.

2. Two public hearings for the ROW vacation, as required by law.

3. Only after that: formal action on whether to deem the land surplus.

4. Then submission to HCD for review.

5. Then NOA issuance.

6. Only after all the above can Charities, Rotary, or any applicant legally participate.

This order is not optional.

SB 35 and HCD guidance make clear that obligations attach the moment processing begins.

Once again: liability attaches upon action, not approval.

5. Reset Now
The violations cannot be patched over.

They cannot be band-aided.

They cannot be “cured.”
The only lawful solution is:

Void the July 15 action. Reject the application. Claw back the $3M. Restart the process in full compliance with open-meeting and land-use law.

I urge you to address this immediately to avoid further legal exposure for the City.

Respectfully,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino taxpayer, voter, resident) From: Michael Chang
To: City Clerk
Subject: December 2, 2025 meeting City of Cupertino Council Meeting [Open Session Materials] Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 6:37:41 AM
Attachments: 2025-12-01-ArroyoVillage-MorroBayTerrace.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Good morning,
I am hoping that I will be able to speak during tonight's Open Session (Public Comment), and would like City Council to have access to these summary slides in the event that I am able to do so.

Thank you,
Michael
• Morro Bay Terrace is used as a ‘short-cut’ to Stevens Creek Blvd, with lots of traffic funnelling onto this narrow laneway • installed speed bumps by Related California (Westport) have caused excessive noise day and night as vehicles drive over these bumps • intersection of Dana Point Lane and Morro Bay can be dangerous, as cars speed (from Glenbrook Apartments) across Mary Avenue • Morro Bay has no posted speed limits nor lane markers, and vehicles continue to speed on this narrow road even with speed bumps Arroyo Village Noise/Traffic Complaints (Westport Senior Complex/Related California) Glenbrook
Apartments
HWY 85
Traffic
funnelling onto
Morro Bay
Arroyo Village Speed Bumps
Speed Bump #1 Speed Bump #2
Arroyo Village Speed Bumps
Video over Speed Bump #2
Newly-Erected Signage by the City of Cupertino (Morro Bay Terrace at Mary Avenue) From: Rhoda Fry
To: Public Comments; City Clerk; City Council; City Attorney"s Office Subject: Cupertino City Council: December 2 - Oral Communications non-agenda - The Insight agreement renewal does not seem to have gone to City Council, why?
Date: Sunday, November 30, 2025 4:15:26 PM
Attachments: 06-106 Insight_Amendment #8 dated 6-30-25.pdf RevenueTaxSharingAgreementReportedByJurisdictions (1).xlsx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk, Please include this email and attachments in the online public comments for the December 2, 2025 City Council Meeting. Thanks! : )
Dear City Council,
The Insight agreement renewal does not seem to have gone to City Council, why? As you know, Cupertino has a tax-sharing agreement with Insight.

According to the State, the tax-sharing agreement with Insight expired in June 2025.

I obtained the second attachment by running a report using the link below. https://cdtfa.ca.gov/dataportal/dataset.htm?
url=RevenueTaxSharingAgreementReportedByJurisdictions
Additionally the City website states that the Insight agreement terminated in 2025.

The third attachment is a snip of the Cupertino City webpage below. https://www.cupertino.gov/Your-City/Divisions/Finance/Tax-Revenue-Sharing-Agreements I learned at the last city Council Meeting that the Insight agreement was extended through to June 2026.

See the first attachment that I found by searching through agreements in the digital archives. (I shrunk the actual document from 12MB to 6MB so that I could email it to you).

The revised agreements is in the archives from 2006 so that it can be with the other agreements (but it took a bit of digging to find it).

Here is the link:
https://records.cupertino.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?
id=1181592&dbid=0&repo=CityOfCupertino
I looked through the City Council Agendas and did not find an Insight renewal agreement on any agenda.

Did City Council vote on this?
Should City Council have voted on this or known about it? Thanks,
Rhoda Fry
PS – the Apple agreement remains in force through 2033, so items purchased at the Apple store in Cupertino generates some income for the City, 65 cents for every $100 spent, with Apple receiving a 35 cent rebate. When people shop at other stores in Cupertino and buy taxable items, the City receives $1 for every $100 spent. 1 EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT 107

BETWEEN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AND INSIGHT

CONSULTING SERVICES FOR CONSULTATION

SERVICES
This Eighth Amendment to Agreement 107 is by and between the City of Cupertino, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City") and Insight Consulting Services, a limited liability company (“ Consultant”) whose address is PO Box 731069 Dallas, Texas 75373, and is made with reference to the following:

RECITALS:

A. The City and the Consultant entered into an Agreement for Consultation Services Original Agreement”) effective July 1, 2006, with a term expiring on June 30, 2011.

B. The City and the Consultant entered into a First Amended and Restated Agreement for Consultation Services (“ First Amended Agreement”) effective July 1, 2011 with a term expiring on June 30, 2016; and
C. The City and the Consultant entered into a Second Amended and Restated Agreement for Consultation Services (“ Second Amended Agreement”) effective July 1, 2016 with a term expiring on June 30, 2020; and
D. The City and the Consultant entered into a Third Amendment to the Agreement Third Amended Agreement”) effective July 1, 2020 with a term expiring on June 30, 2021; and
E. The City and the Consultant entered into a Fourth Amendment to the Agreement Fourth Amended Agreement”) effective July 1, 2021 with a term expiring on June 30, 2022; and
F. The City and the Consultant entered into a Fifth and Restated Agreement for Consultation Services (“ Fifth Amended Agreement”) effective July 1, 2022 with a term expiring on June 30, 2023; and
G. The City and the Consultant entered into a Sixth Amendment to the Agreement Sixth Amended Agreement”) effective July 1, 2023 with a term expiring on June 30, 2024; and
H. The City and the Consultant entered into a Seventh Amendment to the Agreement Seventh Amended Agreement”) effective July 1, 2024 with a term expiring on June 30, 2025; and
I. The Original Agreement, First Amendment, Second Amendment, Third Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, and Seventh Amendment are collectively referred to as the “ Agreement” unless otherwise indicated.

J. Section 6(c) of the Second Amended Agreement states the “ City shall have six oneyear options that the City may exercise in its sole discretion and if it chooses to exercise any 2 option( s) unless the parties mutually agree to amend any term or condition of this Agreement; and
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between and undersigned parties as follows:

1. The City of Cupertino shall exercise the sixth of six one-year options to extend the consultation services. This extension begins on July 1, 2025 and ends on June 30, 2026, unless terminated earlier pursuant to the terms of the Second Amended Agreement.

2. Consultant shall maintain insurance coverage as provided in Exhibit D, attached hereto.

3. Except as expressly modified herein, all other terms and covenants set forth in the Second Amended Agreement shall remain the same and shall be in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this modification of Agreement to be executed.

CONTRACTOR
By
Title
Date

CITY OF CUPERTINO
By
Title
Date

APPROVED AS TO FORM
Senior Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:

City Clerk
Date
06/30/2025
SVP Tax and Treasurer
06/30/2025
Interim City Manager
06/30/2025
Exh. D-Insurance Requirements for Design Professionals & Consultant Contracts 1 Version: May 2025
Consultant shall procure prior to commencement of Services and maintain for the duration of the contract, at its own cost and expense, the following insurance policies and coverage with companies doing business in California and acceptable toCity.

INSURANCE POLICIES AND MINIMUMS REQUIRED

1. Commercial General Liability (CGL) with coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office ISO) Form CG 00 01, with limits no less than $ 2,000,000 per occurrence and $ 2,000,000 general aggregate. The policy shall include a per project or per location general aggregate endorsement as broad as CG 25 03 or CG 24 04. If a per project/ location endorsement is not available, the limit of the general aggregate shall be doubled.
a. It shall be a requirement that any available insurance proceeds broader than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverage requirements and/or limits shall be made available to the Additional Insured and shall be (i) the minimum coverage/limits specified in this agreement; or (ii) the broader coverage and maximum limits of coverage of any insurance policy, whichever is greater. b. Additional Insured coverage under Consultant's policy shall allow and be endorsed " primary and non-contributory," will not seek contribution from City’ s insurance/self-insurance, and shall be at least as broad as the most recent edition of ISO Form CG 20 01. c. The limits of insurance required may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess liability insurance, provided each policy follows form of the underlying policy and complies with the requirements set forth in this Contract. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary basis for the benefit of City. The City’ s own insurance or self-insurance shall not be called upon.

2. Automobile Liability: Coverage shall be provided using ISO CA 00 01 covering any auto ( including owned, hired, and non-owned autos) with limits no less than $1,000, 000 each accident for bodily injury and property damage.

Not required. Consultant shall be fully remote and not use automobiles to provide the service.

In the event Consultant uses an automobile or automobiles in the operation of its business to provide services under this Agreement, the Consultant shall, priorto such use, provide the City with evidence of Business Automobile Liability insurance coverage in the amount required under this Section 2 for owned, non-owned and hired autos (any auto-Symbol 1), or if Consultant does not own autos (hired autos-Symbol 8 and non-owned autos-Symbol 9). Evidence shall be provided with a Certificate of Insurance, along with an additional insured endorsement in favor of the City, primary and noncontributory coverage and endorsement, and waiver of subrogation coverage and endorsement under the policy prior to the use of any automobile.

Consultant has provided written confirmation that it does not own any autos. Consultant shall provide coverage for hired autos-Symbol 8 and non-owned autos-Symbol 9. Primary and Non-Contributory coverage and Waiver of Subrogation coverage is waived under the Automobile Liability hired and non-owned only coverage. In the event Consultant uses an owned automobile or automobiles in the operation of its business to provide services under this Agreement, the Consultant shall, prior to such use, provide the City with evidence of Business Automobile Liability insurance coverage in the amount required under this Section 2 for owned, non-owned and hired autos (any auto-Symbol 1).

EXHIBIT D
Insurance Requirements
Design Professionals & Consultants Contracts
Exh. D-Insurance Requirements for Design Professionals & Consultant Contracts 2 Version: May 2025
In lieu of Business Automobile Liability, Consultant shall maintain throughout the term of this Agreement and provide the City with evidence (including the policy Declarations Page) of personal automobile insurance coverage in accordance with the laws of the State of California. As available under the policy, evidence shall be provided with the Certificate of Insurance, along with an additional insured endorsement in favor of the City, primary and non-contributory coverage and endorsement, and waiver of subrogation coverage and endorsement. City approval of coverage is required prior to commencement of services.

3. Workers’ Compensation: As required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits and Employer’s Liability Insurance of no less than $1,000,000 each accident/ disease.

Not required. Consultant has provided written verification of noemployees.

4. Professional Liability for professional acts, errors and omissions, if applicable and as appropriate to Consultant’ s profession, with limits no less than $ 2,000,000 per occurrence or claim, $ 2,000,000 aggregate. If written on a claims-made basis form:
a. The Retroactive Date must be shown and must be before the Effective Date of the Contract. b. Insurance must be maintained for at least five (5) years after completion of theServices. c. If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a Retroactive Date prior to the Contract Effective Date, the Consultant must purchase “ extended reporting” coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of theServices.

OTHER INSURANCE PROVISIONS
The aforementioned insurance policies shall contain, be endorsed and have all the following conditions and provisions:

Additional Insured Status
The City of Cupertino, its City Council, officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers (“ Additional Insureds”) are to be covered and endorsed as additional insureds on Consultant’ s CGL and automobile liability policies. General Liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to Consultant’ s insurance at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10 (11/ 85) or if not available, through the addition of both CG 20 10 and CG 20 37 forms, if later editions are used).

Primary and Non-Contributory Coverage
Except Workers Compensation, coverage afforded to City/Additional Insureds shall allow and be endorsed primary insurance. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by City, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of Consultant’ s insurance and shall not contribute to it.

Notice of Cancellation
Each insurance policy shall state that coverage shall not be canceled or allowed to expire, except with written notice to City 30 days in advance or 10 days in advance if due to non-payment of premiums. If a carrier will not provide the required notice of cancellation or policy modification, the Consultant shall provide written notice to the City of a cancellation or policy modification no later than 30 days in advance or 10 days in advance if due to non- payment of premiums.

Waiver of Subrogation
Consultant waives any right to subrogation against City/Additional Insureds for recovery of damages to the extent said losses are covered by the insurance policies required herein. Specifically, the General Liability, Automobile Liability and Workers’ Compensation policies shall allow and be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of City, its employees, agents and volunteers. This provision applies regardless of whether or not the City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.

Exh. D-Insurance Requirements for Design Professionals & Consultant Contracts 3 Version: May 2025
Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions
Any deductible or self-insured retention must be declared to and approved by the City (Insert on the Certificate of Insurance, if zero, insert “$ 0”). At City’ s option, either: the insurer must reduce or eliminate the deductible or self-insured retentions as respects the City/Additional Insureds; or Consultant must show proof of ability to pay losses and costs related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. The policy shall provide, or be endorsed to provide, that the self-insured retention may be satisfied by either the insured or the City.

Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance shall be placed with insurers admitted in the State of California and with an AM Best rating of AVII or higher.

Verification of Coverage
Consultant must furnish acceptable insurance certificates and amendatory endorsements ( or copies of the policies effecting the coverage required by this Contract), including a copy of the Declarations and Endorsement Page of the CGL policy listing all policy endorsements prior to commencement of the Contract. City retains the right to demand verification of compliance at any time during the Contract term.

Subconsultants
Consultant shall require and verify that all subconsultants maintain insurance that meet the requirements of this Contract, including indemnification, defense, and naming the City as an additional insured on subconsultant’ s insurance policies.

Higher Insurance Limits
If Consultant maintains broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums shown above, City shall be entitled to coverage for the higher insurance limits maintained by Consultant.

Adequacy of Coverage
City reserves the right to modify these insurance requirements/coverage based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer or other special circumstances, with not less than ninety (90) days prior written notice.

SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE

THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS.

INSURER( S) AFFORDING COVERAGE
INSURER F :

INSURER E :

INSURER D :

INSURER C :

INSURER B :

INSURER A :

NAIC #
NAME:

CONTACT
A/C, No):

FAX
E- MAILADDRESS:

PRODUCER
A/C, No, Ext):

PHONE

INSURED
COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: REVISION NUMBER:

IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed.

If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement( s).

THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS

CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER( S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.

OTHER:

Per accident)
Ea accident)
N / A
SUBR
WVD
ADDL
INSD

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS

CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS.

PROPERTY DAMAGE
BODILY INJURY ( Per accident)
BODILY INJURY ( Per person)

COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT

AUTOS ONLY

AUTOSAUTOS ONLY

NON- OWNED

SCHEDULEDOWNED

ANY AUTO

AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY
Y / N

WORKERS COMPENSATION

AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
OFFICER/ MEMBER EXCLUDED?
Mandatory in NH)
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below
If yes, describe under

ANYPROPRIETOR/ PARTNER/ EXECUTIVE
E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT
E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE
E.L. EACH ACCIDENT
STATUTEPER EROTHMM/ DD/ YYYY) LIMITS(

POLICY EXP(

MM/ DD/ YYYY) NUMBERTYPEEFFPOLICYPOLICY INSURANCELTRINSR OF DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES ( ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space is required)

EXCESS LIAB
UMBRELLA LIAB $ EACH OCCURRENCE

AGGREGATE
OCCUR

CLAIMS- MADE
DED RETENTION $

PRODUCTS - COMP/ OP AGG

GENERAL AGGREGATE

PERSONAL & ADV INJURY
MED EXP ( Any one person)

EACH OCCURRENCE
DAMAGE TO RENTED $
PREMISES ( Ea occurrence)

COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY

CLAIMS- MADE OCCUR
GEN' L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER:

POLICY
PROJECT LOC

CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE

DATE ( MM/ DD/YYYY)

CANCELLATION

AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
ACORD 25 (2016/ 03)
1988- 2016 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved.

CERTIFICATE HOLDER
The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD
HIRED

AUTOS ONLY
B
1,000,000
04/15/2026
3606-77-62
X
LOS-002486230- 20
1,000,000
1,000,000
90-05749-002 (MA,WI,HI)
X
20281
1,000,000
Aggregate
Phoenix, AZ 85016
N
X04/ 15/2025
Endurance American Specialty Insurance Company
04/15/2026
04/15/2025
28460
04/15/2026
7362-08-62
Professional Technology E&O
C
2,000,000
1,000,000
X
24988
Federal Insurance Company
1,000,000
X
E
X
04/14/2025
2,000,000
04/15/2025
2,000,000
The City of Cupertino, its City Council, officers, officials, employees, agents, servants and volunteers are included as additional insured where required by written contract with respect to general and auto liability.

This insurance is primary and non-contributory over any existing insurance and limited to liability arising out of the operations of the named insured subject to policy terms and conditions with respect to general and X
04/15/2025
Cupertino, CA 95014
City of Cupertino
Sentry Casualty Company
auto liability. Waiver of subrogation is applicable where required by written contract and subject to policy terms and conditions with respect to general liability, auto liability, workers' compensation.

A
Sentry Insurance Company
CN101234622- STND-GAUWP-25-
Per Claim
10,000
04/15/2026
1,000,000
7819-44-10
and Cyber
D
2,000,000
20303
1,000,000
1,000,000
04/15/2026
X
90-05749-001 (AOS)
2325 E. Camelback Road
MARSH USA LLC.

X
Suite 600
Attn: Phoenix.CertRequest@marsh. com
Insight Public Sector, Inc.

Insight Enterprises, Inc.

Chandler, AZ 85286
2701 E. Insight Way
X
ANP30084357500
04/15/2025
10300 Torre Avenue
04/15/2025
A
04/15/2026
41718
Great Northern Insurance Company

Ed. 4-84)
WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY WC 00 03 13

WAIVER OF OUR RIGHT TO RECOVER FROM OTHERS ENDORSEMENT
We have the right to recover our payments from anyone liable for an injury covered by this policy. We will not enforce our right against the person or organization named in the Schedule. ( This agreement applies only to the extent that you perform work under a written contract that requires you to obtain this agreement from us.) This agreement shall not operate directly or indirectly to benefit anyone not named in the Schedule.

Schedule
Name:

Address: HI, MA, WI
Description of Waiver: Any person or organization for whom the Named Insured has agreed by written contract executed prior to loss.

JobID:

The information below is required only when this endorsement is issued subsequent to preparation of the policy.) Endorsement Effective Policy No. Endorsement No.

Insured Premium
Insurance Company Countersigned by
This endorsement changes the policy to which it is attached and is effective on the date issued unless otherwise stated. 1983 National Council on Compensation Insurance.

WC 00 03 13
Ed. 4-84)

Page 1 of 1 ends

2025900574900204/09/
Sentry Casualty Company
N100001 0000000000 25099 0 3f5e38ac- d85b3ed2433b3f5e38ac- 136f-136f- 4de3- a7ed- 4de3- a7ed- d85b3ed2433b Ed. 4-84)
WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY WC 00 03 13

Schedule
Name:

Address: AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, LA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO,

MS, MT, NC, NE, NM, NV, NY, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, VA, VT, WV Description of Waiver: Any person or organization for whom the Named Insured has agreed by written contract executed prior to loss.

JobID:

The information below is required only when this endorsement is issued subsequent to preparation of the policy.) Endorsement Effective Policy No. Endorsement No.

WC 00 03 13
Ed. 4-84)

Page 1 of 1 ends

2025900574900104/09/
Sentry Insurance Company
N100003 0000000000 25099 0 f4b3562c- 455a5aba2c9bf4b3562c- fa28- 41fe- fa28- 41fe- 9536-9536-455a5aba2c9b Insight - 8th Amendment
Final Audit Report 2025- 07-01
Created: 2025- 06-30
By: Webmaster Admin ( webmaster@cupertino. org)
Status: Signed
Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAALZ8Yo30jx6jYF7_ WFR17w- k_Z1pLZZZ5 Insight - 8th Amendment" History
Document created by Webmaster Admin ([email protected]) 2025- 06- 30 - 4:57:37 PM GMT- IP address: 35.229. 54.2 Document emailed to Janet Liang ([email protected]) for approval 2025- 06- 30 - 5:01:26 PM GMT
Email viewed by Janet Liang ( janetl@cupertino. org)
2025- 06- 30 - 5:01:38 PM GMT- IP address: 44.195. 36.123 Document approved by Janet Liang ([email protected]) Approval Date: 2025- 06-30 - 5:09:37 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 64.165. 34.3 Document emailed to Araceli Alejandre ([email protected]) for approval 2025- 06- 30 - 5:09:40 PM GMT
Email viewed by Araceli Alejandre ([email protected]) 2025- 06- 30 - 5:09:58 PM GMT- IP address: 34.239. 45.117 Document approved by Araceli Alejandre ([email protected]) Approval Date: 2025- 06-30 - 8:20:20 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 71.202. 76.156 Document emailed to lynn willden ([email protected]) for signature 2025- 06- 30 - 8:20:24 PM GMT
Email viewed by lynn willden ( lynn.willden@insight. com) 2025- 06- 30 - 8:28:58 PM GMT- IP address: 172. 226. 3.32 Document e-signed by lynn willden ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2025- 06-30 - 11:17:34 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 198. 187. 200. 254 Document emailed to Tina Kapoor ([email protected]) for signature 2025- 06- 30 - 11:17:38 PM GMT
Email viewed by Tina Kapoor ( tinak@cupertino. org)
2025- 06- 30 - 11:17:44 PM GMT- IP address: 52.87.219. 119 Document e-signed by Tina Kapoor ([email protected])
Signature Date: 2025- 07-01 - 0:20:45 AM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 73.70.218. 26 Document emailed to Michael Woo ([email protected]) for signature 2025- 07- 01 - 0:20:49 AM GMT
Email viewed by Michael Woo ([email protected])
2025- 07- 01 - 0:20:59 AM GMT- IP address: 34.239. 45.117 Document e-signed by Michael Woo ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2025- 07-01 - 0:22:11 AM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 73.170. 186. 236 Document emailed to Kirsten Squarcia ([email protected]) for signature 2025- 07- 01 - 0:22:16 AM GMT
Email viewed by Kirsten Squarcia ( kirstens@cupertino. org) 2025- 07- 01 - 0:22:24 AM GMT- IP address: 34.239. 45.117 Document e-signed by Kirsten Squarcia ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2025- 07-01 - 0:47:53 AM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 64.165. 34.3 Agreement completed.
2025- 07- 01 - 0:47:53 AM GMT

From: Kirsten Squarcia
To: City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: tonight"s oral--on written communication
Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 7:28:13 PM
Begin forwarded message:

Kirsten Squarcia
Interim Deputy City Manager/City Clerk
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408) 777-3225
From: J j <[email protected]>
Date: December 2, 2025 at 7:04:24 PM PST
To: Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: tonight's oral--on written communication
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. continue
Just sent again from yahoo jzwxx@yahoo email. two email titled 'Request to Prioritize Rebuilding Direct Communication Between City Leadership and Residents' and
time sensitive! Request for Support, Restoration of Communication, and lift the 'political prisoner/hostage'/Fair Treatment from the City' --both from Huang family
From: J j <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 9:49 PM
To: Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: tonight's oral
Dear city clerk Kirsten,
I don't see the email I sent before, which asked to be included in the written communication. Please advise. 'Jenny' - Huang family
From: J j <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2025 12:15 AM
To: Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: tonight's oral
Subject: RE: tonight's oral
Please publish the email from Huang family. Thank you!
Sent from Device
-------- Original message --------
From: J j <[email protected]>
Date: 11/19/25 10:09 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: tonight's oral
Dear Kirsten,
At several point of times, the calls got disconnected without my notice. I didn't know my raised hands were dropped as well.

Sent from my phone
-------- Original message --------
From: Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]>
Date: 11/18/25 8:42 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: J j <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: tonight's oral
Good evening, unfortunately you raised your hand well after the cutoff.

These people had their hands raised
Kirsten Squarcia
Interim Deputy City Manager/City Clerk
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408) 777-3225
From: J j <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 8:17 PM
To: Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]>
Subject: tonight's oral
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Kirsten,
I submitted this request within nine minutes of the start of the 6:45 p.m. oral session 648p. There was an emergency presentation at that time, and I tried to raise my hand immediately afterward and along the time since 648p. Could you please clarify what happened? Thank you. Huang family
From: j w
To: Kirsten Squarcia; City Clerk
Subject: Fw: Request to Prioritize Rebuilding Direct Communication Between City Leadership and Residents Dear [Recipient
Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 6:58:36 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: j w <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Cupertino City Manager's Office <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 at 04:50:22 PM PST
Subject: Re: Request to Prioritize Rebuilding Direct Communication Between City Leadership and Residents Dear [Recipient
Please include in the public record for this meeting----------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, Councilmembers Fruen, Mohan and Wang, Could someone please get back to me on this, or forward it to the City Manager’s Office for a response? I’ve raised this issue several times over the past few years, and we would appreciate an update.
>>>>>>
On Monday, October 20, 2025 at 12:02:03 PM PDT, j w <[email protected]> wrote:

We would like to express our concerns about the ongoing lack of direct communication between residents and the City, including the City Council, in recent years.

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, it was common to see the Mayor and City Manager walking around in front of City Hall, engaging openly with residents. The City Manager also maintained open office hours almost daily, and City Hall was accessible — doors were not locked, and transparency was part of the everyday culture.

While we understand that the pandemic required changes, those restrictions have long since ended. Yet, the level of public access and face-to-face communication has not returned to pre-COVID standards. We've even seen news reports raising concerns about public employees holding multiple remote jobs simultaneously, which further undermines public trust.

Most concerning is the fact that some long-term residents have not had an opportunity to meet with city leadership in person for years. This disconnect does not reflect the values or mission of the City to serve its community with transparency, accountability, and accessibility.

We respectfully ask that this issue be treated as high priority — and that steps be taken to restore regular, in-person engagement between the City’s leadership and its residents.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,
Jenny
Huang family
From: j w
To: Kirsten Squarcia; City Clerk
Subject: Fw: time sensitive!Request for Support, Restoration of Communication, and lift the "political prisoner/hostage"/Fair Treatment from the City
Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 6:57:55 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: j w <[email protected]>
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 at 02:47:24 PM PST
Subject: Re: time sensitive!Request for Support, Restoration of Communication, and lift the 'political prisoner/hostage'/Fair Treatment from the City
Dear City Clerk,
Please confirm it is published. Thank you!
From: j w <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 4, 2025 4:55 PM
To: Liang Chao <[email protected]>; Cupertino City Manager's Office <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Subject: time sensitive!Request for Support, Restoration of Communication, and lift the 'political prisoner/hostage'/Fair Treatment from the City lease include in the public record for next meeting-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, Councilmembers Fruen, Mohan and Wang, On Monday, November 3, 2025 at 11:27:26 PM PST, j w <[email protected]> wrote:On Monday, October 20, 2025 at 03:51:05 PM PDT, j w <[email protected]> wrote:

Subject: Request for Support, Restoration of Communication, and Fair Treatment from the City Dear Mayor,
I would like to share some background and respectfully request that the City treat our situation with the fairness, dignity, and compassion it extends to all residents.

Our family lives at the bottom edge of the city’s economic and social margins. We are doing our best to hold on — even now, part of our roof requires patching every few months just to keep things livable. Years ago, we were misled by an Indian real estate agent, which led to major losses and hardship. Despite this, we took full responsibility and followed the proper path through the City Planning and Building Department. We worked with licensed, experienced professionals to carry out an approved plan for the 2nd time.

Unfortunately, a complaint from the 1st construction — made by someone who has since left their position — led to retaliation on the 2nd one, and lack of the communication as stated below caused more confusion. We did our best to stand up, but over time, we lost everything: the property, our belongings, and the sense of home we built over years as long-standing residents. It felt like persecution. And the pain didn’t stop there — we were falsely labeled, our rights stripped away, and our lives disrupted in ways that had nothing to do with the original matter. These labels have followed us into every corner of life.

It has reached a point so tragic and unjust that criminals were able to attack us, but we could not fight back — not legally, not financially, not even emotionally — because of how the court accepted the City's false narrative. The damage from these untrue labels has led to severe mental and emotional decline for our family. The refusal of the courts to hear our side, to look at the full truth, has left us in a state of hopelessness and fear.

Making things worse, the lack of communication from the City over the past several years has deepened the hardship. We were not able to schedule even a single in-person meeting, despite repeated efforts. One of our elder family members is now immobile, and the sense of isolation and exclusion has been profound. We’ve been forced to pay unnecessary legal fees, not only for the property matter, but also for broader issues where City sanctions were misapplied or extended beyond their scope — even into private disputes, turning what should have been civil into something resembling a political prisoner situation. We’ve had to spend even more money six figure just to settle matters that were never ours to begin with, nothing to do with city, but couldn't defend since city hold as 'prisoner' on all unrelated matter.

We have no place else to turn. We have always believed in the City Council’s mission to support residents. We believe in redemption and renewal. We accepted the outcome the first time and tried to rebuild. But now, I’m asking — from the deepest part of my heart — that you extend that same belief to us.

No one — no matter their flaws — deserves to be forgotten in the system, lost in endless procedures, enduring punishment far beyond what justice requires. Please see us. Please give us the opportunity to be heard and to heal.

We respectfully ask that this be treated as a high-priority matter, and that steps be taken to restore open communication, offer fair support, and ensure no resident is left behind.

Thank you for your time and your service to the people of this City.

Jane for Huang family
4086731820
CC 12-02-2025
#1
Draft Plan Bay Area
2050+
Written Communications
From: Kitty Moore
To: Kirsten Squarcia; Lauren Sapudar
Subject: Written Communications Item 1
Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 3:00:46 PM
Attachments: KM Draft EIR Comment Letter.pdf
Dear City Clerk,
Please include the following and the attached letter for written communications on Agenda Item 1:

Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Association of Bay Area Governments
375 Beale Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Re: Comments on Plan Bay Area 2050 Plus Draft EIR – CEQA Inadequacy Concerns To Whom It May Concern:

These comments identify substantial deficiencies in the Plan Bay Area 2050 Plus Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

1. Mismatch Between “Program EIR” Label and Level of Project Specificity The Draft EIR describes itself as a “program EIR” and states that impacts of individual transportation, sea level rise adaptation, and land use projects are not addressed in detail, even though it includes a fiscally constrained Transportation Project List, a Resilience Project List, and mapped “land use growth footprints” for specific geographies. This shows a high level of project and growth specificity, but the environmental analysis is kept at a very general level, so the detail of the CEQA review does not match the detail of the Plan.

CEQA requires the lead agency to use all of its own powers to reduce impacts where feasible, including funding decisions, approval conditions, and plan‑consistency tools; the Draft EIR instead treats institutional limits as a blanket excuse not to fully mitigate.

3. Vague, Advisory, and Deferred Mitigation
Many mitigation measures are written as long lists of possible actions that implementing agencies “shall implement, where feasible and necessary,” without clear, enforceable obligations or performance standards. This kind of deferred, advisory approach does not ensure that mitigation will actually occur, and does not meet CEQA’s requirement for specific, enforceable mitigation measures at the time the Plan is approved.

4. Unreasonably Narrow Alternatives Range
The Draft EIR’s alternatives analysis evaluates: the proposed Plan, a “No New Highway Capacity and Transit Reinvestment” alternative that keeps the same housing, economy, and environment strategies, a “Transit‑Oriented Communities Growth Focus” alternative that keeps all strategies but shifts growth within transit areas, and the No Project scenario. All build alternatives rely on the same total growth forecast and essentially the same set of strategies, and even the EIR acknowledges that Alternatives 1 and 2 result in the same number of significant and unavoidable impacts as the Plan. This range does not include any alternative that would meaningfully reduce impacts through substantially different growth patterns, hazard‑avoidance, or stronger VMT and GHG reductions.

5. Inadequate Analysis of Greenhouse Gas and VMT Impacts Over the Full Planning Horizon
The Draft EIR emphasizes meeting the SB 375 2035 per‑capita GHG reduction target and largely frames significance around that single metric. It provides limited, opaque discussion of emissions and VMT over the full 2020–2050 horizon, including how its long‑term trajectory relates to more recent statewide climate goals and what happens under different assumptions about federal vehicle standards. This narrow, target‑only framing does not give decision makers and the public a clear, transparent understanding of the Plan’s climate impacts across the entire planning period.

6. Insufficient Treatment of Sea Level Rise, Multi‑Hazard Risk, and Residual Exposure
The Draft EIR highlights a $229 billion program to address approximately 4.9 feet of sea level rise and related inundation, and presents a detailed “Resilience Project List,” but then largely treats those adaptation efforts as eliminating hazard risk in affected areas. The document does not adequately analyze whether, even with those projects, the Plan still focuses new or intensified development in areas likely to face flooding, groundwater rise, liquefaction, or related hazards over the life of the Plan. It also acknowledges controversies regarding consistency with shoreline adaptation planning and shoreline community vulnerability, but discusses the combined effects of sea level rise, groundwater rise, and toxics exposure on disadvantaged shoreline communities only in very general terms.

7. Deficient Growth‑Inducing Impact Analysis
The Draft EIR presents the Plan as simply accommodating forecast regional growth rather than inducing growth, while at the same time designating “Growth Geographies,” concentrating housing and jobs in specific priority areas, and assuming development patterns that differ from current local plans. It does not meaningfully analyze how these new designations, land use intensification, and associated infrastructure and adaptation investments may stimulate additional or accelerated development in particular locations, or shift growth into areas that otherwise would not see it.

8. Inadequate Cumulative Impact Methodology
The Draft EIR asserts that because it is a regional plan, its analysis inherently addresses cumulative impacts, and therefore provides only limited additional cumulative analysis for conditions beyond the nine‑county Bay Area. This self‑referential approach does not satisfy CEQA’s requirement for an explicit cumulative analysis that explains how the Plan’s incremental effects interact with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects and growth scenarios, particularly in neighboring regions that are closely linked by commuting, goods movement, air basins, and habitat connectivity.

9. Insufficient Analysis of Environmental Justice, Distributional Impacts, and Displacement
Although the Draft EIR emphasizes equity and resilience, identifies “Equity Priority Communities,” and acknowledges displacement and access to opportunity as major concerns, its environmental analysis treats these issues largely as high‑level performance indicators rather than as concrete CEQA impacts. The document does not provide a sufficiently detailed, location‑specific assessment of whether the Plan concentrates environmental burdens (such as air pollution, noise, or hazardous exposures) in already overburdened communities, or how the Plan’s growth pattern and transportation investments may increase or shift displacement risk in specific neighborhoods.

10. Overbroad Use of CEQA Streamlining Without Clear Consistency Standards
The Draft EIR repeatedly promotes CEQA streamlining under SB 375, SB 226, SB 743 and related provisions, indicating that many future local projects may rely on this EIR to limit or avoid further analysis of certain impacts. However, it does not provide clear, objective criteria or maps for determining what constitutes “consistency” with the Plan for tiering purposes, nor does it clearly describe what level of additional review will occur for such projects. This creates significant uncertainty for the public and decision makers about the true environmental consequences of approving the Plan and about how much later environmental review will actually take place.

11. Inadequate Explanation of Significance Determinations and Residual Impacts
The Draft EIR identifies numerous significant and unavoidable impacts but frequently provides only brief, conclusory explanations of how those findings were reached and how the Plan’s incremental effects compare to No Project and other alternatives. In light of the EIR’s heavy reliance on complex regional models, the lack of clear disclosure of assumptions, limitations, and sensitivity of results prevents the public from understanding or checking the basis for the significance conclusions.

12. Failure to Meaningfully Integrate Public Comment Themes Into the Analysis
The Draft EIR describes extensive public engagement, including tens of thousands of comments and targeted outreach to specific communities, and it briefly lists “areas of controversy” and “issues to be resolved.” However, the technical sections do not show how those specific concerns—especially around shoreline vulnerability, displacement, transit reliability, and tolling—shaped the impact analysis, mitigation framework, or alternatives.

As a result, the Draft EIR does not demonstrate that key issues raised by the public were substantively incorporated into the CEQA analysis.

For all of these reasons, the Draft EIR does not provide the full, good‑faith disclosure and analysis required by CEQA and should not be certified in its current form.

Sincerely,
Vice Mayor Kitty Moore
City of Cupertino
Representing myself only
Kitty Moore
Vice Mayor
City Council
[email protected]
(408) 777-1389
December 2, 2025
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Association of Bay Area Governments
375 Beale Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Re: Comments on Plan Bay Area 2050 Plus Draft EIR – CEQA Inadequacy Concerns To Whom It May Concern:

These comments identify substantial deficiencies in the Plan Bay Area 2050 Plus Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The issues below are raised now to preserve them for all purposes, including any subsequent judicial review.

2. Improper Reliance on Lack of Local Police Power to Avoid Mitigation In multiple topic areas, the Draft EIR states that identified mitigation would reduce impacts to less than significant if adopted by future local agencies, but then still concludes the impacts are significant and unavoidable because MTC/ABAG lack direct land use authority. CEQA requires the lead agency to use all of its own powers to reduce impacts where feasible, including funding decisions, approval conditions, and plan-consistency tools; the Draft EIR instead treats institutional limits as a blanket excuse not to fully mitigate.

4. Unreasonably Narrow Alternatives Range
The Draft EIR’s alternatives analysis evaluates: the proposed Plan, a “No New Highway Capacity and Transit Reinvestment” alternative that keeps the same housing, economy, and environment strategies, a “Transit-Oriented Communities Growth Focus” alternative that keeps all strategies but shifts growth within transit areas, and the No Project scenario. All build alternatives rely on the same total growth forecast and essentially the same set of strategies, and even the EIR acknowledges that Alternatives 1 and 2 result in the same number of significant and unavoidable impacts as the Plan.

This range does not include any alternative that would meaningfully reduce impacts through substantially different growth patterns, hazard-avoidance, or stronger VMT and GHG reductions.

5. Inadequate Analysis of Greenhouse Gas and VMT Impacts Over the Full Planning Horizon
The Draft EIR emphasizes meeting the SB 375 2035 per-capita GHG reduction target and largely frames significance around that single metric. It provides limited, opaque discussion of emissions and VMT over the full 2020–2050 horizon, including how its long-term trajectory relates to more recent statewide climate goals and what happens under different assumptions about federal vehicle standards. This narrow, target-only framing does not give decision makers and the public a clear, transparent understanding of the Plan’s climate impacts across the entire planning period.

6. Insufficient Treatment of Sea Level Rise, Multi-Hazard Risk, and Residual Exposure
The Draft EIR highlights a $229 billion program to address approximately 4.9 feet of sea level rise and related inundation, and presents a detailed “Resilience Project List,” but then largely treats those adaptation efforts as eliminating hazard risk in affected areas.

The document does not adequately analyze whether, even with those projects, the Plan still focuses new or intensified development in areas likely to face flooding, groundwater rise, liquefaction, or related hazards over the life of the Plan. It also acknowledges controversies regarding consistency with shoreline adaptation planning and shoreline community vulnerability, but discusses the combined effects of sea level rise, groundwater rise, and toxics exposure on disadvantaged shoreline communities only in very general terms.

7. Deficient Growth-Inducing Impact Analysis
The Draft EIR presents the Plan as simply accommodating forecast regional growth rather than inducing growth, while at the same time designating “Growth Geographies,” concentrating housing and jobs in specific priority areas, and assuming development patterns that differ from current local plans. It does not meaningfully analyze how these new designations, land use intensification, and associated infrastructure and adaptation investments may stimulate additional or accelerated development in particular locations, or shift growth into areas that otherwise would not see it.

8. Inadequate Cumulative Impact Methodology
The Draft EIR asserts that because it is a regional plan, its analysis inherently addresses cumulative impacts, and therefore provides only limited additional cumulative analysis for conditions beyond the nine-county Bay Area. This self-referential approach does not satisfy CEQA’s requirement for an explicit cumulative analysis that explains how the Plan’s incremental effects interact with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects and growth scenarios, particularly in neighboring regions that are closely linked by commuting, goods movement, air basins, and habitat connectivity.

9. Insufficient Analysis of Environmental Justice, Distributional Impacts, and Displacement
Although the Draft EIR emphasizes equity and resilience, identifies “Equity Priority Communities,” and acknowledges displacement and access to opportunity as major concerns, its environmental analysis treats these issues largely as high-level performance indicators rather than as concrete CEQA impacts. The document does not provide a sufficiently detailed, location-specific assessment of whether the Plan concentrates environmental burdens (such as air pollution, noise, or hazardous exposures) in already overburdened communities, or how the Plan’s growth pattern and transportation investments may increase or shift displacement risk in specific neighborhoods.

10. Overbroad Use of CEQA Streamlining Without Clear Consistency Standards The Draft EIR repeatedly promotes CEQA streamlining under SB 375, SB 226, SB 743 and related provisions, indicating that many future local projects may rely on this EIR to limit or avoid further analysis of certain impacts. However, it does not provide clear, objective criteria or maps for determining what constitutes “consistency” with the Plan for tiering purposes, nor does it clearly describe what level of additional review will occur for such projects. This creates significant uncertainty for the public and decision makers about the true environmental consequences of approving the Plan and about how much later environmental review will actually take place.

11. Inadequate Explanation of Significance Determinations and Residual Impacts The Draft EIR identifies numerous significant and unavoidable impacts but frequently provides only brief, conclusory explanations of how those findings were reached and how the Plan’s incremental effects compare to No Project and other alternatives. In light of the EIR’s heavy reliance on complex regional models, the lack of clear disclosure of assumptions, limitations, and sensitivity of results prevents the public from understanding or checking the basis for the significance conclusions.

12. Failure to Meaningfully Integrate Public Comment Themes Into the Analysis The Draft EIR describes extensive public engagement, including tens of thousands of comments and targeted outreach to specific communities, and it briefly lists “areas of controversy” and “issues to be resolved.” However, the technical sections do not show how those specific concerns—especially around shoreline vulnerability, displacement, transit reliability, and tolling—shaped the impact analysis, mitigation framework, or alternatives. As a result, the Draft EIR does not demonstrate that key issues raised by the public were substantively incorporated into the CEQA analysis.

For all of these reasons, the Draft EIR does not provide the full, good-faith disclosure and analysis required by CEQA and should not be certified in its current form.

Sincerely,
Vice Mayor Kitty Moore
City of Cupertino
Representing myself only
From: Tracy K
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: Written comments for action calendar Item 1 -- Plan Bay Area Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 1:07:46 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council,
Speaking on behalf of myself -- written comments for action calendar item 1, Plan Bay Area -- As per the draft letter, Plan Bay Area forecasts are significantly above state projections. The state Department of Finance dashboard projects about a +0.5M increase in population across the 9 counties between 2025 and 2050. How does this translate to a 9.6M Plan Bay Area 2050 population forecast? Population counts can vary by source, but by most measures this is vastly higher than forecast.

More interestingly -- 83% of the growth is NOT expected to be in Santa Clara, San Mateo, or San Francisco counties. In fact, Santa Clara County is expected to decline 4.5% by 2070. The highest growth forecasts are for Solano, Contra Costa, and Alameda counties.

Therefore, does it make sense that so much of the priority development areas of the PBA (p73) are in slow population growth areas like San Francisco and Santa Clara? Why not designate more PDAs in, say, Contra Costa, which is expected to see +210M by 2050? Where are the PDAs to support the places that are truly adding people? I am also unclear about whether De Anza and Stevens Creek is the appropriate nexus for a priority development area given that much of this immediate area is already occupied by large corporate buildings, retail, and a church, many of which seem unlikely to redevelop soon (save for perhaps Marina Plaza). When were these priority development areas designated, and does it make sense for council to revisit them and designate new ones? Why not remove PDA designation from Stevens Creek and De Anza, and place it on Vallco/The Rise, where eventually a significant amount of affordable housing will also be built? On page 85 -- what exactly is the <5 min peak service frequency transit emanating from Cupertino? Is there some plan that we are not aware of? Finally, the report shows a $1.2 trillion revenue forecast on P65. It would be great to see a further breakdown of how these funds are expected to be received.

Thanks,
Tracy
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City Council; City Clerk
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Plan Bay Area 2050 Plans and Draft EIR
Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 10:00:59 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
(Please include this comment as public comment for Agenda Item 1 on the Cupertino City Council meeting on Dec. 2, 2025 on The Draft Plan Bay Area 2050 Plans and Draft EIR.) Dear City Council:

I am very glad this item on the Plan Bay Area 2050 Plans and Draft EIR is being discussed as Agenda Item 1 at the Cupertino City Council meeting on Dec. 2, 2025. I have been horrified by this document Ever since it came out. I have attended several zooms on this document and I can tell you I am appalled and shocked that an entity like MTC/ABAG would use such questionable data and arrive at such Silly and dangerous conclusions as have been shown as the results in this document. It makes a mockery of any firm scientific standings in statistical data and analysis and use.

This group is supposed to use current state census data by law and they did not. They made up their own numbers and now say the state population growth will be 26% by 2050 and it is projected to only Be 6.5% by official California state census statistics.

MTC and ABAG are not concentrating on just transit issues for the Bay Area in these documents, They are trying to do multiple things: fix housing, tell people where they are supposed to live, Build housing etc. Their list goes on and on. Their list makes it seem like they are trying to impose some political agenda on the San Francisco Bay Area. This is not something MTC and ABAG should Be doing. It's not in their wheelhouse. They need to concentrate on transit issues alone.

The cost of implementation of the items listed in this Draft Bay Area document is mind boggling.

Who do they think is going to pay for all this? The people living in the San Francisco Bay Area or the whole state? Are they saying our taxes will be raised to pay for it? What is so very shocking about this whole document is the staggering amount of unintended consequences Coming out of it, the significant and unavoidable consequences. 52% of the impacts are significant and unavoidable. These are very serious and include air pollution and water supply. What are these people thinking to subject our Bay Area to this?
I am completely baffled how this state agency of MTC/ABAG could be allowed to get so lost in their documents and produce something like this and expect the rest of the adult population in the Bay Area to go along with them? I have seen respected individuals who are trained in analysis and state policy just shaking their heads on zoom in disbelief over this Plan Bay Area document. The words "Lunacy" have been used to describe the documents.

We need to speak out and say this Plan Bay Area Document and Draft EIR is not workable etc. It Seems to carry no valid statistical documentation and it seems to be a waste of time and money.

I am just shocked that this item would have been reviewed at the state level and was not Revised or declared abandoned there. It is late in the game if the public is having to be The ones to identify the document's fallacies and weaknesses now when MTC/ABAG will vote On the document and implementation in December, 2025.

My college level freshman math teacher would have looked at this and said "show your work". This Document does not show any scientific work or method at all.

Thank you.

Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
CC 12-02-2025
Item No. 2
Darrel Lum
Proclamation
Written Communications
From: Liang Chao
To: City Clerk
Subject: Statement made after the proclamation for Dr. Darrel Lum was presented Date: Wednesday, December 3, 2025 1:26:54 AM
Attachments: Revised Darrel Lum Proclamation - including initiative and referendum.pdf Below is the statement I read after the proclamation for Dr. Darrel Lum was presented to address concerns from some people about the use of the words "initiative" and "referendum".

I have attached the revised proclamation with those two words for reference.

Please include it in the written communication for the 12/2 Council meeting. ===========
Before we move on, I’d like to briefly explain why this proclamation intentionally uses the words initiative and referendum in honoring Dr. Darrel Lum, since some people were concerned about mentioning them.

Both are tools of direct democracy. They allow voters to place questions on the ballot and help ensure that the City Council remains accountable to the people we serve. A referendum allows voters to challenge or overturn a specific Council decision on a project, while an initiative allows voters to propose a new law or policy that may affect many projects.

If we intentionally omit initiative or referendum from this proclamation, it can create the impression that the Council wishes to keep voters from learning about the rights they have under the California Constitution, or that we attach a stigma to members of the public who challenge Council decisions. I don’t believe that is the message we want to send.

As a Councilmember, I believe we should affirm—not discourage—these rights. That is part of how we honor Dr. Lum’s legacy of civic engagement and respect for the voice of the community.

Liang Chao
Mayor
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE

CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3212
CUPERTINO.GOV

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

DESK ITEM
Meeting: December 2, 2025
Agenda Item #2
Subject
Proclamation recognizing Dr. Darrel Lum for His Exemplary Contributions to Grassroots Democracy and Civic Engagement
Recommended Action
Present proclamation recognizing Dr. Darrel Lum for His Exemplary Contributions to Grassroots Democracy and Civic Engagement
Background:

A revised proclamation has been issued. The revised version replaces the previous draft and is included as Attachment B.

Attachments Provided with Original Staff Report:

A – Proclamation
Attachments Provided with Desk Item:

B – Revised Proclamation
Proclamation
WHEREAS, Dr. Darrel Lum, a longtime Cupertino resident and beloved local dentist, moved to Cupertino in the mid-1970s and opened his dental practice on Pacifica Drive near City Hall, where he served generations of Cupertino families with kindness, professionalism, and integrity; and
WHEREAS, Beyond his professional excellence, Dr. Lum devoted his life to civic engagement and grassroots democracy, and
WHEREAS, As Cupertino experienced rapid growth in the late 1990s and early 2000s, Dr.

Lum became a leading voice for citizen participation in local government, working tirelessly to expand public notifications, transparency, and community awareness of proposed developments and planning decisions; and WHEREAS, His dental office became an informal civic classroom, where city plans and project maps adorned the walls and where countless residents—including future community leaders—first learned about the General Plan, the Planning Commission process, and how to engage meaningfully in city decision-making; and
WHEREAS, Dr. Lum was instrumental in fostering grassroots organizations, encouraging residents to study issues, attend public meetings, and advocate respectfully for policies that reflected the community’s voice; and
WHEREAS, Together with his wife, Cherryl, Dr. Lum worked persistently to place referendums and initiatives on the ballot, empowering Cupertino voters to directly shape the city’s future; and
WHEREAS, For more than 25 years, Dr. Lum’s research, public testimony, and advocacy were characterized by depth, precision, and respect for differing views, and; WHEREAS, Though Dr. Lum passed away in early 2024, his legacy lives on in the vibrant civic spirit of Cupertino, in the generations of residents he mentored, and in the enduring principle that government functions best when citizens are informed and engaged.

THEREFORE, I, Mayor Liang Chao, and the Cupertino City Council do hereby recognize Dr.

Darrel Lum for his exemplary contributions to Cupertino and declare him Champion of Grassroots Democracy and Civic Engagement
And encourage all residents to honor his remarkable life, his commitment to democracy at the grassroots level, and his lasting contributions to the civic fabric of Cupertino.

IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the City of Cupertino to be affixed this Tuesday, December 2, 2025.
_______________________
The Honorable Liang Chao
Mayor, City of Cupertino
CC 12-02-2025
#3
Solving Fun on the
Puzzle-Hunt Month-Long
Event
Written Communications
Community finding answers together
Solving Fun Puzzle Hunt
Bringing communities together
“It was very fun solving puzzles together as a
family and discovering new places to enjoy in
Cupertino. We look forward to the next
challenge. Thank you.” -Chloe
“It was an excellent puzzle. Would love to do it
again. Proud to be a Cupertino resident!” -Saunil
“The hunt was an amazing way to spend quality
time with my family and connect with our
community. It reminded us how much there is to
discover right here in Cupertino.” -Puja
Solving Fun Puzzle Hunt
Bringing communities together
Puzzle Hunt = Scavenger Hunt + Puzzles
● Collaborate with friends and family to solve
puzzles.
● Filled with a variety of wordplay, logic,
math, reasoning, and creative thinking.
● Find clues by solving puzzles.
● Clues lead to locations.
● Put together clues and solve a meta puzzle
for final answer(s).

Solving Fun puzzle pals love to create puzzle hunts for communities and organizations. They bring people together in a fun and unique way to collaborate and use creative thinking.

Puzzle hunts are inclusive, open to all ages and all kinds of groups. Puzzle hunts can range from a few hours to sets of puzzles that solvers work on over a series of weeks.

Solving Fun Puzzle Hunt
Bringing communities together
Supporters
❏ Mayor’s Initiative
❏ Library Foundation
❏ Cupertino Unified Schools
❏ Fremont Union Schools
❏ DeAnza College
❏ Code Ninjas - Cupertino
Solving Fun Puzzle Hunt
Bringing communities together
Benefits
❏ Brings communities together
❏ New visitors to local landmarks
❏ Outdoors
❏ Not schedule dependent (solvers can solve the puzzles at their own leisure, not competing with other
activities)
❏ Flexible locations (organizations choose whatever
locations are important to them)
❏ Inclusive: Open to Everyone!
Solving Fun Puzzle Hunt
Bringing communities together
The Cupertino Puzzle Hunt celebrated the
City’s 70th anniversary from October 1-26,
2025. It was free and filled with 9 puzzles for
families and friends to solve together. Solvers
could do one puzzle or do them all. Each
puzzle took solvers to a different location in
Cupertino with a metapuzzle at the end.

Cupertino Puzzle Hunt
Solving Fun Puzzle Hunt
Bringing communities together
Sample Puzzles
Solving Fun Puzzle Hunt
Bringing communities together
Advertising Locations
❏ Banners, bookmarks, posters
❏ Social Media (FB, Instagram, Twitter)
❏ Email Lists (Schools, Library, Code Ninjas, Solving Fun) Solving Fun Puzzle Hunt
Bringing communities together
Participants and Analytics Data
Puzzle Hunt website visits:
❏ 5,340 visits to Cupertino page
❏ 2,262 visits to Cupertino puzzles page
❏ 986 registered for information about the hunt
Visitors from:
❏ Cupertino
❏ San Jose
❏ Belmont
❏ Sunnyvale
❏ San Bruno
❏ Palo Alto
❏ Los Altos
❏ Saratoga
❏ Mountain View
❏ Santa Clara
Final Answer Entries: 503 entries
Solving Fun Puzzle Hunt
Bringing communities together
Solving Fun Puzzle Hunt
Bringing communities together
www.solvingfun.com
Thank you!
Solving Fun Puzzle Hunt
Bringing communities together
Feedback
Favorite location was Mary Avenue Bridge - the bridge was beautiful and while I have seen it from afar I had never stepped on it, participating in the puzzle gave me just the right opportunity to run onto the bridge and finding the clue there was like icing on the cake!! It was a lot of fun and I saw parts of Cupertino that I never visited before.

Our family enjoyed playing the hunt. My son’s favorite puzzle is the puzzle 8. My favorite one is the puzzle 3. It’s fun going to different places to find the clues. We’ll definitely participate again!
It was fun. Puzzle 7 is the favorite one. Yes, we will participate. fun, not easy, good brain exercise, will definitely do again My favorite puzzle was the lollipop puzzle. My favorite location was the Rancho San Antonio Open Preserve. I would definitely participate again.

Loved the puzzle - it was a bit hard to scour the clue locations with the rains and wind , otherwise very well and smartly crafted puzzle! will participate again! Solving Fun Puzzle Hunt
Bringing communities together
Feedback cont’d
I loved the whole hunt and all the puzzles were great!
Loved it! Will participate again if available. Enjoyed traveling to all the different places in Cupertino with my dad :)
It was really fun! My favorites were the 4th one (Sudoku), the 5th one, and the final meta-puzzle. I would definitely participate in something like this again! Had tons of fun solving every puzzle with my mom!
It's fun. My family had a fun time solving the puzzles. Definitely will participate again.

Our first puzzle hunt!
It was fun, thank you!
My daughter looks forward to hiking at Rancho San Antonio and we love the library! It was Very fun solving puzzles together as a family and discovering new places to enjoy in Cupertino. We look forward to the next challenge. Thank you.

Solving Fun Puzzle Hunt
Bringing communities together
Feedback cont’d
This was a lot of fun. It was great to puzzle out the clues at home and then explore the city for the next clues. It wasn't too hard and wasn't too easy. The hints were helpful.

Some of the puzzles are hard but fun to solve them in the end.

It’s so much fun to work together with my family.

Super fun! Puzzles were age appropriate for my kids (10 and 8) and they enjoyed going to the different locations to find the extra clues.

It‘s tricky but interesting!
I would participate again. The one at Rancho San Antonio took me awhile to get the correct parking lot. I also did not want to pay for parking at Anza college so did that one quickly.

We laughed, puzzled, and explored—what more could you ask for? The hunt turned an ordinary day into a mini-adventure around Cupertino!
Solving Fun Puzzle Hunt
Bringing communities together
Feedback cont’d
Animal puzzle was very interesting. Yes, I will definitely participate again.

I learned new animals... learned new tricks and techniques to solve the puzzle.

We enjoyed playing the hunt. My favorite puzzle is Puzzle 3. It’s fun going to different places to find the clues. We’ll definitely participate again!
It was great to see different spots of Cupertino!
Lots of fun! Great activity for our family of four with two kids ages 9 and 10.

It was hard, but doable and fun as a family activity I did it with my brother and mom and dad.

Enjoyed visiting around Cupertino! We were not able to find the word signs at either Blackberry Farm or Rancho San Antonio (after looking around for some time), but were able to figure out the final answer regardless. Thanks for hosting! Solving Fun Puzzle Hunt
Bringing communities together
Feedback cont’d
Very fun and I had a good time!
Puzzles were fun for the kids. Our favorite location was the library! We would do this again! Loved it. Specially the bridge one where we spent 30 min on the wrong side finding the clue only having to re read the clue.

Loved going around and finding all the clues
Creative and fun! However, the hints at the locations need to be affixed better. Location #2 was missing the sign as someone found it on the ground and returned it to the cupertino library Overall it was fun though!
My favorite puzzles were #2 and #8. I learned a lot of animal names from #8! I really enjoyed the puzzle hunt.

Code ninjas, it was amazing!
Solving Fun Puzzle Hunt
Bringing communities together
Feedback cont’d
We highly enjoyed the puzzle hunt. The Meta Puzzle was the most entertaining part and it was so fun to do this with my child. Thanks!
Very good puzzles. I liked the variety
This is really fun. I hope it's here next year.

Awesome! We visited places we were meaning to visit for many years! It's great! But some clues are too far away.

Perfect difficulty and challenge level had great fun
Great fun and balanced level of difficulty
Fun! We've done a couple of these and enjoy them.

I would participate again and really liked visiting Cupertino's landmarks.

Solving Fun Puzzle Hunt
Bringing communities together
Feedback cont’d
The bridge was a fun location to go to. We would play again.

It is wonderful, I can't wait to play more.

It is really fun, we enjoy a lot as a family. looking forward to more of these type of challenges.

Family loves it.

It was very fun and exciting to solve puzzles with friends and to go all around Cupertino and find clues in familiar places like the Cupertino library and Cupertino veterinarians memorial, and some new places like the Rancho San Antonio open-space preserve and Blackberry farm Recreation and pool.

The Cupertino puzzle hunt gave me a chance to explore around Cupertino with friends and visit some new places in Cupertino.

I really enjoyed the way that we had to move around to find the clues. I like those kinds of hunts. I also like that the puzzles were really fun and tested your brain.

Solving Fun Puzzle Hunt
Bringing communities together
Feedback cont’d
It’s fun and ideal for children work together!
Really enjoyed it!
We participated in the Cupertino Puzzle Hunt for the first time this year, and it was so much fun! We had a great time going around to different places to find clues. We’d love to join again next year.

My favorite location was the Mary Ave Bridge. I would definitely participate again. I learned that it's easier to take your time and do things correctly than do it sloppily.

Really fun. Would do again!
I liked the word search puzzle the best.

I really enjoyed the puzzles, especially the letter Sudoku puzzle.

I loved it!
It was a lot of fun!
Solving Fun Puzzle Hunt
Bringing communities together
Feedback cont’d
Thanks for putting this on, I had a great time diving in! This was a lot of fun racing the kids.

It was fun, especially going around town with my son, searching for the easy to find clues! A few of the puzzles could have had a few more instructions (1 and 7).

It was awesome!
It was a lot of fun. It was a great way to get used to the area after recently moving here.

Our family loves doing these.

It was very creative and a fun group activity. It was also very age friendly.

It was lot of fun.we thoroughly enjoyed doing it and exploring Cupertino.

Fun for both parents and kids.

Solving Fun Puzzle Hunt
Bringing communities together
Feedback cont’d
Cupertino Memorial Park was my favorite location. Most challenging was to figure out the solution even after solving the puzzle for Puzzle 7.

Sudoku with letters. Library . Yes would love to participate again.

Loved it!
Thumbs up, 6 7! Says a 5th grader
Was great fun.They were a great set of puzzles, not super easy or very hard.Very creative and balanced.

We heard about it from an email from school district.

It was challenging and fun. The places chosen for the clues were beautiful.

We enjoyed the whole quiz hunting experience!! We’ll definitely want to join again.

It was an excellent puzzle. Would love to do it again. Proud to be a Cupertino resident! Solving Fun Puzzle Hunt
Bringing communities together
Feedback cont’d
It was fun. We'd never been on the Mary Avenue bridge before. We enjoyed solving the puzzles more than finding the clues, since there was no thinking involved at the locations.

Favorite puzzle was first one LIBRARY since it was not hard but hard to give me confidence that I can do this.

Sudoku puzzle was my favorite and I would definitely do the puzzle hunt again.

It was a lot of fun, would do again.

Thank you!
This was so much fun, I got to see so many parts of Cupertino I don't normally get to see. I appreciate the puzzle coordinators also fixing one of the sites that lost a sign very quickly after I emailed. Everyone was so nice and I want to do more! My only feedback is that marketing was a little lacking? I only found out about it by reading the sign when driving by Memorial Park but so glad I did!
Solving Fun Puzzle Hunt
Bringing communities together
Feedback cont’d
It's super fun!!
Had lots of fun solving the puzzles and going to the locations to find the clues. Not all the location clues were present at the start of the hunt, though.

My daughter is a Cupertino teacher and found this. She worked hard to solve it. I started when she was close to finishing, but she wouldn't tell me any answers. I had to figure it out myself. I did get frustrated at one point and she encouraged me to continue. It was challenging but I loved it. I would definitely play again if you create another one.

It is great to know more about the city I live in.

Great fun for my family to solve puzzles and explore the city.

Lots of fun.

Great game. Will do it again.

I would like to participate another hunt like this one.

Solving Fun Puzzle Hunt
Bringing communities together
Feedback cont’d
I love the puzzle that has ants.

I like to go to the locations to find the clue.

I like it. It’s challenging but fun to complete with family.

Pretty fun to play with kids.

Hunt was great,we went to euphrat museum of art to check final puzzle answer.Yes,i would love to solve more puzzles in the upcoming days.

It was lot of fun and good use of time. Got to visit different places as a family.

Favorite puzzle: my sister and mom really liked #8 (animal face pictures) Favorite location: Mary Avenue Bridge
Hardest to find clue (because it fell on the ground): Cali Mill Plaza Park Hardest to solve puzzle: #7, this was so hard!
Would definitely do it again!
Solving Fun Puzzle Hunt
Bringing communities together
Feedback cont’d
It was fun and challenging. I really liked it.

It was nice going to new places with family and friends. Would do again. Keep it up, SolvingFun! I especially liked the Blackberry Farm Recreation and Pool.

Love the fun of playing with kids.

We have a lot of fun, and the puzzles are proper for both kids and adults.

The puzzle was an absolute fun activity for my family. We loved our walk to Mary Ave Bridge.

It's interesting to solve the puzzles.

Very fun to solve them.

It's fun to solve the puzzles.

I really enjoyed solving the puzzle with my cousin. I love it.

Solving Fun Puzzle Hunt
Bringing communities together
Feedback cont’d
It was very fun and we enjoyed a lot of time together as a family. We also enjoyed going around Cupertino with my cousin. We wanted to visit Mary Ave. Bridge for five years we finally did it because of this puzzle hunt. My favorite spot was Mary Ave. Bridge.

I thought it was great! Thank you for creating it!
Have not been to Euphrat Museum of Art, will check it out! It was fun!
It was fun. Some of the puzzles were harder. The one at cali mill plaza we couldn’t find but guessed.

Good difficulty level.

My daughter and I enjoyed the puzzle hunt and would definitely do it again next time.

Great hunt, would do again.

The pedestrian bridge!
Solving Fun Puzzle Hunt
Bringing communities together
Feedback cont’d
My favorite puzzle was #3, Cal Culator. It was challenging and interesting.

Very fun. Loved all the puzzles.

The experience was both engaging and educational. It encouraged teamwork, problem-solving, and exploration of Cupertino in a creative and meaningful way.

The hunt was an amazing way to spend quality time with my family and connect with our community. It reminded us how much there is to discover right here in Cupertino.

Loved it! The puzzles were smart, the clues were exciting, and discovering new places around Cupertino made it even better!
All the puzzles were very exciting! We were having trouble finding the clue at Blackberry Farm, so hopefully our guess is correct.

Fun, nice family day!
Yay, I'm glad you brought it to Cupertino. Please highlight some of the cool art sculptures that the city has.

Solving Fun Puzzle Hunt
Bringing communities together
Feedback cont’d
Super fun family time! Loved exploring Cupertino and solving clever puzzles along the way.

Mary Ave bridge was the best!
It was such a fun experience with the family! We discovered new places around Cupertino that we hadn’t seen before, and the puzzles were the perfect mix of challenge and creativity.

Favorite puzzle was puzzle #3 with the tool and the code.

Very fun for the whole family.

Would play more.

My favorite puzzle was Pat-ern.

I liked the Mary bridge since we've never been there before. I liked most of the puzzles.

Loved this! Do it more!
CC 12-02-2025
#9
Friendship City
Relationships
Written Communications
From: Rhoda Fry
To: Public Comments; City Clerk; City Council
Subject: December 2 City Council Agenda Item #9 friendship cities Date: Sunday, November 30, 2025 4:27:29 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council,
IMHO, December 2 City Council Agenda Item #9 friendship cities should not be on the consent calendar.

I think that we should have no more than one friendship or sister relationship per country.

Please watch this under 10-minute speech by President Dwight D. Eisenhower on September 11, 1956 on the sister city international website and ask yourselves whether what you are contemplating makes sense. https://sistercities.org/about-us/our-history/ Sister Cities are intended to be about people-to-people - - - not government-to-government.

Stop the boondoggles!!!
We are in a budget crunch.

Thanks,
Rhoda Fry
CC 12-02-2025
#11
OpenGov Budget Format
Review
Written Communications
From: Rhoda Fry
To: Public Comments; City Clerk; City Council
Subject: December 2 City Council, Agenda Item #11, budget format Date: Sunday, November 30, 2025 4:35:47 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council,
December 2 City Council, Agenda Item #11, budget format From what I can tell, the City operates four recreational businesses:
the sports center,
the golf course,
the blackberry farm pool/picnics, and
the senior center.

1. Can you please track all of these entities separately in open gov? For a short time, I was able to do this, but don’t seem to be able to do it anymore.

2. Please keep in mind that when there have been studies to get rid of the golf course, the golf course enterprise fund has been charged for that expense. That hurts the perceived bottom line of the golf course.

Only the first two, sports center and golf course, are run as enterprise funds. In the past, the golf course and pool/picnics were together in a single enterprise fund. At some point, pool/picnics were split out – it is a good thing to track the golf course on its own. However, pool/picnics were no longer being tracked as an enterprise fund. Similarly, I think that the senior center might have also been an enterprise fund, which was later disbanded. I wonder why half of the entities are not being run as enterprise funds.

I had asked multiple times at the audit committee that we be able to track these four “businesses” in open gov. After a while, I was able to do this. But I don’t see any way how to track the four of them anymore. Also, the Blackberry Farm enterprise fund was renamed, per my request, to include “golf” so we all know what we’re talking about. Thank You for that.

Regards,
Rhoda Fry
From: Peggy Griffin
To: Public Comments; City Council
Subject: 2025-12-02 City Council Meeting ITEM #11 - Budget Format Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 5:07:03 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

PLEASE INCLUDE THIS IN WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE ABOVE AGENDA ITEM.

Dear Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, Councilmembers and Staff, The Staff Report Recommended Action says the following regarding the Recommended Action below.

COMMENT #1 – This was not supposed to be implemented now per Council instructions.

Delaying this would allow this next budget document to be experienced and reviewed before taking this much bigger step. Why was Council direction not followed?
Attachment B – Budget Format Implementation Action Plan (IAP) says “Per Council hold off on this for awhile.

FY27 Implementation.”
COMMENT #2 – This was supposed to be implemented in FY27. Why now when there are other priority #1 and #2 that were supposed to be implemented sooner?
For recommendation #30 the IAP says “FY27 Implementation, will need more time to develop and implement this recommendation.”
My concern is that the order of implementation has been overridden.

Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
CC 12-02-2025
#12
Study Session on the
Mary Avenue
Project
Written Communications

From: Mahesh Gurikar
To: City Council; City Clerk; Tina Kapoor
Subject: Mary Ave Villas
Date: Monday, December 1, 2025 11:53:33 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below in written communications for the upcoming city council meeting.

Dear Mayor Chao, Council Members,
Please add to council meeting agenda the Mary Ave Villas for one or more study sessions to study the below previously sent questions and related issues along these lines.

The Mary Ave Villas project is a financial and legal expisure for the city. These financial and legal risks must be fully studied and assessed. Past legal precedent must be carefully studied.

This project should not move to council until the financial and legal aspects of it are fully studied and the public hears the study results and can participate with input.

As City council members it is your duty to protect the city from financial and legal risks.

Please urgently add to agenda the study sessions for this. Further please consider sending this to planning commission for study sessions and recommendations before sending it back to council for study sessions.

Finally a new council in November 2026 may decide to undo any hurried passing of this right now. Please consider the consequences of that and ensure that if you do proceed that any ground lease contract is written so that it could be terminated at any time and funding clawed back at any time with the recipient of the funding expected to be able to only drawdown on funding in stages and with ability to retract and claw back funding provided.

This will be an hot issue in November 2026 election. In 2024 the Linda Vista, Scofeld and McClellan neighborhoods proved that with their turnout against incumbent and past office bearers who ran. In 2026 they will be joined by Garden Gate neighborhood as well as all the neighborhoods and residents impacted by the bike lane projects to ensure that incumbent office bearers hear clearly from them via their written communications which will be their ballots.

Please do not rush through approvals on Mary Ave Villas. Please send this first to planning commission for study sessions. Please allow the proceedings of planning commission study sessions to feed into further council study sessions. Please hold additional community meetings that are conducted by the city. I believe the city as ground lease owner needs to hold these meetings and not Charities who are not owners of the land.

Thank you for paying careful attention to the financial and legal liabilities of this project to the city.

Thank you,
Mahesh Gurikar

From: Jean Bedord
To: City Council; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk Subject: Agenda Item #12: Mary Avenue Study Session, Dec. 2, 2025 City Council Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 3:36:02 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please include in written communications
-----------------------------------------------------
Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, Councilmembers Fruen, Mohan and Wang, I am appalled by this agenda item. Instead of a study session, the council should be approving the final paperwork to ensure this project is approved by the end of the year.

This site is included in the Housing Element approved by the state HCD, and the ONLY site that is 100% low income housing for special populations, specifically IDD (Intellectually and Developmentally Disabled). Would failure to approve this in a timely manner be a deliberate choice not to fulfill city obligations to the region and the state? Last night, council spent an inordinate amount of time on the merits of artistic bike racks, yet ignored the importance of revising the current Housing Element. When the United Furniture townhomes are approved, the city will have a deficit of two housing units in affordable housing. This deficit will increase with reduction of affordable units at The Rise/Vallco, as well as the other townhome projects in the pipeline. When the first townhome project is approved, the city has only six months to demonstrate good faith changes to accommodate the Housing Element deficit.

Mary Avenue Villas are a crucial component of the city's responsibility to comply with the Housing Element that they approved. No project is perfect. Isn't it time to stop procrastinating and get shovels in the ground?
Very frustrated resident,
Jean Bedord
From: Debbie Timmers
To: City Council
Cc: Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk
Subject: Support for Mary Ave Villas, Agenda item 12
Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 3:21:16 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore and Councilmembers,
I am a long term resident of Cupertino and I am writing to express my strong support for the proposed Mary Avenue Villas project, which would provide much-needed housing for disabled, very low-income adults in our community.

Disabled adults are vital members of our city—our neighbors, volunteers, colleagues, and friends. Yet no group faces greater barriers in finding safe, stable, and affordable housing.

Supporting them is not only the compassionate thing to do; it reflects Cupertino's core values.

As you know, building affordable housing is exceptionally difficult under even the best circumstances. This project is only possible because of the availability of the city-owned property on Mary Avenue. Further delays could jeopardize the project entirely, especially with construction costs continuing to rise and new building requirements scheduled to take effect in 2026. We have a rare and time-sensitive opportunity to do something truly meaningful.

I urge you to finalize the approvals for Mary Avenue Villas today so that this essential project can move forward. Our community will be stronger, more just, and more compassionate because of it.

Thank you for your leadership and consideration.

Sincerely,
Debra Timmers
From: louise saadati
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Mary Ave Villas, Item 12
Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 2:35:32 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please include the following in Written Communications
for Dec 2, 2025 for Agenda Item 12 for the Study
Session for Mary Ave Villas.

Dear Mayor Chaio, Vice-Mayor Moore and City
Councilmembers:

Please progress forward and grant city approvals for the Mary Ave Villas Project to move ahead.

Further studying and delaying the Mary Ave Villas project would jeapardize the project beginning or finishing.

There will be increasing construction costs as well as
new construction codes in 2026 which will hinder the
project and being removed. Other projects have been
removed due to rising costs and zone and code
changes.

This affordable housing project would not be possible
without the city owned property on Mary Avenue.

Building affording housing is extremely difficult and
needed.

Supporting housing for very low income and disabled
residents is the humane thing to do. They are the most
impacted in difficulty in finding affordable housing.

Please approve and authorize the Mary Avenue Villas
immediately to facilitate construction beginning as soon as possible. This will help keep our affordable compliant with the requirement by HCD. We don’t want a Builder’s
Remedy because of this.

Thank you,
Louise Saadati
40 year resident of Cupertino
Sent from my iPhone
From: Connie-Comcast Swim5am
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: CC Agenda Item 12 , Mary Ave Project— urge approval now! Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 2:25:56 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

City Council Agenda Item 12 for Mary Ave Project—urge approval now! Good Evening, Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, Councilmembers, and City Manager:

My name is Connie Cunningham, 38 year resident and Chair, Housing Commission, speaking for myself only.

Thank you to the City Council for its vote on July 15, 2025 to move this project forward after the Study Session that evening. I was excited to see that vote. I am supportive of the application to develop new Extremely Low Income homes for Intellectually Developmentally Disabled Individuals (IDD) and, also, other Below Market Rate (BMR) housing units on City-owned property along Mary Avenue. It is the right thing to do for Cupertino to join other cities in our region to provide housing for residents of all incomes and abilities.

I am disappointed that this project is being delayed by holding another Study Session now, more than four months after July 15 vote.

This is much needed housing that has been on the Council’s Work Program for many years. I remember 2019 when former Mayor Scharf made it a priority and I was new to the Housing Commission. I have attended the Housing Commission and City Council meetings for this project. I have also attended Housing Element meetings at which the site was identified for this purpose. It is hard to find land in Cupertino. I applaud the Council and the City Planners for finding this special place. It would not be possible to build these homes without Cupertino owned property. ELI housing is the most difficult to finance.

Many families and individuals will be helped with this housing. It will also help the City’s goal to keep individuals from falling into homelessness. Many Individuals who are Intellectually Developmentally Disabled live with aging parents, therefore, these homes will help them and our community. There are many financial benefits to the City to have housing that keeps people from homelessness.

I am disappointed that this project is being delayed. Construction costs are increasing and new building requirements are coming in 2026. Delay may also make it difficult for the builder to obtain financing since financing for Extremely Low Income housing is particularly difficult.

I urge you to take the remaining steps now. It is critical to move this project forward tonight.

Connie L Cunningham
(Former meetings 2025-07-15 CC Agenda Item 11, Study Session, Mary Avenue Project and 2025-09-03 Oral Communications supporting Mary Avenue Project)
From Connie's iPhone
From: Lina
To: Public Comments
Subject: Public Comments- Agenda Item 12 - Dec 2 2025 - Mary Ave Housing: Stop the Process, Be Transparent Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 1:47:28 PM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, Council Members, Ms. Kapoor, and City Staff, I am writing to firmly oppose the Mary Ave Villas project in its current state and demand an immediate halt and restart of the entire process.

The City has an obligation to be transparent and follow the rules, but with this project, you skipped essential steps. The community was never given a chance to weigh in on the decision to give away a piece of our public land—our public right-of-way—before you started designing a building on it.

I reviewed the Dec 2nd agenda attachments for Item #12. The City has not followed the actions recommended by its former City Attorney in 2022, and even admits to missed key steps:
2022 City Plan explicitly stated that this project must follow Surplus Land Act (SLA) notice requirements to qualify for an exemption-
"... the disposition of the property would meet the criteria for “exempt surplus land” if the notice requirements of the Surplus Land Act are followed.

Per SLA code, this includes public meeting declaration and notification to HCD, both of which were not done. These are distinct and separate from the Notice of Action exemption.

The City missed the following key step that was spelled out in the 2022 City plan.
"Following the selection of a qualified housing developer, initiate concurrently the following processes:
... A City Council declaration that the site is exempt surplus land." The City went ahead and created a parcel involving public roads that was not even vacated properly. How can a housing project proceed if the parcel is not even valid?
The responses in the Dec 2nd, 2025 FAQ claiming that the missed steps can be done at a later time is problematic in that it moves a proposal forward without fair and timely public input that residents are entitled to. This process has felt biased (the City has yet to address the conflicts of interests with stakeholders/associates of Rotary Club) and rushed behind closed doors.

As residents have finally learned about this project through grassroots efforts and not through public noticing, over 600 petition signers are now opposed to the project at this extremely narrow site.https://www.change.org/p/halt-the-mary-avenue-villasproject-at-this-unsuitable-location Countless residents took to the streets on November 1, 2025, peacefully protesting.

We are asking you, our constituents, to be good neighbors and responsible leaders.

Halt this project now. Take a step back, follow the state laws, and bring this decision back to the public in an honest, upfront way. Give us a voice before you give away our streets.

Sincerely,
Lina
Garden Gate Resident
From: [email protected]
To: City Council; City Clerk
Cc: Cupertino City Manager"s Office; [email protected] Subject: Support for Mary Ave Villas, Agenda item 12
Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 1:43:53 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear members of the Cupertino City Council,
I am in support of the Mary Avenue Villas.

Our church is part of the rotating safe car park in Cupertino/Saratoga. So, I know first hand how many people have a hard time finding affordable housing.

1. I know that building affordable housing is very difficult. This important project would not be possible without the use of the city-owned property on Mary Avenue.

2. Supporting disabled and very low income residents is the right thing to do. There is no other group of people who are more disadvantaged in finding safe and affordable housing.

3. Further delays on the Mary Ave Villas project could jeopardize it entirely because of increased construction costs and new building requirements coming online in 2026.

Please finalize the city approvals today.

Thank you very much for your consideration,
Hella Bluhm-Stieber
(Cupertino City volunteer)
From: Tiff
To: City Council
Cc: Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk
Subject: I Support for Mary Ave Villas project
Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 11:47:09 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Support housing elements,
Agenda item 12

1. Building affordable housing is exceptionally difficult. This important project would not be possible without the use of the city-owned property on Mary Avenue.

2. Supporting disabled and very low income residents is the right thing to do. There is no other group of people who are more disadvantaged in finding safe and affordable housing.

3. Further delays on the Mary Ave Villas project could jeopardize it entirely because of increased construction costs and new building requirements coming online in 2026.

Please finalize the city approvals today.

Cupertino resident,
Susan
From: Santosh Rao
To: City Council; Tina Kapoor; Floy Andrews; City Attorney"s Office; Chad Mosley; Benjamin Fu; Luke Connolly; Gian Martire; Kirsten Squarcia; City Clerk
Subject: Request for exempt surplus documentation including resolution to deem exempt surplus.

Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 11:23:55 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below in written communications. Thank you. [Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident, taxpayer, voter] Dear Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, City Council Members, City Manager Kapoor, and Community Development Directors,
I am writing regarding the Mary Avenue parcel which the City has indicated is being treated as exempt surplus land under the California Surplus Land Act (Government Code § 54221).

Given the statutory requirements associated with exempt surplus designations, I am requesting clear and complete documentation to confirm that the City has fully complied with all applicable procedures to deem the parcel exempt surplus.

To ensure transparency and proper statutory compliance, please provide the following information:

1. Exempt Surplus Resolution:

The formal resolution or council action declaring the parcel as “exempt surplus.” The specific exemption under § 54221(f)(1) cited as the basis for this designation, and the subclause(s) used to qualify the parcel as exempt.

2. Written Findings and Supporting Evidence:

Any written findings prepared to support the exempt surplus designation.

Staff analysis or supporting documentation referenced in those findings.

3. Public Notice and HCD Notification:

Confirmation of compliance with the 30‑day notice requirement to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

Any public posting or comment opportunities provided in accordance with state law.

4. Timeline and Record of Actions:

Dates of adoption, public notice, and HCD notification.

Links or copies of any publicly available documentation, including agenda items, staff reports, and meeting minutes, reflecting the formal record of this process.

I request that this information be provided as supplemental items for the Study Session scheduled for the 12/2/25 agenda, Item 12. This will allow residents to fully understand the process and statutory compliance related to the exempt surplus designation for the Mary Avenue parcel.

If a formal resolution declaring the parcel as exempt surplus (or as surplus land) does not exist, I respectfully request clarification on the basis for any assumption that the parcel could be allocated to Charities Housing or Rotary or any other housing entity and the resulting community hearings that were already held by Charities Housing. Specifically, I ask the City to describe how any decisions regarding developer selection or project allocation were made without a formal exempt surplus or surplus declaration, and how such actions align with the requirements of the Surplus Land Act (Government Code § 54221).

Further, I request that the Council carefully review the statutory criteria for exempt surplus under § 54221(f)(1) and its subclauses, including the requirement for findings based on substantial evidence. Based on these qualifications, I urge the Council not to deem the parcel exempt at this time. Instead, I request that the proper process be followed, including:

Preparing and adopting written findings demonstrating compliance with the statutory requirements.

Conducting a public meeting with appropriate agenda posting, notification, and opportunity for community input.

Considering the full sequence of procedures required for non‑exempt surplus land, including Notice of Availability (NOA), the 60‑day response period, and any negotiations with interested entities.

Submitting required notifications and documentation to HCD in accordance with § 54222.5.

Following these steps will ensure full compliance with the Surplus Land Act, provide transparency to the community, and maintain public confidence in the City’s handling of this public asset. I look forward to the inclusion of this documentation and clarification in the supplemental materials for the upcoming study session.

Sincerely,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident, taxpayer, voter) From: Robert George
To: City Council; City Clerk; Public Comments; Tina Kapoor; Chad Mosley; Rachelle Sander Subject: Cupertino Memorial Park Pickleball
Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 10:39:05 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

City Clerk,
Please include this email as part of written communications for the 12/2/25 City Council meeting.

But we can't let the few dictact the benefits to the many. We can and should come up with solutions which help mitigate noise but let's not look at things as either black or white.

Seriously, I would be devastated if I couldn't play pickleball with my new found friends.

Thanks for your time and service,
--Robert George
22096 Dean Court, Cupertino
From: Walter Li
To: City Council; City Clerk; City Attorney"s Office; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; Chad Mosley; Benjamin Fu Cc: Lina; Shaun Fong; Brian Avery
Subject: Mary Ave Villas — Pattern of Lawlessness, Favoritism, and Demand Cupertino Halt the Project Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 10:25:01 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, Council Members, CM Kapoor, CAO, Director Mosley, and Director Fu,
I am writing to demand that the City of Cupertino immediately halt all progress on the Mary Ave Villas project. The City’s conduct reveals a disturbing pattern of lawlessness and favoritism that violates multiple provisions of California Government Code and undermines public trust.

Evidence of Lawlessness and Favoritism
• No Adopted Findings (GC §54221(f)(1)(A))
Cupertino never adopted written findings at a public meeting, leaving the project without legal foundation.
• Parcel Formed Before Vacating Public Land
The City reversed the statutory sequence, creating a parcel before vacating public right-ofway, invalidating the parcel and any project based on it. • Bypassing the Surplus Land Act (GC §§54220–54234)
Required steps — declaration, HCD notification, NOA issuance, and negotiation windows — were skipped. Instead, Cupertino advanced Rotary/Charities Housing directly, excluding other eligible entities.
• Failure to Notify HCD (GC §54222.5)
The City never notified HCD, shielding itself from oversight while privileging its chosen developer.
• No Notice of Availability (GC §54222)
No NOA was issued to schools, parks districts, or affordable housing developers, ensuring only favored partners could proceed.
• Invalid Community Hearings
Hearings were held before findings, notifications, and statutory waiting periods, misleading the public and rendering them procedurally void.
• Penalties for Violation (GC §54230.5)
Cupertino risks fines of 30% of land value and repeat penalties, exposing taxpayers to severe liability.

Demand for Immediate Halt
Given these violations and the clear evidence of favoritism, I demand that the City:

1. Cease all work on Mary Ave Villas immediately.

2. Nullify all community hearings conducted to date.

3. Withdraw the project from further consideration until full compliance with state law is demonstrated.

4. Provide the public with a written statement confirming the halt and outlining corrective measures.

Conclusion
The Mary Ave Villas project is not simply flawed — it is unlawful. Cupertino has ignored statutory mandates, bypassed oversight, and played favorites. This is governance by preference, not by law.

The project is invalid. The hearings are invalid. The favoritism is undeniable.

The City must halt the Mary Ave Villas project immediately to avoid penalties, restore public trust, and demonstrate that Cupertino is not above the law.

Sincerely,
Walter Li
Originator of the petition "Halt The Mary Aveune Villas Project at this Unsuitable Location" Working with the neighbors in opposition of the Mary Ave Villas Project [email protected]
408-781-7894
From: J Zhao
To: City Council
Cc: Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk
Subject: Strong support for Mary Ave Villas, Agenda Item 12 Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 10:11:02 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear honorable council members,
I am writing with enthusiastic support for the Mary Avenue Villas housing project being considered for item 12 on tonight's agenda. This is a 40-unit housing project that will provide much needed affordable housing for very low income residents and disabled residents.

As somebody who served on the City's Housing Commission and who studied urban planning, I know how difficult it is in our current political and economic system to deliver real affordable homes for our community members, especially more vulnerable ones. This is a critical opportunity to make a dent in our affordable housing crisis, and you have the opportunity to push our city in the right direction.

I have read about community members' concerns about potential drawbacks. However, I disagree with the concerns around parking and street narrowing. I regularly bike along Mary Avenue to take the overcrossing bridge, and the parking spaces are underutilized. I think it would be in the City's interests to repurpose the underutilized parking spaces. I do not find the concerns about the street being too narrow to have merit; the development plans will not narrow vehicle lanes.

I urge the Council not to delay this project. We all know that time is of the essence when it comes to construction projects. Delays can lead to skyrocketing costs and the window of opportunity for this project can close.

Thank you for your consideration. I hope that you will rise to your duty to represent our most vulnerable community members.

Sincerely,
John Zhao
From: Santosh Rao
To: City Council; Tina Kapoor; Floy Andrews; City Attorney"s Office; Chad Mosley; Benjamin Fu; Luke Connolly; Gian Martire; Kirsten Squarcia; City Clerk
Subject: Mary Ave Villas Violations of State Law and Request for Full Restart of Process Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 9:28:42 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk,
Would you please include the below in written communications for Mary Ave Villas agenda item for the 12/2/25 city council meeting. Thank you.
[Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident, taxpayer, voter] Subject: Mary Ave Villas Violations of State Law and Request for Full Restart of Process
Dear Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, Council Members, Attorney Andrews, CM Kapoor, CAO, Director Mosley, and Director Fu,
I am writing to urge you to halt all progress on the Mary Ave Villas project and restart the legally required process from the beginning. Based on publicly available documents and the City’s own admissions, the actions taken to date violate multiple provisions of California Government Code governing surplus land, disposition, parcel formation, public notice, and mandatory state notifications.

The City cannot legally assume that the property is available for Rotary, Charities Housing, or any IDD-related project until it completes the statutory sequence in full compliance. The project itself is invalid, and any community hearings conducted thus far are also invalid because they were held before the required steps were taken.

Attorney Andrews, I request you to take an objective non-biased look at the below and advise council to act in accordance with state law to ensure the city is protected from consequences of violations of state law
Mayor, Vice-Mayor, Council members, you have an obligation to be unbiased, objective and your first and primary obligation is to ensure the city is not in violation of state laws that result in consequences that may be a financial or litigious burden to the city.

I request Attorney Andrews to seek exparte disclosures from council members on their affiliation to any organization currently associated with the project and investigate ahead of time if any council members need to recuse themselves from this and all further hearings on Mary Ave Villas until such time the project is fully reset and decoupled from any such organizations. Please also verify if a spouse affiliation exists to any organization currently associated with this project.

Before a project agenda item comes to council CM and department directors have an obligation to ensure state laws are not being violated and if violations are confirmed to assess for the best procedures to cure violations and ensure all decisions are made by council on dais, not left to staff discretion. This project is a test of CM Kapoor’s leadership and I implore the CM to ensure the city is in compliance with state laws referenced below before you move any further ahead.

Below is a detailed breakdown of the required process and the violations to date.

1. REQUIRED FINDINGS WERE NEVER
ADOPTED (Mandatory Under GC
§54221(f)(1)(A))
Before declaring land exempt and before entering any negotiations, the governing body must adopt written findings at a noticed public meeting.

Government Code §54221(f)(1)(A) (verbatim):
“The local agency shall adopt written findings, based on substantial evidence, demonstrating that the property meets the requirements of this subdivision.” Cupertino produced no written findings, no substantial-evidence analysis, and no adopted resolution containing the findings.

Proceeding without this step invalidates all subsequent actions.

2. CITY FORMED A PARCEL BEFORE
VACATING PUBLIC LAND (Unlawful
Sequence)
State law requires that public right-of-way must be vacated first, then the resulting parcel can be formed and its legal status established before any disposition or exemption is claimed.

Cupertino did it in reverse:

Parcel created first
Then a project assumed
Without vacating the right-of-way
Without a public hearing on vacating land under the Streets & Highways Code Streets & Highways Code §8320:
“The legislative body shall not order the vacation until after a public hearing.” Because no hearing was held and no vacation was completed, the parcel legally does not exist as a developable property.

Thus, any project based on that parcel formation is invalid.

3. CITY BYPASSED THE SURPLUS

LAND ACT REQUIREMENTS (GC
§§54220–54234)
Unless the City can prove – with findings adopted in public – that the land meets a statutory exemption, it must follow the Surplus Land Act (SLA) fully.

This was not done.

Required SLA steps (state law):

1. Declare property surplus or exempt with written findings

2. Notify HCD within 30 days of such action

3. Issue a Notice of Availability (NOA) to all required affordable housing entities

4. Provide a 60-day response window

5. Engage in a 90-day Good Faith Negotiation period if proposals are received

6. Only after completion may the City select a developer, conduct hearings, or move to project review.

All of these steps were skipped.

Instead, the City moved directly to:

Selecting Rotary/Charities Housing partnership
Holding community meetings
Presenting a full conceptual project
Discussing design attributes
Showing building massing and site plans
This sequence directly violates the SLA.

4. HCD WAS NOT NOTIFIED (GC
§54222.5)
State law is explicit:

Government Code §54222.5 (verbatim):
“A local agency shall provide to the Department of Housing and Community Development a description of any actions taken” including surplus or exempt declarations.

The law also states:
“Failure to provide this information shall constitute a violation of this article.” Cupertino did not notify HCD.

Therefore, the City is formally in violation of state law.

5. NO NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY
(NOA) WAS ISSUED (GC §54222)
The law requires that the City issue an NOA to:

All affordable housing developers on HCD’s list
Schools
Parks districts
Other eligible agencies
Government Code §54222 (verbatim):
“The local agency shall send a written offer to sell or lease the property…” No NOA was issued.

Therefore:

The 60-day statutory period never began
The 90-day negotiation window never occurred
The City cannot legally select Rotary, Charities Housing, or any other entity

6. COMMUNITY HEARINGS HELD TO

DATE ARE INVALID
Under state law, community hearings must occur after the City:

Completes findings
Notifies HCD
Issues NOA
Completes statutory waiting periods
Completes required negotiations
Holding hearings before these steps is procedurally invalid and misleading to the public.

All meetings conducted thus far must be nullified.

7. PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION (GC
§54230.5)
The penalty section is explicit:

Government Code §54230.5(a) (verbatim):
“A local agency that violates this article shall be liable for a penalty of 30 percent of the final sale price of the property.”
If the City proceeds unlawfully:

Cupertino may be fined 30% of the land value
Additional penalties apply for repeat violations
HCD may require the City to restart the process under direct state oversight These risks must be avoided.

REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION
Given the violations described above, I respectfully request that the City:

1. Halt all work on Mary Ave Villas immediately.

2. Publicly acknowledge that the statutory process was not followed.

3. Restart the process from Step 1, in this legally required order:

1. Hold hearing to vacate public land

2. Form parcel legally

3. Adopt written findings under GC §54221(f)(1)(A)

4. Notify HCD under GC §54222.5

5. Issue NOA to all required entities under GC §54222

6. Allow the full 60-day response window

7. Enter the mandatory 90-day negotiation period

8. Only then — and not before — initiate project selection or community hearings Until this is completed in full, the City cannot legally assume the land is available for Rotary, Charities Housing, or any IDD-related project.

4. Re-do all community outreach only after the statutory requirements are complete.

5. Provide the public with a full written timeline of every corrective step.

Conclusion
The Mary Ave Villas process is legally defective.

The steps were taken out of sequence, statutory requirements were skipped, state agencies were not notified, public rights-of-way were never vacated, and no written findings were adopted as required by Government Code.

The project is invalid as currently presented.

The community hearings are invalid.

The City must restart the process from the beginning.

I request that you agendize this matter immediately and direct staff to comply with state law in full.

Sincerely,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident, taxpayer, voter) From: Ed Agrawal
To: City Clerk; Tina Kapoor; City Attorney"s Office; City Council; Chad Mosley; Benjamin Fu; Luke Connolly; Gian Martire
Cc: Kirsten Squarcia
Subject: Request to Halt the Mary Ave Villas Project and Ensure Full Public Process- followup from Cupertino City Council Teleconference Meeting - November 18, 2025
Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 3:08:34 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, Council Members, Ms. Kapoor, and City Staff, I am writing as a concerned Garden Gate neighborhood resident of 18 years to express strong opposition to the Mary Ave Villas project in its current form, and to request an immediate halt to the process until all proper procedures are followed.

It is the City’s duty to act transparently and adhere to the law, yet this project appears to have bypassed critical steps. The community has not been given an opportunity to provide meaningful input before the City began designing a structure on what is, in part, our public right-of-way.

Upon reviewing the December 2, 2025, agenda attachments for Item #12, it is evident that the City has not implemented the recommendations of its former City Attorney from 2022. In particular, the City itself acknowledges that several essential steps were overlooked:

The 2022 City Plan clearly stated that the project must follow the notice requirements under the Surplus Land Act (SLA) to qualify for any exemption:
“…the disposition of the property would meet the criteria for ‘exempt surplus land’ if the notice requirements of the Surplus Land Act are followed.”
Under SLA, this requires both public meeting declarations and notification to HCD—neither of which has been done. These requirements are distinct from any Notice of Action exemption.

Additionally, the City neglected to follow a key step outlined in the 2022 plan:
“Following the selection of a qualified housing developer, initiate concurrently the following processes: … A City Council declaration that the site is exempt surplus land.” Furthermore, the City proceeded to create a parcel involving public roads that has not been properly vacated. It is unclear how a housing project can lawfully advance on an invalid parcel.

The December 2, 2025 FAQ responses suggesting that these steps can be completed later are deeply concerning. Moving a project forward without timely and fair public input undermines trust and the principle of transparency. Residents have only recently learned of this project through grassroots efforts, not through official public notice. To date, over 600 residents have signed a petition opposing this project at such a constrained site: https://www.change.org/p/halt-the-mary-avenue-villas-project-at-thisunsuitable-location.

On November 1, 2025, many residents peacefully protested to express their concerns and opposition.

I urge the City Council to act as responsible stewards of public land and community trust. Halt the Mary Ave Villas project immediately, follow the appropriate state laws, and ensure that the public is given a genuine opportunity to participate in this decision before any further action is taken.

Moreover, on behalf of my Lawson Middle Schooler 6th grader, I would like to add that this project would take away a crucial bike lane that is used by children for safe school commutes. This is not the community that Cupertino is and this is not the community me and my daughter want community to become. Cupertino has always been about prioritizing families over developers and big corporate interests and if there is genuine interest to develop low income housing, we fully support that but with adherence to due process and not "giving away" city land in a hush hush manner.

Please respect this huge groundswell of support for scrapping Mary Avenue villas project and use your official post for what the residents actually want.
@Kirsten.

Thanks for the reminder, Unfortunately since I am away on work travel, submitting email comment above.

Thanks
Aditya Agrawal
21345 Rumford Dr. Cupertino, CA 95014
On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 1:46 PM Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Ed,
The Mary Avenue Villas item is included in the December 2 agenda (Item 12) https://cupertino.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1245875&GUID=048C0EBC-7952- 41E2-8120-F93784B5EC5F&Options=info|&Search=.

Regards, Kirsten
Kirsten Squarcia
Interim Deputy City Manager/City Clerk
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408) 777-3225
From: Ed Agrawal <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 10:27 PM
To: Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Cupertino City Council Teleconference Meeting - November 18, 2025 (Meeting Begins at 6:45 p.m.) Confirmation
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Thank you for the update
On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 10:26 PM Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]> wrote:

Good evening, the meeting was ended due to a technical issue with the Zoom feature. A new meeting was scheduled for December 1. A new agenda will be published for that meeting.

Regards, Kirsten
Kirsten Squarcia
Interim Deputy City Manager/City Clerk
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408) 777-3225
On Nov 18, 2025, at 8:46 PM, Ed Agrawal <[email protected]> wrote:

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello
I've tried a few times but seems like I cannot connect back into the meeting.

Are rest of agenda
<Screenshot 2025-11-18 at 8.44.00 PM.png>
items still going to be discussed today or meeting will be adjourned? Thanks
Aditya Agrawal
On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 6:33 PM City Clerks Office <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Aditya,
Thank you for registering for Cupertino City Council Teleconference Meeting - November 18, 2025 (Meeting Begins at 6:45 p.m.). You can find information about this webinar below.

If the meeting does not start exactly on time, we ask that you remain in the waiting room and you will automatically join once the meeting begins. You can also watch the live meeting on the Cupertino City Channel or online at //Cupertino.org/youtube and //Cupertino.org/webcast.

If you would like to display a specific image or document during the meeting, please submit it in advance to [email protected], and it will be displayed when it is your turn to speak. Thank you.

Please submit any questions to: [email protected] You can cancel your registration at any time.

Thank you!
Cupertino City Council Teleconference Meeting -
November 18, 2025 (Meeting Begins at 6:45 p.m.)
Date & Time Nov 18, 2025 06:45 PM Pacific Time (US
and Canada)
Webinar ID 852 1800 8557
Description Live teleconference meeting of the
Cupertino City Council Meeting
scheduled for 6:45 p.m. on Tuesday,
November 18, 2025.

Members of the public who wish to share
documents and other visual material
during the meeting should email them in
advance to [email protected].

Only a first name (or alias) and an email
address are required in order to register
for this event. All other fields are
optional. Thank you.

Add to: Google Calendar

WAYS TO JOIN THIS WEBINAR
Join via audio
US: +16699006833,,85218008557# or
+16694449171,,85218008557#
Or, dial: US: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 669 444 9171 or +1 719 359 4580 or +1 253 205 0468 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1
346 248 7799 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 305 224 1968
or +1 309 205 3325 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 360 209
5623 or +1 386 347 5053 or +1 507 473 4847 or +1 564
217 2000 or +1 646 931 3860 or +1 689 278 1000 or +1
929 205 6099
More International numbers
Webinar
ID:
852 1800 8557
Outlook Calendar(.ICS) Yahoo Calendar
Join from PC, Mac, iPad, or Android
Join Webinar
If the button above does not work, paste this into your browser:
https://cityofcupertino.zoom.us/w/85218008557?tk=mwROLIYHqcal y5A8chqpuhM40UisH6DaXqyqRokm2UU.DQkAAAAT12Od7RZ1Q
U1mbGE2bFFwaUZaQ3l2d0RQbEJnAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA&uuid=WN_RWtLnJG-Q2iTbuR
NcfXX5A
To keep this webinar secure, do not share this link publicly.

Join by SIP
Webinar ID: 852 1800 8557
H.323: 144.195.19.161 (US West)
206.247.11.121 (US East)
115.114.131.7 (India Mumbai)
115.114.115.7 (India Hyderabad)
159.124.15.191 (Amsterdam Netherlands)
159.124.47.249 (Germany)
159.124.104.213 (Australia Sydney)
159.124.74.212 (Australia Melbourne)
159.124.168.213 (Canada Toronto)
159.124.196.25 (Canada Vancouver)
Webinar ID: 852 1800 8557
[email protected]
Or, join by H.323
Zoom.com
55 Almaden Blvd
San Jose, CA 95113
+1.888.799.9666
©2025 Zoom Communications, Inc.

To unsubscribe, [Click here]
From: Jordan Clancy Behmke
To: Public Comments
Subject: Public Comment on Agenda Item 12 For the Dec 2 2025 City Council Meeting Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 3:00:29 PM
Attachments: December 1 2025 Objection to Mary Ave Cupertino Project (Final 12-2-25).pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, and Councilmembers:

Please see the attached as well as the statement below.

I represent Garden Gate Community Neighbors (my “Clients”) and file this objection on their behalf to the proposed Mary Avenue Villas project (the “Project”), located in the Mary Avenue Right-of-Way, APN: 326-27-053 (the “Property”). While my Clients support the idea of the Project (which is to provide affordable housing for the disabled), my Clients oppose this Project at this site, for the reasons set forth below, and hereby request that the City vote no on this Project.

The Project application was formerly submitted on April 3, 2025 by Charities Housing (the “Applicant”) for a 40-unit, affordable housing community, with 19 units reserved for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, developed by Applicant in partnership with the Cupertino Rotary and Housing Choices Coalition. The proposed Project is situated on a 0.79-acre site abutting Highway 85 and 280, across from De Anza College, and adjacent to the Mary Avenue Dog Park, and currently is proposed to take over the public land and right of way on this street.

While my Clients support affordable housing and the reservation of units specifically for disabled, this site is not the right location for this Project. This is an unsuitable location due to the particular layout, location, and environmental issues on this site that put disabled persons and the community at risk and the traffic impact. Further, in its haste to fast track the Project, the City has failed to follow the procedural steps required by law, including but not limited to failing to follow the process required for vacation of public land, failing to follow Street and Highway codes related to abandoning a public right of way, failing to follow Government Code §65402 along with Brown Act requirements.

1. There are environmental risks to the disabled and the Community at this site which have not been addressed by the City or the Applicant.

The contamination at this site makes this an unsuitable location and puts the disabled and community at risk. Three reports have stated that the land is contaminated with unsafe levels of lead and that there are lower concentrations of arsenic and have pesticides 4,4-DDE and 4,4-DDT present. The Subsurface Investigation Report, dated April 4, 2025, and the subsequent report dated April 24, 2025 prepared by Intertek PSI (collectively “Subsurface Investigation Report”) indicated unsafe levels of lead (which are a cause for concern) and arsenic levels above the Construction Workers ESL levels along with detectable levels of pesticides 4,4-DDE and 4,4-DDT on the site. Attached as Exhibit A is a copy of the Subsurface Investigation Report. The Subsurface Investigation Report stated at page 8 “the soil represented by these samples would be classified as hazardous by the State of California.” A Memorandum for Peer Review of Subsurface Investigation Report, Undeveloped Land West of Mary and Parkwood Drive, Cupertino, California, drafted by Baseline Environmental Consulting (“Memorandum”) on May 16, 2025, confirmed the same results and also concluded that the soil would be classified as California hazardous waste, for disposal purposes. Attached as Exhibit B is a copy of the Memorandum. At page 2, the Memorandum clearly states that the lead exceeds Residential ESL and Construction Workers ESL levels.

The Memorandum recommends that further testing be completed and that at minimum remedial actions be taken to prevent risks to residents and the community, like minimizing the volume of soil removed and capping of the lead. However, the report at page 3 states that these “would reduce the likelihood of exposure for future site occupants, this remedial approach is not adequate without appropriate engineering controls, institutional controls, and regulatory oversight to ensure lead impacted soil would not create an exposure concern for future site occupants.” The Memorandum recommends that 1) a Soil Management Plan (“SMP”) and Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan (“SSHSP”) be prepared, the Project applicant enter into a Remedial Action Agreement with the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health to oversee soil remediation at the site. The Subsurface Investigation Report also states that “A SMP and a SSHSP should be prepared prior to site redevelopment to mitigate exposure of construction workers to the lead and arsenic in the soil.” None of these recommendations have been followed and this poses a risk to the community during construction, the neighbors currently living around this site, and to the future site residents.

Given the focus on housing for individuals with disabilities, the City should proceed with an abundance of caution and follow the recommendations of the experts as stated in the above referenced reports and memorandums. The City must require the Applicant to engage the Department of Environmental Health to assess whether the site can be effectively remediated adequately for such future residential use. Individuals with disabilities often have compromised immune systems, making them particularly vulnerable to even low levels of environmental hazards. Without entering into a Remedial Action Agreement with the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health as the recommended action, the Project will fail to effectively address the hazardous lead levels found and put the community and its future inhabitants at risk.

Additionally, an environmental action plan is further necessary to consider how the site’s proximity to Highway 85 and Highway 280 will further cause the accumulation of pollutants at this site. Since the Department of Environmental Health must be engaged to specifically address these concerns and since this has not been done by the Applicant, my Clients urge the City to not approve the lease and disposition agreement with the Applicant. At minimum, the decision should be postponed and the recommendation at the end of this meeting should be for the Applicant to enter into the required Remedial Action Agreement with the Department of Environmental Health.

2. There is a significant impact to traffic in the community which can lead to safety issues and a reduced quality of life for its existing residents.

The impact to traffic will be significant since the Project proposes narrowing the street, the bike path, and the available parking, and there are changes with parking at De Anza College, all of which impacts the quality of life of the existing residents and can lead to accidents as a result of the increased traffic. The transportation assessment, prepared by Hexagon Transport Consultants (the “Transportation Assessment”) and submitted on November 13, 2025, does not account for critical changes that will affect parking in the neighborhood in 2026. Attached as Exhibit C is the Transportation Assessment. Starting January 6, 2026, De Anza College will no longer offer free parking to visitors and will require payment to park (see https://www.deanza.edu/parking/#oneday and https://www.instagram.com/p/DPsXkeTERd-/). This change significantly impacts local parking and traffic on Mary Avenue, as this street has been historically used as overflow parking from De Anza College. Since parking will no longer be free at De Anza College for visitors, there will be an increase of traffic and cars attempting to park on this street all the while the Project will reduce the size of the street, the bike lane, and available parking. While the transportation assessment discusses the impact on festival days at De Anza College it fails to consider these coming changes. The impact on traffic and parking will affect this community negatively and for this reason the City should vote no on approving the lease and disposition agreement with the Applicant. At minimum, the decision should be postponed and the recommendation at the end of this meeting should be for further study to be done to determine how the change in parking at De Anza College will impact this street and community.

Further, there is a potential fire and safety issues that must be assessed. The City has waived the normal setback requirements for this Project to maximize land use on this narrow strip. However, the Project's unique design, intended use, and the site itself poses a fire safety issue. The site causes a reduction in the street size, increases parking, and it borders a sound wall adjacent to Highway 85- all of this may impact emergency response and fire crews in the event of a building fire. Therefore, a special assessment should be conducted under the supervision of the Santa Clara County Fire Department to determine if they can effectively combat a structure fire so close to the sound wall, with the smaller street, and increased traffic and parking. This assessment is critical as a large percentage of these units will be for those who are intellectually and developmentally disabled and the fire department should be engaged to determine if they can safely handle a potential fire at this site and evacuate individuals with disabilities during a fire all while managing the uniqueness of this site against the soundwall, the smaller street, and increased traffic and parking. The traffic and street changes pose a safety issue to all the community that lives on this street and to ensure the safety of future residents, it is crucial that the City and the Applicant do it’s due diligence before the City approves the lease and disposition agreement with the Applicant. Therefore, my Clients urge the City to vote No or to postpone a full vote and require further traffic and fire assessment to address these issues.

3. The City has failed to adhere to the procedural requirements under its municipal code and applicable law.

The Project requires changes to the lot and street which include public land and a right of way and the sale of public land and therefore the City must adhere to its own procedures and municipal codes when making these changes. While there is no timing requirement in some of these codes, approving the Project before completing these procedures is putting the cart before the horse. By delaying initiating the procedural requirements, the City is As these procedural requirements have not been met, my Clients urge the City to vote no at this time so that the procedural requirements for disposing of public land and right of ways can be met.

This Project should not warrant the City abandoning its procedural requirements under the municipal code and applicable law. The City must follow its own code as it relates to vacationing public land (Surplus Land Act Gov’t Code §§54220-54234), changing rights of ways (Streets and Highway Code §8300 et seq), and disposing of public land (Brown Act). The Project requires changes to the lot and street which include public land and a right of way and the sale of public land and therefore the City must adhere to its own procedures and municipal codes when making these changes. While there is no timing requirement in some of these codes, approving the Project before completing these procedures is putting the cart before the horse. As these procedural requirements have not been met, my Clients urge the City to vote no at this time so that the procedural requirements for disposing of public land and right of ways can be met.

Finally, out of an abundance of caution and to avoid the appearance of impropriety and self-dealing, council members who are part of the Rotary Association, which is associating or promoting this Project, should recuse themselves from voting on this Project. All laws related to conflicts of interest should be adhered to and any city council member who has a conflict of interest must recuse themselves from voting on this Project.

4. Council member should vote No on this Project
While affordable housing with reserved spaces for the disabled is a celebrated project for the City, this Project at this site is not the right place for this neighborhood. The City must vote no on approving the lease and disposition agreement with the Applicant. The City and the Applicant should find a better site with less impact to the health and safety of neighbors, construction workers, and its future residences and a site that improves not hurts the quality of life of its surrounding neighborhood.

If the City is not willing to vote no at this time, then the City must delay the vote at this meeting and set a future meeting and require in the interim that the Applicant:
a. enter into a Remedial Action Agreement with the Department of Environmental Health;
b. conduct a further traffic assessment to determine the impact to traffic and parking on this street due to incoming parking changes at De Anza College c. engage the fire department to assess the impact of fire safety services as a result of the site restrictions, the narrower road, and increased traffic/parking on this street
Additionally, in the interim, the City must initiate the procedural requirements for vacationing the right of way and public land, and disposition of public land so that these requirements are met and open for public comment before the Project is approved.

Sincerely,
Jordan C. Behmke, Esq.

Attorney at Law
Mosaic Law
6203 San Ignacio Avenue
Suite 110
San Jose, CA 95119
Phone and Text: (408) 987-6399
Fax: 408-987-6397
email: [email protected]
website: www.mosaiclawusa.com
Se Habla Español
Nous Parlons Français
Please follow up all voicemails with an email or text message.

Office Hours: By Appointment Only. Appointments are available at my office or in any location, of your choosing, in the Bay Area.

General Disclaimer: No attorney-client relationship is intended to be established or should be inferred by a consultation, regardless of whether the consultation is by phone, email, or in person. Legal opinions provided in the spur of the moment during a consultation, with limited background information, and without research should not constitute legal guidance for non-trivial legal matters. Until you sign a retainer agreement, and a retainer paid, no attorney-client relationship exists. However, the information provided by you during the initial consultation is confidential under attorney-client privilege. Again, I am not your attorney until you retain me, or someone from this firm, which requires a signed retainer agreement by both parties, and payment of a retainer.

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail (including attachments) is intended solely for the use of the addressee hereof. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are prohibited from reading, disclosing, reproducing, distributing, disseminating, or otherwise using this transmission. If you have received this message in error, please promptly notify the sender by e-mail and immediately delete this message. This email and its attachments are subject to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§2510-2521. The information herein is confidential, privileged & exempt from disclosure under applicable law.

The originator of this e-mail does not represent, warrant or guarantee that the integrity of this communication is protected or that this communication is free of errors, viruses or other defects. Delivery of this message or any portions herein to any person other than the intended recipient is not intended to waive any right or privilege 6203 San Ignacio Avenue, Suite 110, San Jose, Ca 95119
P: (408) 987-6399; [email protected]

Page 1 of 4 ends

December 2, 2025
VIA EMAIL ([email protected])
Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore and Councilmembers
City Council of Cupertino

CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3202
Re: Objection to Mary Avenue Villas Project, Action Item 12 Special Meeting on December 2, 2025 at 2:00 p.m.

APN: 326-27-053 (the “Property”)
Dear Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, and Councilmembers:

I represent Garden Gate Community Neighbors (my “Clients”) and file this objection on their behalf to the proposed Mary Avenue Villas project (the “Project”), located in the Mary Avenue Right-of-Way, APN:
326-27-053 (the “Property”). While my Clients support the idea of the Project (which is to provide affordable housing for the disabled), my Clients oppose this Project at this site, for the reasons set forth below, and hereby request that the City vote no on this Project.

1. There are environmental risks to the disabled and the Community at this site which have not been addressed by the City or the Applicant.

The contamination at this site makes this an unsuitable location and puts the disabled and community at risk. Three reports have stated that the land is contaminated with unsafe levels of lead and that there are lower concentrations of arsenic and have pesticides 4,4-DDE and 4,4-DDT present. The Subsurface Investigation Report, dated April 4, 2025, and the subsequent report dated April 24, 2025 prepared by Intertek PSI (collectively “Subsurface Investigation Report”) indicated unsafe levels of lead (which are a cause for concern) and arsenic levels above the Construction Workers ESL levels along with detectable levels of pesticides 4,4-DDE and 4,4-DDT on the site. Attached as Exhibit A is a copy of the Subsurface Investigation Report. The Subsurface Investigation Report stated at page 8 “the soil represented by these samples would be classified as hazardous by the State of California.” A Memorandum for Peer Review of Subsurface Investigation Report, Undeveloped Land West of Mary and Parkwood Drive, Cupertino, California, drafted by Baseline Environmental Consulting (“Memorandum”) on May 16, 2025, confirmed 6203 San Ignacio Avenue, Suite 110, San Jose, Ca 95119
P: (408) 987-6399; [email protected]

Page 2 of 4 ends

the same results and also concluded that the soil would be classified as California hazardous waste, for disposal purposes. Attached as Exhibit B is a copy of the Memorandum. At page 2, the Memorandum clearly states that the lead exceeds Residential ESL and Construction Workers ESL levels.

2. There is a significant impact to traffic in the community which can lead to safety issues and a reduced quality of life for its existing residents.

The impact to traffic will be significant since the Project proposes narrowing the street, the bike path, and the available parking, and there are changes with parking at De Anza College, all of which impacts the quality of life of the existing residents and can lead to accidents as a result of the increased traffic. The transportation assessment, prepared by Hexagon Transport Consultants (the “Transportation Assessment”) and submitted on November 13, 2025, does not account for critical changes that will affect parking in the neighborhood in 2026. Attached as Exhibit C is the Transportation Assessment. Starting January 6, 2026, De Anza College will no longer offer free parking to visitors and will require payment to park (see https://www.deanza.edu/parking/#oneday and https://www.instagram.com/p/DPsXkeTERd-/). This change significantly impacts local parking and traffic on Mary Avenue, as this street has been historically used as overflow parking from De Anza College. Since parking will no longer be free at De Anza College for visitors, there will be an increase of traffic and cars attempting to park on this street all the while the Project will reduce the size of the street, the bike lane, and available parking. While the transportation assessment discusses the impact on festival days at De Anza College it fails to consider these coming changes. The impact on traffic and parking will affect this community negatively and for this reason the 6203 San Ignacio Avenue, Suite 110, San Jose, Ca 95119
P: (408) 987-6399; [email protected]

Page 3 of 4 ends

City should vote no on approving the lease and disposition agreement with the Applicant. At minimum, the decision should be postponed and the recommendation at the end of this meeting should be for further study to be done to determine how the change in parking at De Anza College will impact this street and community.

3. The City has failed to adhere to the procedural requirements under its municipal code and applicable law.

As these procedural requirements have not been met, my Clients urge the City to vote no at this time so that the procedural requirements for disposing of public land and right of ways can be met.

4. Council member should vote No on this Project
6203 San Ignacio Avenue, Suite 110, San Jose, Ca 95119
P: (408) 987-6399; [email protected]

Page 4 of 4 ends

While affordable housing with reserved spaces for the disabled is a celebrated project for the City, this Project at this site is not the right place for this neighborhood. The City must vote no on approving the lease and disposition agreement with the Applicant. The City and the Applicant should find a better site with less impact to the health and safety of neighbors, construction workers, and its future residences and a site that improves not hurts the quality of life of its surrounding neighborhood.

If the City is not willing to vote no at this time, then the City must delay the vote at this meeting and set a future meeting and require in the interim that the Applicant:
a. enter into a Remedial Action Agreement with the Department of Environmental Health; b. conduct a further traffic assessment to determine the impact to traffic and parking on this street due to incoming parking changes at De Anza College c. engage the fire department to assess the impact of fire safety services as a result of the site restrictions, the narrower road, and increased traffic/parking on this street Additionally, in the interim, the City must initiate the procedural requirements for vacationing the right of way and public land, and disposition of public land so that these requirements are met and open for public comment before the Project is approved.

Sincerely,
Jordan Behmke, Esq.

Principal Attorney
Enc.

Exhibit A Subsurface Investigation Report
Exhibit B- Memorandum
Exhibit C- Transportation Assessment
cc. Clients
Exhibit A
Subsurface Investigation Report
Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development
Mary Avenue
Cupertino, California
Prepared for
Charities Housing
1400 Parkmoor Avenue, Suite 190
San Jose, California 95116
Prepared by
Professional Service Industries, Inc.
4703 Tidewater Avenue, Suite B
Oakland, California 94601
April 24, 2025
PSI Project Number: 0575-2869
0575-2869 – Subsurface Investigation
Charities Housing, Cupertino, California
April 24, 2025
June
www.intertek.com/building/environmental

TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION.............................................. i

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION............................................................................. 1

1.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT......................................................................................... 1

1.3 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING......................................................................................... 1

2.0 SOIL INVESTIGATION............................................................................................................... 2

2.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK................................................................................. 2

2.2 PRE-FIELD ACTIVITIES................................................................................................... 2

2.3 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION.......................................................................................... 2

3.0 ANALYTICAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION................................................................................ 4

3.1 SOIL ANALYICIAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION............................................................... 4

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................ 5

FIGURES
FIGURE 1: SITE LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 2: SITE PLAN AND BORING LOCATION MAP
FIGURE
TABLE 1: SOIL ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: CITY OF CUPERTINO ENCROACHMENT PERMIT
APPENDIX B: LABORATORY REPORT
0575-2869- Subsurface Investigation
Charities Housing, Cupertino, California
April 24, 2025
Page i

STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION The information provided in this Subsurface Investigation Report prepared by Professional Service Industries, Inc. (PSI), Project Number 0575-2869, is intended exclusively for Charities Housing for the evaluation of soil, as it pertains to the subject property in Cupertino, California at the time the activities were conducted. No unnamed third party shall have the right to rely on this report without the express written consent of PSI. The professional services provided have been performed in accordance with practices generally accepted by other environmental professionals, geologists, hydrologists, hydrogeologists, engineers, and environmental scientists practicing in this field. No other warranty, either expressed or implied, is made. As with all subsurface investigations, there is no guarantee that the work conducted has identified any and all sources or locations of hazardous substances or chemicals in the soil.

This report is issued with the understanding that Charities Housing is responsible for ensuring that the information contained in this report is brought to the attention of the appropriate regulatory agency. This report has been reviewed by a geologist who is registered in the State of California and whos.e signature and license number appear below.

Project Geologist
Frank R. Poss
Department Manager
Principal Consultant
www.intertek.com/building/environmental
0575-2869 – Subsurface Investigation
Charities Housing, Cupertino, California
April 24, 2025

Page 1 ends

www.intertek.com/building/environmental

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Professional Service Industries, Inc. (PSI) was retained by Charities Housing to evaluate the possible impact to the near surface soils at the subject property associated with the former agricultural use of the subject property and the proximity to a highway.

1.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The subject property is located on the west side of Mary Avenue, at its intersection with Parkwood Drive in Cupertino California (see Figure 1 - Site Location Map). The subject property does not currently have an address but can be identified as a portion of Santa Clara County Assessor Parcel Number 326-27-030.

The site is a relatively level, roughly rectangular‐shaped property that measures about 0.79 acres in plan area and is bounded by Mary Avenue to the east and Highway 85 to the west. At the time of our study, the subject property existed as undeveloped land, landscaping, and asphalt-paved parking (see Figure 2 - Site Plan and Vicinity Map).

1.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Redevelopment of the subject property will include grading of the berm in front of the Caltrans Highway 85 soundwall along with removal of trees and vegetation. The subject property will include two buildings, each consisting of two stories and twenty (20) units, as well as a parking lot with approximately twenty-two (22) spaces including accessible and EV charging spaces.

1.3 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared for the subject property (PSI, June 11, 2024), indicates that the property was historically used for agricultural purposes from at least 1939 through the late 1960s. Additionally, the subject property is adjacent to a freeway that may have impacted the subject property with aerially deposited lead (ADL). The ESA did not identify any recognized environmental conditions (RECs), historical RECs, or controlled RECS on the subject property and PSI recommended no further investigation for the subject property.

However, PSI did identify the historical agricultural use and the ADL as environmental concerns for possible redevelopment of the subject property. Based on the proposed redevelopment of the property, Charities Housing determined that a subsurface investigation was prudent and contracted PSI to complete this investigation.
0575-2869 – Subsurface Investigation
Charities Housing, Cupertino, California
April 24, 2025

Page 2 ends

www.intertek.com/building/environmental

2.0 SOIL INVESTIGATION

2.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK
The soil investigation at the site was performed to evaluate the nature and extent of potential lead and/or pesticide impact in the surface and near-surface soil that may have resulted from aerially deposited lead and from historical agricultural site use and the potential threat to human health associated with the intrusive, groundbreaking work that is proposed as part of the site development.

Our scope of work included advancing six soil borings, sampling of soil from each boring at 0.5 and 2 feet below the ground surface (bgs), analysis of samples, and preparation of this report.

All field work was performed under the supervision of a State of California Professional Geologist. A detailed description of the scope of work and methodology used is presented in the sections below. The scope of work, including the number and location of samples and the analyses performed, was in general accordance with the DTSC 2008 Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties.

2.2 PRE-FIELD ACTIVITIES
At least 2 days prior to the commencement of drilling activities, PSI staked the proposed boring locations, marked the site with white paint and contacted Underground Service Alert (USA), a public utility locating service, to locate public utilities on or adjacent to the subject site. The USA inquiry identification number (or Ticket Number) for the utility locate request is #2025031202827.

Additionally, PSI obtained an encroachment permit from the City of Cupertino to complete the borings within the public right-of-way (Permit Number PW-2025-0143). A copy of the permit is presented in Appendix A.

2.3 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
Soil Borings
On March 18, 2025, six soil borings were advanced to a depth of 2 feet bgs by PSI personnel using a 3-inch diameter hand auger mounted on a T-bar handle. Three borings (B1 through B3) were advanced within soil-surfaced landscaped areas, and three (B4 through B6) were advanced in paved areas of the existing parking lot. Where required (in the 3 paved areas), Safe2Core Inc., a paving and coring contractor, was utilized to remove the asphalt pavement section to allow access for our hand-auger and sampling equipment. The locations of the soil boring are presented in Figure 2.
0575-2869 – Subsurface Investigation
Charities Housing, Cupertino, California
April 24, 2025

Page 3 ends

www.intertek.com/building/environmental
Due to elevated lead concentrations detected in the soil sample from B2 at 2 feet, PSI returned to the subject property on April 11, 2025 to determine if those elevated concentrations are a localized condition. Two additional soil borings, B7 and B8, were advanced to a depth of 2 feet bgs within the soil-surfaced landscaped area approximately 10 feet north and south of B2, respectively. The borings were advanced by PSI personnel using a 3-inch diameter hand auger mounted on a T-bar handle. A description of the soil sampling, equipment decontamination, and backfill of the eight borings is presented in the following sections.

Soil Sampling
Soil samples were collected from the surface and subsurface at each boring, at depths of 0.5 and 2 feet bgs, respectively. Once a boring was advanced to the desired sample depth, a grab sample was collected from the auger bucket into a new 2-inch diameter, 6-inch-long stainless-steel soil tube. Once the sample tube was filled, the ends of the tube were sealed with Teflon sheets and capped with polyethylene end caps. PSI personnel wore nitrile gloves during sample collection, changing to a new pair for each sample collected. The samples were immediately labeled and then placed in a chilled cooler, pending delivery to the laboratory for analysis.

Groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings, with the Phase I ESA report for the property indicating that the depth to groundwater is approximately 60 to 100 feet bgs.

Equipment Decontamination
Decontamination procedures were implemented to maintain sample integrity and to prevent cross-contamination between sampling locations. The hand-auger bucket and T-bar were decontaminated before sampling, between samples and between boring locations by washing with a non-phosphate detergent and rinsing with de-ionized water.

Backfill of Borings
At the completion of sampling at each hand-auger boring, PSI backfilled the five holes located in the landscaped areas with hand-compacted soil cuttings to match the adjacent surface grades.

Safe2Core Inc. backfilled the three holes in the paved areas and restored the pavement surfaces in accordance with the City of Cupertino encroachment permit requirements. To avoid leaving any holes open that could cause damage or injury to vehicles, pedestrians or animals, the cores and borings were backfilled within a day of drilling. On April 21, 2025, PSI received email notification from the City of Cupertino Public Works Department that their inspector signed off on the pavement restoration.
0575-2869 – Subsurface Investigation
Charities Housing, Cupertino, California
April 24, 2025

Page 4 ends

www.intertek.com/building/environmental

3.0 ANALYTICAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The soil samples were submitted to SunStar Laboratories, Inc. of Lake Forest, California, a California certified environmental laboratory, under strict chain-of-custody protocol. Soil samples were delivered to the laboratory within two days of sample collection.

3.1 SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The soil samples collected from each boring (a total of 12 soil samples) were submitted for analyses for the following:
• Organochlorine pesticides according to EPA Method 8081 • Lead and arsenic according to EPA Method 6010
Four additional soil samples were analyzed only for lead according to EPA Method 6010.

A summary of the soil analytical results are as follows:
• Arsenic was detected in three soil samples with concentrations ranging from 3.51 to 7.25 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg).
• Lead was detected in eleven of the soil samples with concentrations ranging from 5.07 to 680 mg/kg. The lead concentrations are typical of background conditions with the exception of the soil sample collected from B2 at 2 feet. • 4,4-DDE was detected in two soil samples (B3-0.5 and B3-2) at concentrations of 0.047 and 0.061 mg/kg, respectively.
• 4,4-DDT was detected in two soil samples (B3-0.5 and B3-2) at concentrations of 0.0089 and 0.020 mg/kg, respectively.

A copy of the laboratory analytical reports are included in Appendix B and the analysis results are summarized in Table 1.

The soil sample results were compared to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Board Environmental Screening Levels for Residential – Shallow Soil Exposure (ESL-R) and to the RWQCBESL for Construction Workers (ESL-CW). None of the concentrations of the tested constituents were detected at greater than their respective ESL-R or ESL-CW with the exception of the following.
• The arsenic concentrations detected were below established background arsenic concentration for Santa Clara Valley of up to 20 mg/kg (“Establishing Background Arsenic in 0575-2869 – Subsurface Investigation
Charities Housing, Cupertino, California
April 24, 2025

Page 5 ends

www.intertek.com/building/environmental
Soil of the Urbanized San Francisco Bay Region,” by Dylan Duverge, December 2011).

Based on this information, Arsenic is not considered a contaminant of concern at the subject property. The detected arsenic concentrations were above the ESL-CW, so a Soil Management Plan (SMP) and a Site Specific Health and Safety Plan (SSHSP) should be prepared prior to conducting any soil excavation as part of redevelopment of the subject property.
• Only one of the lead concentrations was above the ESL-R (B2-2). The results from the soil samples collected from borings B7 and B8, which show background concentrations of lead, effectively bound the elevated detections at B2, indicating that the B2 result as a localized condition. If not below a proposed building, as the new building will create a cap to eliminate contact with lead impacted soil, the soil represented by this sample should be excavated and removed from the property. For the proposed redevelopment, a SMP and SSHSP should be prepared that have appropriate stipulations associated with the lead impacted soil.

To evaluate soil disposal, should the soil be defined as a waste, the results of the soil analyses were compared to California Code of Regulations Title 22 List of Inorganic, Persistent, and Bioaccumulative Toxic Substances and their soluble threshold limit concentrations (STLC) and total threshold limit concentrations (TTLC) values. None of these samples had a concentration greater than their respective TTLC. However, the total lead concentration in soil sample B2-2 (680 mg/kg) was greater than the screening criteria of ten times the STLC of 5 milligrams per liter (mg/l).

Therefore, a waste extraction test (WET) and Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Potential (TCLP) were performed on this sample to determine its soluble lead concentration. The results of the analyses indicated that the soluble lead concentration was greater than the STLC after a WET, but below the soluble lead concentration after a TCLP. The soil represented by these samples would be classified as hazardous by the State of California upon excavation and classification as a waste material.
0575-2869 – Subsurface Investigation
Charities Housing, Cupertino, California
April 24, 2025

Page 6 ends

www.intertek.com/building/environmental

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The results of the subsurface investigation are summarized below. • Low concentrations of lead, arsenic, and organochlorine pesticides were found across the subject property with one soil sample having elevated lead concentrations. Based on the concentrations detected, arsenic and organochlorine pesticides are not contaminants of concern, while lead is considered to be a contaminant of concern. • Only one soil sample had a total lead concentration above the ESL-R (B2-2). If not below a proposed building, as the new building will create a cap to eliminate contact with lead impacted soil, the soil represented by this sample should be excavated and removed from the property. Lead in one soil sample and arsenic in three soil samples were above the ESL-CW. A SMP and a SSHSP should be prepared prior to site redevelopment to mitigate exposure of construction workers to the lead and arsenic in soil. • To evaluate whether the soil represented by soil sample B2-2 would be a hazardous waste, when excavated, the soil sample was analyzed for soluble lead by the WET and TCLP methods. The results of the analyses indicated that the soluble lead concentration was greater than the STLC after a WET, but below the soluble lead concentration after a TCLP.

The soil represented by this sample would be classified as hazardous by the State of California upon excavation and classification as a waste material. www.intertek.com/building

FIGURES

www.intertek.com/building
TABLE
Boring
Number
Sample
Depth (feet) Arsenic Lead gamma Chlordane alpha Chlordane Dieldrin 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDT B1 0.5 7.25 10.4 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 2 <2.0 6.59 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
B2 0.5 3.93 31.0 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 2 3.51 680 (18) {1.1} <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 B3 0.5 <2.0 22.8 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.047 <0.005 0.0089 2 <2.0 10.3 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.061 <0.005 0.020
B4 0.5 <2.0 <3.0 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 2 <2.0 <3.0 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
B5 0.5 <4.0 <6.0 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
2 <4.0 <6.0 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
B6 0.5 <4.0 <6.0 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
2 <4.0 5.07 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
B7 0.5 NA 8.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA
2 NA 5.4 NA NA NA NA NA NA
B8 0.5 NA 7.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA
2 NA 5.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA
RWQCB ESLs

0.067 80 0.48 0.48 0.037 1.8 2.7 1.9

0.31 320 2.2 2.2 0.16 8.3 12 8.5

2.0 160 14 14 1.1 57 81 57
Notes: All samples from borings B1-B6 collected on March 18, 2025. Alls samples from borings B7 and B8 collected on April 11, 2025 All concentrations are reported in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) with the exception of the WET and TCLP results, which are in milligrams per liter (mg/L). (18) = Soluble lead concentration after a WET; {1.1} = Soluble lead concentration after a TCLP.

NA - Not Analyzed
< = Not detected above the reporting limit indicated.

RWQCB ESLs = Regional Water Quality Control Board Environmental Screening Levels (January 2019, rev. 2).

Detections are indicated in bold. Concentrations that exceed the residential ESL are shaded.

Boring Locations are presented in Figure 2.

Construction Worker
Commercial
TABLE 1

SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS - SOIL
Residential
www.intertek.com/building

APPENDIX A

CITY OF CUPERTINO ENCROACHMENT PERMIT

SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
☐ Work hours limited to Monday – Friday: ☐ 7:00 a.m. ☐ 8:00 a.m. to ☐ 4:30 p.m. ☐ 6:00 p.m. ☐ Work hours in pavement limited to: ☐ 8:00 a.m. ☐ 9:30 a.m. to ☐ 3:30 p.m. ☐ 4:30 p.m. ☐ Any violation of working hours shall result in “STOP WORK” notice ☐ Two lanes of traffic to be maintained at all times
☐ Permanent paving must be installed WITHIN 5 WORKING DAYS after completion, Traffic markings and bike lane markings to be replaced within 5 days of pavement restoration.
☐ Pavement delineation or signs damaged during construction shall be replaced in kind ☐ Pavement section shall match existing
☐ Street Cut Moratorium Applies (CMC 14.08.040)
☐ Slurry Seal Required ☐ Half Width ☐ Full Width ☐ ȱ¢ȱȱȱ¡ȱȱŘȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱentire excavation in sheets. ☐ All trenching shall be backfilled to a minimum of 95% relative compaction ☐ Trench plates in the travel way shall be traffic rated, properly secured and shall be recessed upon request. See counter-sink steel plate requirements attached.
☐ If trench is 3’ of less from Lip of Gutter, contractor shall repave to Lip of Gutter. ☐ Jobsite shall be properly posted 48 hours in advance. Parking may not be restricted on Saturday or Sunday. No-Parking signs may not be posted more than 5 days before the start of work, may not refer to towing away, must be removed after the project is completed, and must not cover a period of more than 3 weeks. No-Parking signs must include the project's permit number, construction dates, project description, and contact information for the responsible party.
☐ BMP Sheet Attached
☐
☐
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
1) The Public Works Inspector of the City of Cupertino, (408) 205-6326 or (408) 777-3354, shall be notified at least 48 hours prior to beginning work in the public Right-of-Way or requesting inspection of work. After the work is completed, notify the Public Works Inspector to schedule a final inspection.
2) A copy of this permit must be kept on the job site.
3) The applicant shall notify County Communications, (408) 299-2501, at least 24 hours prior to any work in the traveled way section of a street. 4) Permittee shall employ construction best management practices which will prevent pollutants such as mud, silt, chemical residue, and washings from concrete saw-cutting from entering storm drains. Any spills or discharges that could potentially or actually enter a storm drain or receiving water, must be immediately reported to the City (408-777-3354). See Construction Best Management practices attachment. 5) The applicant agrees that if the encroachment for which this permit is issued which shall at any time in the future interfere with the use, repair, improvement, widening, or change of grade of any street, roadway, highway, sidewalk, curb, drain, or Right-of-Way, applicant or his successor or assigns, shall within 14 days after receipt of written notice from the Director of Public Works to do so, at its own expense either remove such encroachment subject to approval from the Director, or relocate to a site which may be designated by the Director. Any encroachment removed by the City will not be replaced.
6) To the fullest extent allowed by law, PERMITEE and CONTRACTOR shall indemnify and hold harmless CITY, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, officials, agents, employees, servants, consultants and volunteers (hereinafter, “Indemnitees”) from and against any liability, loss, damage, expense, and cost (including reasonable legal fees and costs of litigation or arbitration), resulting from injury to or death of any person, damage to property, or liability for other claims, stop notices, demands, causes of actions and actions, arising out of or in any way related to Contractor’s performance or nonperformance of his/her duties under this Agreement, or from negligent acts or omissions or willful misconduct of Contractor, its agents, employees, or subcontractors. Contractor shall, at his/her own cost and expense, defend any and all claims, actions, suits or legal proceedings that may be brought against the City or any of the Indemnitees (with council acceptable to City) in connection with this Permit or arising out of Developer’s performance or nonperformance of his/her duties and obligations hereunder, except to the extent any of the foregoing is caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of the CITY or the CITY’S agents, employees and independent contractors. 7) Should the Permittee provide services which are subject to the City’s Franchise ordinance, Permittee agrees to pay any applicable City franchise fee.
8) This encroachment permit shall be terminable at the sole discretion of the City upon 30 days written notice to the Permittee. 9) The applicant’s contractor shall carry at all times commercial general liability insurance with a combined single limit of $2.0 million per occurrence;$4.0 million aggregate; and provide a Certificate of Insurance and Endorsement naming the City as Additional Insured. Insurers must be licensed to do business within the State of California and have a current Best’s Guide Rating of A, Class VII or better or that is otherwise acceptable to the City.

Insurance shall be primary and non-contributory.
10) All work within the public Right of Way must be completed by a contractor who holds a current Class A or appropriate Class C license and a current City of Cupertino business license.
11) Permittee and Contractor shall comply with Chapter 11.32 of the Cupertino Municipal Code "Truck Traffic Routes" (See attached Truck Traffic Restrictions Map). No person shall operate or drive any truck that exceeds a gross weight of three tons between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:30 am or 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. on the following roadway segments:
a. any roadway which runs contiguous to and is within 500 feet of any public school (excluding Homestead Rd and Bollinger Rd) b. McClellan Road, between Stelling Road and Bubb Road.

Potholes and bore pits shall be filled to grade with cutback at end of each work day. "Top hat" plates may not be used on public streets.

Other:
www.intertek.com/building

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY REPORT
25712 Commercentre Drive
Lake Forest, California 92630
949.297.5020 Phone
949.297.5027 Fax
PSI -- Oakland
RE: Charities - Cupertino
Oakland, CA 94601
4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B
Frank Poss
Lena Davidkov
Project Manager
Enclosed are the results of analyses for samples received by the laboratory on 03/20/25 10:44. If you have any questions concerning this report, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,
01 April 2025
Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

ANALYTICAL REPORT FOR SAMPLES
Date Received
B1-0.5 T251304-01 Soil 03/18/25 08:24 03/20/25 10:44
B1-2 T251304-02 Soil 03/18/25 08:32 03/20/25 10:44
B2-0.5 T251304-03 Soil 03/18/25 08:50 03/20/25 10:44
B2-2 T251304-04 Soil 03/18/25 08:58 03/20/25 10:44
B3-0.5 T251304-05 Soil 03/18/25 09:25 03/20/25 10:44
B3-2 T251304-06 Soil 03/18/25 09:30 03/20/25 10:44
B4-0.5 T251304-07 Soil 03/18/25 09:48 03/20/25 10:44
B4-2 T251304-08 Soil 03/18/25 10:00 03/20/25 10:44
B5-0.5 T251304-09 Soil 03/18/25 10:38 03/20/25 10:44
B5-2 T251304-10 Soil 03/18/25 10:50 03/20/25 10:44
B6-0.5 T251304-11 Soil 03/18/25 11:47 03/20/25 10:44
B6-2 T251304-12 Soil 03/18/25 12:00 03/20/25 10:44
Lena Davidkov, Project Manager
SunStar Laboratories, Inc. The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.

Page 1 of 23 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

DETECTIONS SUMMARY
Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method
B1-0.5 T251304-01
Notes
Reporting
Sample ID:

Arsenic 7.25 2.00 mg/kg EPA 6010b
Lead 10.4 3.00 mg/kg EPA 6010b
Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method
B1-2 T251304-02
Notes
Reporting
Sample ID:

Lead 6.59 3.00 mg/kg EPA 6010b
Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method
B2-0.5 T251304-03
Notes
Reporting
Sample ID:

Arsenic 3.93 2.00 mg/kg EPA 6010b
Lead 31.0 3.00 mg/kg EPA 6010b
Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method
B2-2 T251304-04
Notes
Reporting
Sample ID:

Arsenic 3.51 2.00 mg/kg EPA 6010b
Lead 680 3.00 mg/kg EPA 6010b
Lead 1.1 0.10 mg/l EPA 1311
Lead 18 0.025 mg/l STLC Waste Extraction Test
Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method
B3-0.5 T251304-05
Notes
Reporting
Sample ID:

Lead 22.8 3.00 mg/kg EPA 6010b
4,4¥-DDE 47 5.0 ug/kg EPA 8081A
4,4¥-DDT 8.9 5.0 ug/kg EPA 8081A
Lena Davidkov, Project Manager
SunStar Laboratories, Inc. The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.

Page 2 of 23 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method
B3-2 T251304-06
Notes
Reporting
Sample ID:

Lead 10.3 3.00 mg/kg EPA 6010b
4,4¥-DDE 61 5.0 ug/kg EPA 8081A
4,4¥-DDT 20 5.0 ug/kg EPA 8081A
Sample ID: B4-0.5 Laboratory ID: T251304-07
No Results Detected
Sample ID: B4-2 Laboratory ID: T251304-08
No Results Detected
Sample ID: B5-0.5 Laboratory ID: T251304-09
No Results Detected
Sample ID: B5-2 Laboratory ID: T251304-10
No Results Detected
Sample ID: B6-0.5 Laboratory ID: T251304-11
No Results Detected
Lena Davidkov, Project Manager
SunStar Laboratories, Inc. The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.

Page 3 of 23 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method
B6-2 T251304-12
Notes
Reporting
Sample ID:

Lead 5.07 3.00 mg/kg EPA 6010b
Lena Davidkov, Project Manager
SunStar Laboratories, Inc. The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.

Page 4 of 23 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

PSI -- Oakland
4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B 575-2869
Frank Poss
Charities - Cupertino
Oakland CA, 94601 04/01/25 15:24
25712 Commercentre Drive
Lake Forest, California 92630
949.297.5020 Phone
949.297.5027 Fax
Analyte Result Limit Batch
Reporting
Units Dilution Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
B1-0.5
T251304-01 (Soil)
SunStar Laboratories, Inc.

Metals by EPA 6010B
Arsenic 7.25 2.00 mg/kg 1 25C0360 03/20/25 03/21/25 EPA 6010b Lead 10.4 3.00 " " " " " "
Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA Method 8081A
alpha-BHC ND 5.0 ug/kg 1 25C0358 03/25/25 03/26/25 EPA 8081A gamma-BHC (Lindane) ND 5.0 " " " " " "
beta-BHC ND 5.0 " " " " " "
delta-BHC ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Heptachlor ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Aldrin ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Heptachlor epoxide ND 5.0 " " " " " "
gamma-Chlordane ND 5.0 " " " " " "
alpha-Chlordane ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Endosulfan I ND 5.0 " " " " " "
4,4¥-DDE ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Dieldrin ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Endrin ND 5.0 " " " " " "
4,4¥-DDD ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Endosulfan II ND 5.0 " " " " " "
4,4¥-DDT ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Endrin aldehyde ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Endosulfan sulfate ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Methoxychlor ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Endrin ketone ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Toxaphene ND 20 " " " " " "
Surrogate: Tetrachloro-meta-xylene 52.8 % 35-140 " " " " Surrogate: Decachlorobiphenyl 18.3 % 35-140 " " " " S-GC Lena Davidkov, Project Manager
SunStar Laboratories, Inc. The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.

Page 5 of 23 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Metals by EPA 6010B
Arsenic ND 2.00 mg/kg 1 25C0360 03/20/25 03/21/25 EPA 6010b Lead 6.59 3.00 " " " " " "
Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA Method 8081A
alpha-BHC ND 5.0 ug/kg 1 25C0358 03/25/25 03/26/25 EPA 8081A gamma-BHC (Lindane) ND 5.0 " " " " " "
beta-BHC ND 5.0 " " " " " "
delta-BHC ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Heptachlor ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Aldrin ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Heptachlor epoxide ND 5.0 " " " " " "
gamma-Chlordane ND 5.0 " " " " " "
alpha-Chlordane ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Endosulfan I ND 5.0 " " " " " "
4,4¥-DDE ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Dieldrin ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Endrin ND 5.0 " " " " " "
4,4¥-DDD ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Endosulfan II ND 5.0 " " " " " "
4,4¥-DDT ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Endrin aldehyde ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Endosulfan sulfate ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Methoxychlor ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Endrin ketone ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Toxaphene ND 20 " " " " " "
Surrogate: Tetrachloro-meta-xylene 38.2 % 35-140 " " " " Surrogate: Decachlorobiphenyl 15.7 % 35-140 " " " " S-GC Lena Davidkov, Project Manager
SunStar Laboratories, Inc. The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.

Page 6 of 23 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Metals by EPA 6010B
Arsenic 3.93 2.00 mg/kg 1 25C0360 03/20/25 03/21/25 EPA 6010b Lead 31.0 3.00 " " " " " "
Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA Method 8081A
alpha-BHC ND 5.0 ug/kg 1 25C0358 03/25/25 03/26/25 EPA 8081A gamma-BHC (Lindane) ND 5.0 " " " " " "
beta-BHC ND 5.0 " " " " " "
delta-BHC ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Heptachlor ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Aldrin ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Heptachlor epoxide ND 5.0 " " " " " "
gamma-Chlordane ND 5.0 " " " " " "
alpha-Chlordane ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Endosulfan I ND 5.0 " " " " " "
4,4¥-DDE ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Dieldrin ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Endrin ND 5.0 " " " " " "
4,4¥-DDD ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Endosulfan II ND 5.0 " " " " " "
4,4¥-DDT ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Endrin aldehyde ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Endosulfan sulfate ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Methoxychlor ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Endrin ketone ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Toxaphene ND 20 " " " " " "
Surrogate: Tetrachloro-meta-xylene 46.0 % 35-140 " " " " Surrogate: Decachlorobiphenyl 13.6 % 35-140 " " " " S-GC Lena Davidkov, Project Manager
SunStar Laboratories, Inc. The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.

Page 7 of 23 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Metals by EPA 6010B
Arsenic 3.51 2.00 mg/kg 1 25C0360 03/20/25 03/21/25 EPA 6010b Lead 680 3.00 " " " " " "
TCLP Metals by 6000/7000 Series Methods
Lead 1.1 0.10 mg/l 1 25C0499 03/28/25 03/31/25 EPA 1311 STLC Metals by 6000/7000 Series Methods
STLC Waste
Extraction
Test
Lead 18 0.025 mg/l 1 25C0502 03/28/25 03/31/25
Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA Method 8081A
alpha-BHC ND 50 ug/kg 10 25C0358 03/25/25 03/26/25 EPA 8081A R-07 gamma-BHC (Lindane) ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
beta-BHC ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
delta-BHC ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
Heptachlor ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
Aldrin ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
Heptachlor epoxide ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
gamma-Chlordane ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
alpha-Chlordane ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
Endosulfan I ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
4,4¥-DDE ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
Dieldrin ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
Endrin ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
4,4¥-DDD ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
Endosulfan II ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
4,4¥-DDT ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
Endrin aldehyde ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
Endosulfan sulfate ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
Methoxychlor ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
Endrin ketone ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
Toxaphene ND 200 " " " " " " R-07
Surrogate: Tetrachloro-meta-xylene 47.0 % 35-140 " " " " R-07 Lena Davidkov, Project Manager
SunStar Laboratories, Inc. The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.

Page 8 of 23 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA Method 8081A
Surrogate: Decachlorobiphenyl 19.3 % 35-140 25C0358 03/25/25 03/26/25 EPA 8081A R-07, S-GC Lena Davidkov, Project Manager
SunStar Laboratories, Inc. The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.

Page 9 of 23 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Metals by EPA 6010B
Arsenic ND 2.00 mg/kg 1 25C0360 03/20/25 03/21/25 EPA 6010b Lead 22.8 3.00 " " " " " "
Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA Method 8081A
alpha-BHC ND 5.0 ug/kg 1 25C0358 03/25/25 03/26/25 EPA 8081A gamma-BHC (Lindane) ND 5.0 " " " " " "
beta-BHC ND 5.0 " " " " " "
delta-BHC ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Heptachlor ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Aldrin ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Heptachlor epoxide ND 5.0 " " " " " "
gamma-Chlordane ND 5.0 " " " " " "
alpha-Chlordane ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Endosulfan I ND 5.0 " " " " " "
4,4¥-DDE 47 5.0 " " " " " "
Dieldrin ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Endrin ND 5.0 " " " " " "
4,4¥-DDD ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Endosulfan II ND 5.0 " " " " " "
4,4¥-DDT 8.9 5.0 " " " " " "
Endrin aldehyde ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Endosulfan sulfate ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Methoxychlor ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Endrin ketone ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Toxaphene ND 20 " " " " " "
Surrogate: Tetrachloro-meta-xylene 32.0 % 35-140 " " " " S-03 Surrogate: Decachlorobiphenyl 7.11 % 35-140 " " " " S-03 Lena Davidkov, Project Manager
SunStar Laboratories, Inc. The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.

Page 10 of 23 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Metals by EPA 6010B
Arsenic ND 2.00 mg/kg 1 25C0360 03/20/25 03/21/25 EPA 6010b Lead 10.3 3.00 " " " " " "
Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA Method 8081A
alpha-BHC ND 5.0 ug/kg 1 25C0358 03/25/25 03/26/25 EPA 8081A gamma-BHC (Lindane) ND 5.0 " " " " " "
beta-BHC ND 5.0 " " " " " "
delta-BHC ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Heptachlor ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Aldrin ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Heptachlor epoxide ND 5.0 " " " " " "
gamma-Chlordane ND 5.0 " " " " " "
alpha-Chlordane ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Endosulfan I ND 5.0 " " " " " "
4,4¥-DDE 61 5.0 " " " " " "
Dieldrin ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Endrin ND 5.0 " " " " " "
4,4¥-DDD ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Endosulfan II ND 5.0 " " " " " "
4,4¥-DDT 20 5.0 " " " " " "
Endrin aldehyde ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Endosulfan sulfate ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Methoxychlor ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Endrin ketone ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Toxaphene ND 20 " " " " " "
Surrogate: Tetrachloro-meta-xylene 42.3 % 35-140 " " " " Surrogate: Decachlorobiphenyl 20.2 % 35-140 " " " " S-GC Lena Davidkov, Project Manager
SunStar Laboratories, Inc. The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.

Page 11 of 23 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Metals by EPA 6010B
Arsenic ND 2.00 mg/kg 1 25C0360 03/20/25 03/21/25 EPA 6010b Lead ND 3.00 " " " " " "
Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA Method 8081A
alpha-BHC ND 5.0 ug/kg 1 25C0358 03/25/25 03/26/25 EPA 8081A gamma-BHC (Lindane) ND 5.0 " " " " " "
beta-BHC ND 5.0 " " " " " "
delta-BHC ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Heptachlor ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Aldrin ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Heptachlor epoxide ND 5.0 " " " " " "
gamma-Chlordane ND 5.0 " " " " " "
alpha-Chlordane ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Endosulfan I ND 5.0 " " " " " "
4,4¥-DDE ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Dieldrin ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Endrin ND 5.0 " " " " " "
4,4¥-DDD ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Endosulfan II ND 5.0 " " " " " "
4,4¥-DDT ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Endrin aldehyde ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Endosulfan sulfate ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Methoxychlor ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Endrin ketone ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Toxaphene ND 20 " " " " " "
Surrogate: Tetrachloro-meta-xylene 68.8 % 35-140 " " " " Surrogate: Decachlorobiphenyl 58.2 % 35-140 " " " "
Lena Davidkov, Project Manager
SunStar Laboratories, Inc. The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.

Page 12 of 23 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Metals by EPA 6010B
Arsenic ND 2.00 mg/kg 1 25C0360 03/20/25 03/21/25 EPA 6010b Lead ND 3.00 " " " " " "
Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA Method 8081A
alpha-BHC ND 5.0 ug/kg 1 25C0358 03/25/25 03/26/25 EPA 8081A gamma-BHC (Lindane) ND 5.0 " " " " " "
beta-BHC ND 5.0 " " " " " "
delta-BHC ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Heptachlor ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Aldrin ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Heptachlor epoxide ND 5.0 " " " " " "
gamma-Chlordane ND 5.0 " " " " " "
alpha-Chlordane ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Endosulfan I ND 5.0 " " " " " "
4,4¥-DDE ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Dieldrin ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Endrin ND 5.0 " " " " " "
4,4¥-DDD ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Endosulfan II ND 5.0 " " " " " "
4,4¥-DDT ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Endrin aldehyde ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Endosulfan sulfate ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Methoxychlor ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Endrin ketone ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Toxaphene ND 20 " " " " " "
Surrogate: Tetrachloro-meta-xylene 72.2 % 35-140 " " " " Surrogate: Decachlorobiphenyl 29.2 % 35-140 " " " " S-GC Lena Davidkov, Project Manager
SunStar Laboratories, Inc. The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.

Page 13 of 23 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Metals by EPA 6010B
Arsenic ND 4.00 mg/kg 2 25C0360 03/20/25 03/21/25 EPA 6010b R-01 Lead ND 6.00 " " " " " " R-01
Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA Method 8081A
alpha-BHC ND 50 ug/kg 10 25C0358 03/25/25 03/26/25 EPA 8081A R-07 gamma-BHC (Lindane) ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
beta-BHC ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
delta-BHC ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
Heptachlor ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
Aldrin ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
Heptachlor epoxide ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
gamma-Chlordane ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
alpha-Chlordane ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
Endosulfan I ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
4,4¥-DDE ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
Dieldrin ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
Endrin ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
4,4¥-DDD ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
Endosulfan II ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
4,4¥-DDT ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
Endrin aldehyde ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
Endosulfan sulfate ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
Methoxychlor ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
Endrin ketone ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
Toxaphene ND 200 " " " " " " R-07
Surrogate: Tetrachloro-meta-xylene 77.1 % 35-140 " " " " R-07 Surrogate: Decachlorobiphenyl 67.7 % 35-140 " " " " R-07 Lena Davidkov, Project Manager
SunStar Laboratories, Inc. The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.

Page 14 of 23 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Metals by EPA 6010B
Arsenic ND 2.00 mg/kg 1 25C0360 03/20/25 03/21/25 EPA 6010b Lead ND 3.00 " " " " " "
Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA Method 8081A
alpha-BHC ND 50 ug/kg 10 25C0358 03/25/25 03/26/25 EPA 8081A R-07 gamma-BHC (Lindane) ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
beta-BHC ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
delta-BHC ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
Heptachlor ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
Aldrin ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
Heptachlor epoxide ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
gamma-Chlordane ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
alpha-Chlordane ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
Endosulfan I ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
4,4¥-DDE ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
Dieldrin ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
Endrin ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
4,4¥-DDD ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
Endosulfan II ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
4,4¥-DDT ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
Endrin aldehyde ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
Endosulfan sulfate ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
Methoxychlor ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
Endrin ketone ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
Toxaphene ND 200 " " " " " " R-07
Surrogate: Tetrachloro-meta-xylene 90.2 % 35-140 " " " " R-07 Surrogate: Decachlorobiphenyl 80.7 % 35-140 " " " " R-07 Lena Davidkov, Project Manager
SunStar Laboratories, Inc. The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.

Page 15 of 23 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Metals by EPA 6010B
Arsenic ND 4.00 mg/kg 2 25C0360 03/20/25 03/21/25 EPA 6010b R-01 Lead ND 6.00 " " " " " " R-01
Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA Method 8081A
alpha-BHC ND 50 ug/kg 10 25C0358 03/25/25 03/26/25 EPA 8081A R-07 gamma-BHC (Lindane) ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
beta-BHC ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
delta-BHC ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
Heptachlor ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
Aldrin ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
Heptachlor epoxide ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
gamma-Chlordane ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
alpha-Chlordane ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
Endosulfan I ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
4,4¥-DDE ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
Dieldrin ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
Endrin ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
4,4¥-DDD ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
Endosulfan II ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
4,4¥-DDT ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
Endrin aldehyde ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
Endosulfan sulfate ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
Methoxychlor ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
Endrin ketone ND 50 " " " " " " R-07
Toxaphene ND 200 " " " " " " R-07
Surrogate: Tetrachloro-meta-xylene 80.2 % 35-140 " " " " R-07 Surrogate: Decachlorobiphenyl 58.1 % 35-140 " " " " R-07 Lena Davidkov, Project Manager
SunStar Laboratories, Inc. The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.

Page 16 of 23 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Metals by EPA 6010B
Arsenic ND 2.00 mg/kg 1 25C0360 03/20/25 03/21/25 EPA 6010b Lead 5.07 3.00 " " " " " "
Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA Method 8081A
alpha-BHC ND 5.0 ug/kg 1 25C0358 03/25/25 03/26/25 EPA 8081A gamma-BHC (Lindane) ND 5.0 " " " " " "
beta-BHC ND 5.0 " " " " " "
delta-BHC ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Heptachlor ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Aldrin ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Heptachlor epoxide ND 5.0 " " " " " "
gamma-Chlordane ND 5.0 " " " " " "
alpha-Chlordane ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Endosulfan I ND 5.0 " " " " " "
4,4¥-DDE ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Dieldrin ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Endrin ND 5.0 " " " " " "
4,4¥-DDD ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Endosulfan II ND 5.0 " " " " " "
4,4¥-DDT ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Endrin aldehyde ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Endosulfan sulfate ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Methoxychlor ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Endrin ketone ND 5.0 " " " " " "
Toxaphene ND 20 " " " " " "
Surrogate: Tetrachloro-meta-xylene 72.8 % 35-140 " " " " Surrogate: Decachlorobiphenyl 59.2 % 35-140 " " " "
Lena Davidkov, Project Manager
SunStar Laboratories, Inc. The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.

Page 17 of 23 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

PSI -- Oakland
4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B 575-2869
Frank Poss
Charities - Cupertino
Oakland CA, 94601 04/01/25 15:24
25712 Commercentre Drive
Lake Forest, California 92630
949.297.5020 Phone
949.297.5027 Fax
Result Limit
Reporting
Units Level
Spike
Result
Source
%REC
%REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Analyte Limit Notes
Metals by EPA 6010B - Quality Control
SunStar Laboratories, Inc.

Batch 25C0360 - EPA 3050B
Blank (25C0360-BLK1) Prepared: 03/20/25 Analyzed: 03/21/25 Arsenic ND 2.00 mg/kg
Lead ND 3.00 "
LCS (25C0360-BS1) Prepared: 03/20/25 Analyzed: 03/21/25 Arsenic 101 2.00 100 mg/kg 101 80-120
Lead 107 3.00 100 " 107 80-120
Matrix Spike (25C0360-MS1) Source: T251304-01 Prepared: 03/20/25 Analyzed: 03/21/25 Arsenic 75.0 2.00 100 7.25 mg/kg 67.7 75-125 QM-07
Lead 74.8 3.00 100 10.4 " 64.4 75-125 QM-07
Matrix Spike Dup (25C0360-MSD1) Source: T251304-01 Prepared: 03/20/25 Analyzed: 03/21/25 Arsenic 73.3 2.00 100 7.25 mg/kg 66.0 2.27 75-125 20 QM-07 Lead 74.0 3.00 100 10.4 " 63.6 1.15 75-125 20 QM-07
Lena Davidkov, Project Manager
SunStar Laboratories, Inc. The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.

Page 18 of 23 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

PSI -- Oakland
4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B 575-2869
Frank Poss
Charities - Cupertino
Oakland CA, 94601 04/01/25 15:24
25712 Commercentre Drive
Lake Forest, California 92630
949.297.5020 Phone
949.297.5027 Fax
Result Limit
Reporting
Units Level
Spike
Result
Source
%REC
%REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Analyte Limit Notes
TCLP Metals by 6000/7000 Series Methods - Quality Control SunStar Laboratories, Inc.

Batch 25C0499 - TCLP Metals
Blank (25C0499-BLK1) Prepared: 03/28/25 Analyzed: 03/31/25 Lead ND 0.10 mg/l
LCS (25C0499-BS1) Prepared: 03/28/25 Analyzed: 03/31/25 Lead 1.82 0.10 2.00 mg/l 91.1 75-125
Matrix Spike (25C0499-MS1) Source: T251281-22 Prepared: 03/28/25 Analyzed: 03/31/25 Lead 1.91 0.10 2.00 0.00979 mg/l 94.8 75-125
Matrix Spike Dup (25C0499-MSD1) Source: T251281-22 Prepared: 03/28/25 Analyzed: 03/31/25 Lead 1.93 0.10 2.00 0.00979 mg/l 95.9 1.14 75-125 30
Lena Davidkov, Project Manager
SunStar Laboratories, Inc. The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.

Page 19 of 23 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

PSI -- Oakland
4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B 575-2869
Frank Poss
Charities - Cupertino
Oakland CA, 94601 04/01/25 15:24
25712 Commercentre Drive
Lake Forest, California 92630
949.297.5020 Phone
949.297.5027 Fax
Result Limit
Reporting
Units Level
Spike
Result
Source
%REC
%REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Analyte Limit Notes
STLC Metals by 6000/7000 Series Methods - Quality Control SunStar Laboratories, Inc.

Batch 25C0502 - STLC Leachate
Blank (25C0502-BLK1) Prepared: 03/28/25 Analyzed: 03/31/25 Lead 0.0994 0.025 mg/l QB-01
LCS (25C0502-BS1) Prepared: 03/28/25 Analyzed: 03/31/25 Lead 38.5 0.025 40.0 mg/l 96.1 75-125
Matrix Spike (25C0502-MS1) Source: T251281-13 Prepared: 03/28/25 Analyzed: 03/31/25 Lead 35.2 0.025 40.0 0.211 mg/l 87.5 75-125
Matrix Spike Dup (25C0502-MSD1) Source: T251281-13 Prepared: 03/28/25 Analyzed: 03/31/25 Lead 35.1 0.025 40.0 0.211 mg/l 87.3 0.224 75-125 30
Lena Davidkov, Project Manager
SunStar Laboratories, Inc. The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.

Page 20 of 23 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

PSI -- Oakland
4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B 575-2869
Frank Poss
Charities - Cupertino
Oakland CA, 94601 04/01/25 15:24
25712 Commercentre Drive
Lake Forest, California 92630
949.297.5020 Phone
949.297.5027 Fax
Result Limit
Reporting
Units Level
Spike
Result
Source
%REC
%REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Analyte Limit Notes
Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA Method 8081A - Quality Control SunStar Laboratories, Inc.

Batch 25C0358 - EPA 3550B Soil
Blank (25C0358-BLK1) Prepared: 03/20/25 Analyzed: 03/26/25 alpha-BHC ND 5.0 ug/kg
gamma-BHC (Lindane) ND 5.0 "
beta-BHC ND 5.0 "
delta-BHC ND 5.0 "
Heptachlor ND 5.0 "
Aldrin ND 5.0 "
Heptachlor epoxide ND 5.0 "
gamma-Chlordane ND 5.0 "
alpha-Chlordane ND 5.0 "
Endosulfan I ND 5.0 "
4,4¥-DDE ND 5.0 "
Dieldrin ND 5.0 "
Endrin ND 5.0 "
4,4¥-DDD ND 5.0 "
Endosulfan II ND 5.0 "
4,4¥-DDT ND 5.0 "
Endrin aldehyde ND 5.0 "
Endosulfan sulfate ND 5.0 "
Methoxychlor ND 5.0 "
Endrin ketone ND 5.0 "
Toxaphene ND 20 "
Surrogate: Tetrachloro-meta-xylene 9.06 " 10.0 90.6 35-140 Surrogate: Decachlorobiphenyl 4.48 " 10.0 44.8 35-140
LCS (25C0358-BS1) Prepared: 03/20/25 Analyzed: 03/26/25 gamma-BHC (Lindane) 45.5 5.0 40.4 ug/kg 113 40-120
Heptachlor 45.6 5.0 40.0 " 114 40-120
Aldrin 40.9 5.0 40.0 " 102 40-120
Dieldrin 46.0 5.0 40.2 " 114 40-120
Endrin 47.1 5.0 40.2 " 117 40-120
4,4¥-DDT 50.3 5.0 40.4 " 125 33-147
Surrogate: Tetrachloro-meta-xylene 8.92 " 10.0 89.2 35-140 Surrogate: Decachlorobiphenyl 8.07 " 10.0 80.7 35-140
Lena Davidkov, Project Manager
SunStar Laboratories, Inc. The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.

Page 21 of 23 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

PSI -- Oakland
4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B 575-2869
Frank Poss
Charities - Cupertino
Oakland CA, 94601 04/01/25 15:24
25712 Commercentre Drive
Lake Forest, California 92630
949.297.5020 Phone
949.297.5027 Fax
Result Limit
Reporting
Units Level
Spike
Result
Source
%REC
%REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Analyte Limit Notes
Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA Method 8081A - Quality Control SunStar Laboratories, Inc.

Batch 25C0358 - EPA 3550B Soil
Matrix Spike (25C0358-MS1) Source: T251304-01 Prepared: 03/20/25 Analyzed: 03/26/25 gamma-BHC (Lindane) 37.8 5.0 40.4 ug/kg ND 93.7 30-120
Heptachlor 30.0 5.0 40.0 " ND 75.0 30-120
Aldrin 24.8 5.0 40.0 " ND 62.1 30-120
Dieldrin 34.2 5.0 40.2 " ND 85.0 30-120
Endrin 35.3 5.0 40.2 " ND 87.9 30-120
4,4¥-DDT 26.2 5.0 40.4 " ND 64.9 30-120
Surrogate: Tetrachloro-meta-xylene 5.34 " 10.0 53.4 35-140 Surrogate: Decachlorobiphenyl 2.53 " 10.0 25.3 35-140 S-GC Matrix Spike Dup (25C0358-MSD1) Source: T251304-01 Prepared: 03/20/25 Analyzed: 03/26/25 gamma-BHC (Lindane) 36.0 5.0 40.4 ug/kg ND 89.1 4.99 30-120 30 Heptachlor 27.5 5.0 40.0 " ND 68.8 8.58 30-120 30
Aldrin 21.5 5.0 40.0 " ND 53.8 14.3 30-120 30
Dieldrin 31.5 5.0 40.2 " ND 78.4 8.03 30-120 30
Endrin 33.0 5.0 40.2 " ND 82.0 6.84 30-120 30
4,4¥-DDT 23.3 5.0 40.4 " ND 57.7 11.7 30-120 30
Surrogate: Tetrachloro-meta-xylene 5.13 " 10.0 51.3 35-140 Surrogate: Decachlorobiphenyl 5.11 " 10.0 51.1 35-140
Lena Davidkov, Project Manager
SunStar Laboratories, Inc. The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.

Page 22 of 23 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

PSI -- Oakland
4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B 575-2869
Frank Poss
Charities - Cupertino
Oakland CA, 94601 04/01/25 15:24
25712 Commercentre Drive
Lake Forest, California 92630
949.297.5020 Phone
949.297.5027 Fax
Notes and Definitions
S-GC Surrogate recovery outside of established control limits. The data was accepted based on valid recovery of the remaining surrogate(s).

S-03 The surrogate recovery was below acceptance criteria in the sample because of a possible matrix effect. The surrogate recovery was within acceptance criteria in the method blank and LCS.

R-07 Reporting limit for this compound(s) has been raised to account for dilution necessary due to high levels of interfering compound(s) and/or matrix effect.

R-01 The Reporting Limit has been raised to account for dilution necessary due to matrix interference.

QM-07 The spike recovery and/or RPD was outside acceptance limits for the MS and/or MSD. The batch was accepted based on acceptable LCS recovery.

QB-01 The method blank contains analyte at a concentration above the MRL; however, concentration is less than 10% of the sample result, which is negligible according to method criteria.

Sample results reported on a dry weight basis
RPD Relative Percent Difference
dry
NR Not Reported
ND Analyte NOT DETECTED at or above the reporting limit DET Analyte DETECTED
Lena Davidkov, Project Manager
SunStar Laboratories, Inc. The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.

Page 23 of 23 ends

WORK ORDER
T251304
PSI -- Oakland
Project: Charities - Cupertino Project Number: 575-2869 Client:

Printed: 3/20/2025 11:40:59AM
Project Manager: Lena Davidkov
Report To:

PSI -- Oakland
Frank Poss
4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B
Oakland, CA 94601
Received By:

Logged In By:

Date Due:

Date Received:

Date Logged In:
03/27/25 17:00 (5 day TAT)
03/20/25 10:44
03/20/25 11:28
Paul Berner
Angel Aguirre
Samples Received at: 1.5°C
Analysis Due TAT Expires Comments
COC/Labels Agree
Custody Seals
Containers Intact
Preservation Confirmed
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Received On Ice Yes
T251304-01 B1-0.5 [Soil] Sampled 03/18/25 08:24 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US &
6010 Individual Metals 03/27/25 15:00 5 Pb and 09/14/25 08:24 As Only 8081 Pesticides 03/27/25 15:00 5 04/01/25 08:24
T251304-02 B1-2 [Soil] Sampled 03/18/25 08:32 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US &
6010 Individual Metals 03/27/25 15:00 5 Pb and 09/14/25 08:32 As Only 8081 Pesticides 03/27/25 15:00 5 04/01/25 08:32
T251304-03 B2-0.5 [Soil] Sampled 03/18/25 08:50 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US &
6010 Individual Metals 03/27/25 15:00 5 Pb and 09/14/25 08:50 As Only 8081 Pesticides 03/27/25 15:00 5 04/01/25 08:50
T251304-04 B2-2 [Soil] Sampled 03/18/25 08:58 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US &
6010 Individual Metals 03/27/25 15:00 5 Pb and 09/14/25 08:58 As Only 8081 Pesticides 03/27/25 15:00 5 04/01/25 08:58
T251304-05 B3-0.5 [Soil] Sampled 03/18/25 09:25 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US &
6010 Individual Metals 03/27/25 15:00 5 Pb and 09/14/25 09:25 As Only 8081 Pesticides 03/27/25 15:00 5 04/01/25 09:25

Page 1 of 2 ends

WORK ORDER
T251304
PSI -- Oakland
Project: Charities - Cupertino Project Number: 575-2869 Client:

Printed: 3/20/2025 11:40:59AM
Project Manager: Lena Davidkov
Analysis Due TAT Expires Comments
T251304-06 B3-2 [Soil] Sampled 03/18/25 09:30 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US &
6010 Individual Metals 03/27/25 15:00 5 Pb and 09/14/25 09:30 As Only 8081 Pesticides 03/27/25 15:00 5 04/01/25 09:30
T251304-07 B4-0.5 [Soil] Sampled 03/18/25 09:48 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US &
6010 Individual Metals 03/27/25 15:00 5 Pb and 09/14/25 09:48 As Only 8081 Pesticides 03/27/25 15:00 5 04/01/25 09:48
T251304-08 B4-2 [Soil] Sampled 03/18/25 10:00 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US &
6010 Individual Metals 03/27/25 15:00 5 Pb and 09/14/25 10:00 As Only 8081 Pesticides 03/27/25 15:00 5 04/01/25 10:00
T251304-09 B5-0.5 [Soil] Sampled 03/18/25 10:38 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US &
6010 Individual Metals 03/27/25 15:00 5 Pb and 09/14/25 10:38 As Only 8081 Pesticides 03/27/25 15:00 5 04/01/25 10:38
T251304-10 B5-2 [Soil] Sampled 03/18/25 10:50 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US &
6010 Individual Metals 03/27/25 15:00 5 Pb and 09/14/25 10:50 As Only 8081 Pesticides 03/27/25 15:00 5 04/01/25 10:50
T251304-11 B6-0.5 [Soil] Sampled 03/18/25 11:47 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US &
6010 Individual Metals 03/27/25 15:00 5 Pb and 09/14/25 11:47 As Only 8081 Pesticides 03/27/25 15:00 5 04/01/25 11:47
T251304-12 B6-2 [Soil] Sampled 03/18/25 12:00 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US &
6010 Individual Metals 03/27/25 15:00 5 Pb and 09/14/25 12:00 As Only 8081 Pesticides 03/27/25 15:00 5 04/01/25 12:00
Reviewed By Date Page 2 of 2

WORK ORDER
T251304
PSI -- Oakland
Project: Charities - Cupertino Project Number: 575-2869 Client:

Printed: 3/28/2025 9:34:58AM
Project Manager: Lena Davidkov
Report To:

PSI -- Oakland
Frank Poss
4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B
Oakland, CA 94601
Received By:

Logged In By:

Date Due:

Date Received:

Date Logged In:
03/27/25 17:00 (5 day TAT)
03/20/25 10:44
03/20/25 11:28
Paul Berner
Angel Aguirre
Samples Received at: 1.5°C
Analysis Due TAT Expires Comments
COC/Labels Agree
Custody Seals
Containers Intact
Preservation Confirmed
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Received On Ice Yes
T251304-01 B1-0.5 [Soil] Sampled 03/18/25 08:24 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US &
6010 Individual Metals 03/27/25 15:00 5 Pb and 09/14/25 08:24 As Only 8081 Pesticides 03/27/25 15:00 5 04/01/25 08:24
T251304-02 B1-2 [Soil] Sampled 03/18/25 08:32 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US &
6010 Individual Metals 03/27/25 15:00 5 Pb and 09/14/25 08:32 As Only 8081 Pesticides 03/27/25 15:00 5 04/01/25 08:32
T251304-03 B2-0.5 [Soil] Sampled 03/18/25 08:50 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US &
6010 Individual Metals 03/27/25 15:00 5 Pb and 09/14/25 08:50 As Only 8081 Pesticides 03/27/25 15:00 5 04/01/25 08:50
T251304-04 B2-2 [Soil] Sampled 03/18/25 08:58 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US &
6010 Individual Metals 03/27/25 15:00 5 Pb and 09/14/25 08:58 As Only 8081 Pesticides 03/27/25 15:00 5 04/01/25 08:58
STLC Pb 04/01/25 15:00 2 09/14/25 08:58
STLC Leaching Procedure Metals 04/01/25 15:00 2 09/14/25 08:58 TCLP Leaching Procedure Metals 04/01/25 15:00 2 09/14/25 08:58 TCLP Pb 04/01/25 15:00 2 09/14/25 08:58

Page 1 of 2 ends

WORK ORDER
T251304
PSI -- Oakland
Project: Charities - Cupertino Project Number: 575-2869 Client:

Printed: 3/28/2025 9:34:58AM
Project Manager: Lena Davidkov
Analysis Due TAT Expires Comments
T251304-05 B3-0.5 [Soil] Sampled 03/18/25 09:25 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US &
6010 Individual Metals 03/27/25 15:00 5 Pb and 09/14/25 09:25 As Only 8081 Pesticides 03/27/25 15:00 5 04/01/25 09:25
T251304-06 B3-2 [Soil] Sampled 03/18/25 09:30 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US &
6010 Individual Metals 03/27/25 15:00 5 Pb and 09/14/25 09:30 As Only 8081 Pesticides 03/27/25 15:00 5 04/01/25 09:30
T251304-07 B4-0.5 [Soil] Sampled 03/18/25 09:48 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US &
6010 Individual Metals 03/27/25 15:00 5 Pb and 09/14/25 09:48 As Only 8081 Pesticides 03/27/25 15:00 5 04/01/25 09:48
T251304-08 B4-2 [Soil] Sampled 03/18/25 10:00 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US &
6010 Individual Metals 03/27/25 15:00 5 Pb and 09/14/25 10:00 As Only 8081 Pesticides 03/27/25 15:00 5 04/01/25 10:00
T251304-09 B5-0.5 [Soil] Sampled 03/18/25 10:38 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US &
6010 Individual Metals 03/27/25 15:00 5 Pb and 09/14/25 10:38 As Only 8081 Pesticides 03/27/25 15:00 5 04/01/25 10:38
T251304-10 B5-2 [Soil] Sampled 03/18/25 10:50 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US &
6010 Individual Metals 03/27/25 15:00 5 Pb and 09/14/25 10:50 As Only 8081 Pesticides 03/27/25 15:00 5 04/01/25 10:50
T251304-11 B6-0.5 [Soil] Sampled 03/18/25 11:47 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US &
6010 Individual Metals 03/27/25 15:00 5 Pb and 09/14/25 11:47 As Only 8081 Pesticides 03/27/25 15:00 5 04/01/25 11:47
T251304-12 B6-2 [Soil] Sampled 03/18/25 12:00 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US &
6010 Individual Metals 03/27/25 15:00 5 Pb and 09/14/25 12:00 As Only 8081 Pesticides 03/27/25 15:00 5 04/01/25 12:00
Reviewed By Date Page 2 of 2
25712 Commercentre Drive
Lake Forest, California 92630
949.297.5020 Phone
949.297.5027 Fax
PSI -- Oakland
RE: Charities - Cupertino
Oakland, CA 94601
4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B
Frank Poss
Lena Davidkov
Project Manager
Enclosed are the results of analyses for samples received by the laboratory on 04/15/25 11:11. If you have any questions concerning this report, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,
18 April 2025
Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

ANALYTICAL REPORT FOR SAMPLES
Date Received
B7-0.5 T251707-01 Soil 04/11/25 10:17 04/15/25 11:11
B7-2 T251707-02 Soil 04/11/25 10:27 04/15/25 11:11
B8-0.5 T251707-03 Soil 04/11/25 11:34 04/15/25 11:11
B8-2 T251707-04 Soil 04/11/25 11:42 04/15/25 11:11
Lena Davidkov, Project Manager
SunStar Laboratories, Inc. The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.

Page 1 of 8 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

DETECTIONS SUMMARY
Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method
B7-0.5 T251707-01
Notes
Reporting
Sample ID:

Lead 8.0 3.0 mg/kg EPA 6010b
Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method
B7-2 T251707-02
Notes
Reporting
Sample ID:

Lead 5.4 3.0 mg/kg EPA 6010b
Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method
B8-0.5 T251707-03
Notes
Reporting
Sample ID:

Lead 7.0 3.0 mg/kg EPA 6010b
Laboratory ID:

Analyte Result Limit Units Method
B8-2 T251707-04
Notes
Reporting
Sample ID:

Lead 5.5 3.0 mg/kg EPA 6010b
Lena Davidkov, Project Manager
SunStar Laboratories, Inc. The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.

Page 2 of 8 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

PSI -- Oakland
4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B 575-2869
Frank Poss
Charities - Cupertino
Oakland CA, 94601 04/18/25 15:21
25712 Commercentre Drive
Lake Forest, California 92630
949.297.5020 Phone
949.297.5027 Fax
Analyte Result Limit Batch
Reporting
Units Dilution Prepared Analyzed Method Notes
B7-0.5
T251707-01 (Soil)
SunStar Laboratories, Inc.

Metals by EPA 6010B
Lead 8.0 3.0 mg/kg 1 25D0236 04/15/25 04/17/25 EPA 6010b Lena Davidkov, Project Manager
SunStar Laboratories, Inc. The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.

Page 3 of 8 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Metals by EPA 6010B
Lead 5.4 3.0 mg/kg 1 25D0236 04/15/25 04/17/25 EPA 6010b Lena Davidkov, Project Manager
SunStar Laboratories, Inc. The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.

Page 4 of 8 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Metals by EPA 6010B
Lead 7.0 3.0 mg/kg 1 25D0236 04/15/25 04/17/25 EPA 6010b Lena Davidkov, Project Manager
SunStar Laboratories, Inc. The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.

Page 5 of 8 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

Metals by EPA 6010B
Lead 5.5 3.0 mg/kg 1 25D0236 04/15/25 04/17/25 EPA 6010b Lena Davidkov, Project Manager
SunStar Laboratories, Inc. The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.

Page 6 of 8 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

PSI -- Oakland
4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B 575-2869
Frank Poss
Charities - Cupertino
Oakland CA, 94601 04/18/25 15:21
25712 Commercentre Drive
Lake Forest, California 92630
949.297.5020 Phone
949.297.5027 Fax
Result Limit
Reporting
Units Level
Spike
Result
Source
%REC
%REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Analyte Limit Notes
Metals by EPA 6010B - Quality Control
SunStar Laboratories, Inc.

Batch 25D0236 - EPA 3050B
Blank (25D0236-BLK1) Prepared: 04/15/25 Analyzed: 04/17/25 Lead ND 3.0 mg/kg
LCS (25D0236-BS1) Prepared: 04/15/25 Analyzed: 04/17/25 Lead 91.3 3.0 100 mg/kg 91.3 75-125
Matrix Spike (25D0236-MS1) Source: T251701-01 Prepared: 04/15/25 Analyzed: 04/17/25 Lead 70.2 3.0 100 4.02 mg/kg 66.2 75-125 QM-07
Matrix Spike Dup (25D0236-MSD1) Source: T251701-01 Prepared: 04/15/25 Analyzed: 04/17/25 Lead 70.7 3.0 100 4.02 mg/kg 66.7 0.653 75-125 20 QM-07 Lena Davidkov, Project Manager
SunStar Laboratories, Inc. The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.

Page 7 of 8 ends

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Reported:

PSI -- Oakland
4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B 575-2869
Frank Poss
Charities - Cupertino
Oakland CA, 94601 04/18/25 15:21
25712 Commercentre Drive
Lake Forest, California 92630
949.297.5020 Phone
949.297.5027 Fax
Notes and Definitions
QM-07 The spike recovery and/or RPD was outside acceptance limits for the MS and/or MSD. The batch was accepted based on acceptable LCS recovery.

Page 8 of 8 ends

WORK ORDER
T251707
PSI -- Oakland
Project: Charities - Cupertino Project Number: 575-2869 Client:

Printed: 4/15/2025 4:02:10PM
Project Manager: Lena Davidkov
Report To:

PSI -- Oakland
Frank Poss
4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B
Oakland, CA 94601
Received By:

Logged In By:

Date Due:

Date Received:

Date Logged In:
04/22/25 17:00 (5 day TAT)
04/15/25 11:11
04/15/25 15:46
Paul Berner
Alexis Marroquin
Samples Received at: 4.2°C
Analysis Due TAT Expires Comments
COC/Labels Agree
Custody Seals
Containers Intact
Preservation Confirmed
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Received On Ice Yes
T251707-01 B7-0.5 [Soil] Sampled 04/11/25 10:17 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US &
6010 Pb 04/22/25 15:00 5 10/08/25 10:17
T251707-02 B7-2 [Soil] Sampled 04/11/25 10:27 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US &
6010 Pb 04/22/25 15:00 5 10/08/25 10:27
T251707-03 B8-0.5 [Soil] Sampled 04/11/25 11:34 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US &
6010 Pb 04/22/25 15:00 5 10/08/25 11:34
T251707-04 B8-2 [Soil] Sampled 04/11/25 11:42 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US &
6010 Pb 04/22/25 15:00 5 10/08/25 11:42
T251707-05 B9-0.5 [Soil] Sampled 04/11/25 10:44 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US Hold &
[NO ANALYSES]
T251707-06 B9-2 [Soil] Sampled 04/11/25 10:57 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US Hold &
[NO ANALYSES]
T251707-07 B10-0.5 [Soil] Sampled 04/11/25 12:09 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time Hold (US &
[NO ANALYSES]

Page 1 of 2 ends

WORK ORDER
T251707
PSI -- Oakland
Project: Charities - Cupertino Project Number: 575-2869 Client:

Printed: 4/15/2025 4:02:10PM
Project Manager: Lena Davidkov
Analysis Due TAT Expires Comments
T251707-08 B10-2 [Soil] Sampled 04/11/25 12:21 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US Hold &
[NO ANALYSES]
T251707-09 B11-0.5 [Soil] Sampled 04/11/25 11:07 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time Hold (US &
[NO ANALYSES]
T251707-10 B11-2 [Soil] Sampled 04/11/25 11:17 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US Hold &
[NO ANALYSES]
T251707-11 B12-0.5 [Soil] Sampled 04/11/25 12:36 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time Hold (US &
[NO ANALYSES]
T251707-12 B12-2 [Soil] Sampled 04/11/25 12:45 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US Hold &
[NO ANALYSES]
Reviewed By Date Page 2 of 2
Exhibit B
388 17th Street, Suite 230, Oakland, CA 94612 | (510) 420-8686 | www.baseline-env.com Mailing Address: PO Box 18586, Oakland, CA 94619

MEMORANDUM
Date: 16 May 2025 Job No.: 23308‐04
To: Gian Martire, Senior Planner, City of Cupertino
From: Cem Atabek, Baseline Environmental Consulting
Subject: Peer Review of Subsurface Investigation Reports, Undeveloped Land West of Mary Avenue and Parkwood Drive, Cupertino, California
Baseline Environmental Consulting (Baseline) has performed a peer review on behalf of the City of Cupertino (City) for the Draft Subsurface Investigation Report dated 4 April 2025 and the Subsurface Investigation Report dated 24 April 2025, both prepared by Intertek PSI, for the undeveloped land west of Mary Avenue and Parkwood Drive identified as Santa Clara County Assessor’s Parcel Number 326‐27‐030 in Cupertino, California (Site). Baseline’s peer review presented below was performed to evaluate the adequacy of the Additional Phase II to ensure compliance with the requirements of Section 17.04.040(B) of the City’s Municipal Code. The Site is currently developed with a landscaped area and paved parking area and is proposed to be redeveloped for residential land use (the project).

DRAFT SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION REPORT
The Draft Subsurface Investigation Report describes sampling and analysis of soil that was performed at the Site to evaluate potential contamination from aerially deposited lead (ADL) and past agricultural use of the Site. Soil samples were collected from three borings (B1 to B3) located within the landscaped area and three borings (B4 to B6) located within the paved parking area of the Site. Soil samples were collected from depths of 0.5 and 2 feet below the ground surface (bgs), and the samples were analyzed for organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), arsenic, and lead. Soluble lead was also analyzed in one sample based on the elevated concentration of total lead detected in the sample, as discussed further below. Based on our review of the Draft Subsurface Investigation Report, it appears that appropriate soil sampling and laboratory analytical methods were performed.

The soil sample results were compared to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Board Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for Residential Exposure (Residential ESLs) and Construction Workers Exposure (Construction Worker ESLs) and hazardous waste thresholds.

Baseline notes that the Construction Worker ESL for arsenic presented in Table 1 of the Draft Subsurface Investigation Report is 2.0 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg); however, this ESL is based on cancer risk and there is a lower Construction Worker ESL for arsenic (0.98 mg/kg) Memorandum
May 16, 2025

Page 2 ends

Cupertino City CouncilDecember 2, 2025

Cupertino City Council
December 2, 2025