Cupertino City Council
February 3, 2026

SLA0001613
Background
HCD initially received a Notice of Alleged Violation (enclosed) pursuant to Section 502 of the SLA Guidelines on March 14, 2025, from UNITE HERE Local 11 (Local 11) regarding the City’s approval of a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) for sale of the Property. Local 11 provided prior correspondence, including a letter to the City requesting information on how the action complied with the SLA, prior to the City Council taking action to authorize the sale and disposition of the Property at a public meeting on February 18, 2025.

On March 21, 2025, HCD requested a meeting with the City to discuss the alleged violations. On April 8, 2025, HCD met with City staff, who asserted that disposition was undertaken pursuant to the Economic Opportunity Law.4 The City is also in the process of developing this Property in addition to 190 acres of adjacent City-owned lands for the Ontario Regional Sports Complex. The City shared during the conversation that close of escrow and disposition of the Property to Ontario Ranch Hotels, LLC (Developer) was completed on April 4, 2025.

On April 10, 2025, the City provided HCD documentation regarding the disposition, which includes the City Council’s action to approve the DDA between the City and the Developer at a public meeting on February 18, 2025. The documentation includes a resolution describing the City’s “exclusive negotiations” with the Developer for sale and development of the Property as a “luxury 5-star hotel” with 227 guest rooms. The terms and conditions of the DDA also require the Developer to convey to the City approximately 25,489 square feet area of easements for right-of-way and temporary construction purposes. While the documentation included a summary report of written findings claiming that the disposition met the statutory requirements of the Economic Opportunity Law, no such findings or statements were made with respect to meeting the statutory requirements of the SLA. The City further confirmed details of the disposition during a follow-up conversation with HCD on May 5, 2025 and by providing the close of escrow documentation on May 13, 2025. The additional documentation notes an approximate net payment of $979,219.51 to the City, based upon the easements value and closing costs being credited against the Property’s fair market value.

Analysis
Based on a review and analysis of the City’s documentation and subsequent disposition of the Property, HCD finds that the City violated the SLA, as discussed below.

4 Gov. Code, § 52201.
867
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
867 of 1082
Scott Ochoa, City Manager

SLA0001613
The City Did Not Make the Land Available Pursuant to the SLA Government Code section 54221, subdivision (b)(1) states:
“‘Surplus land’ means land owned in fee simple by any local agency for which the local agency’s governing body takes formal action in a regular public meeting declaring that the land is surplus and is not necessary for the agency’s use. Land shall be declared either ‘surplus land’ or ‘exempt surplus land,’ as supported by written findings, before a local agency may take any action to dispose of it consistent with an agency’s policies or procedures. A local agency, on an annual basis, may declare multiple parcels as ‘surplus land’ or ‘exempt surplus land.’” (Emphasis added.)
In addition, Government Code section 54222 requires the following:
“[A]ny local agency disposing of surplus land… shall send, before disposing of that property or participating in negotiations to dispose of that property with a prospective transferee, a written notice of availability of the property to all of the following: (a)(1) A written notice of availability for developing lowand moderate-income housing shall be sent to any local public entity, as defined in Section 50079 of the Health and Safety Code, that has jurisdiction where the surplus land is located. Housing sponsors, as defined by Section 50074 of the Health and Safety Code, that have notified the Department of Housing and Community Development of their interest in surplus land shall be sent a notice of availability for the purpose of developing low- and moderateincome housing. All notices shall be sent by electronic mail, or by certified mail, and shall include the location and a description of the property.” (Emphasis added.)
Government Code section 54230.5, subdivision (b)(1) further states:
“Before agreeing to terms for the disposition of surplus land, a local agency shall provide to the Department of Housing and Community Development a description of the notices of availability sent, and negotiations conducted with any responding entities, in regard to the disposal of the parcel of surplus land and a copy of any restrictions to be recorded against the property pursuant to Section 54222.5, 54233, or 54233.5, whichever is applicable, in a form prescribed by the Department of Housing and Community Development.” (Emphasis added.)
The City’s approval of a DDA between the City and the Developer for sale and development of the Property as a hotel on February 18, 2025, and close of escrow on 868
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
868 of 1082
Scott Ochoa, City Manager

SLA0001613
April 4, 2025, qualify as a disposition of surplus land under the SLA. When the Property qualifies as surplus land, then the City must send notices of availability (NOA) for developing low- and moderate-income housing to all entities required under Government Code section 54222 prior to disposing of or participating in negotiations to dispose of the Property. The City must also provide to HCD a description of the NOAs sent and negotiations conducted with any of the responding entities above, in addition to a copy of any restrictions to be recorded against the property, pursuant to the above requirements. Similarly, the SLA also requires that exempt surplus land determinations be supported by written findings and documentation. All local agency reporting requirements for surplus land and exempt surplus land are described further in Section 400 of the SLA Guidelines.5
However, the City has not provided any such documentation to HCD regarding this transaction prior to exclusively negotiating with the Developer, entering into a subsequent DDA with the Developer, and closing escrow. The documentation provided to date, including the public meeting held on February 18, 2025, makes no reference of the Property as surplus land or exempt surplus land and does not include any written findings pursuant to the SLA. Thus, the City has not complied with these key provisions of the SLA prior to disposing of the Property.

Economic Opportunity Law Does Not Relieve the City of SLA Requirements During the meeting on April 8, 2025, the City claimed that it met statutory requirements by disposing of the Property under the Economic Opportunity Law, or Government Code section 52201. The City’s documentation includes written findings, stating that the disposition will “(i) [strengthen] the City’s land use and social structure, (ii) [alleviate] economic and physical blight on the Property and in the surrounding community, (iii) generate property tax revenue, (iv) produce new jobs, (v) stimulate economic vitality and (vi) continue to inspire additional investment within the Ontario Sports Empire.” The Economic Opportunity Law, in relevant part, states that “[a] city, county, or city and county may sell or lease property to create an economic opportunity.”6 (Emphasis added.) The use of the word “may,” instead of “shall,” indicates that the City is not required to utilize the Economic Opportunity statutes, whereas the SLA includes mandatory requirements for local agencies, stating: “Land shall be declared either ‘surplus land’ or ‘exempt surplus land,’ as supported by written findings, before a local 5 Updated Surplus Land Act Guidelines available at
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/final-updated-surplus-landact-guidelines-2024.pdf. 6 Gov. Code, § 52201, subd. (a)(1). 869
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
869 of 1082
Scott Ochoa, City Manager

SLA0001613
agency may take any action to dispose of it consistent with an agency's policies or procedures.”7 (Emphasis added).

Notably, the City was aware of HCD’s position on this precise issue before finalizing the disposition of the Property. Local 11’s March 14, 2025 Notice of Alleged Violation, which was provided to the City, references a similar letter that HCD issued to the City of Moreno Valley.8 As Local 11 points out, “HCD rejected the claims that the SLA conflicts with the Economic Opportunity Law....” HCD reached out to the City just a week later, on March 21, 2025, but the City disposed of the Property on April 4, 2025,just days before meeting with HCD on April 8, 2025. The City should have paused and consulted with HCD upon receipt of Local 11’s letter and again when HCD reached out to schedule a meeting. Instead, the City moved forward with the disposition.

Further, HCD is not aware of, nor has the City provided, any statutory or decisional authorities standing for the proposition that disposition of the Property under Economic Opportunity Law excuses or exempts the City from complying with SLA requirements.

As such, HCD finds that disposition of the Property and any surplus land under the Economic Opportunity Law is in violation of the SLA.

Conclusion and Next Steps
Based on the information provided, HCD finds that the City’s disposition of the Property is in violation of the SLA because the City failed to make the surplus land available for affordable housing, and the City has not provided any documentation demonstrating compliance with, or exemption from, the SLA before disposing of the Property. The City further violated the SLA by exclusively negotiating with the Developer and by subsequently moving forward with a disposition and sale of the Property.

As discussed above, under Government Code section 542320.5, subdivision (a)(1), the City has 60 days following receipt of this letter, or August 18, 2025, to cure or correct the violations noted herein, or it will be assessed a penalty equal to 30 percent of the disposition value. The City may have few options to cure or correct the violations, and HCD invites the City to discuss further. Pursuant to Section 502 of the SLA Guidelines, HCD has informed Local 11 of the violations noted herein.

Furthermore, should the City proceed to dispose of additional surplus land or exempt surplus land that would constitute subsequent violations of the SLA, including under the Economic Opportunity Law, the City will be assessed a penalty equal to 50 percent of the applicable disposition values.9
7 Gov. Code, § 54221, subd. (b)(1).
8 City of Moreno Valley Notice of Violation available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/moreno-valley-nov101823.pdf. 9 Gov. Code, § 54230.5, subd. (a)(1). 870
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
870 of 1082
Scott Ochoa, City Manager

SLA0001613
If the City or its representatives have any questions or need additional technical assistance regarding the SLA, please contact Linda Ly, Senior Housing Policy Specialist, at [email protected].

Sincerely,
David Zisser
Assistant Deputy Director
Local Government Relations and Accountability
Enclosure
cc: Jennifer McLain Hiramoto, Executive Director, Economic Development Agency Rudy Zeledon, Executive Director, Community Development Agency Ruben Duran, City Attorney, Best Best & Krieger LLP
871
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
871 of 1082
March 14, 2025
VIA U.S. MAIL, EMAIL & ONLINE PORTAL: https://calhcd.servicenow.com/csp?id=sc_cat_item&sys_id=91e19b8ac31955109a97251ce0013105 Department of Housing and Community Development ([email protected]) Division of Housing Policy Development
Housing Accountability Unit
651 Bannon Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95811
RE: POTENTIAL VIOLATION OF SURPLUS LAND ACT;
ITEM 12, CITY OF ONTARIO CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 18, 2025; DDA FOR 2.3-ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED AT E. RIVERSIDE DR./VINEYARD AVE.

Dear Housing Accountability & Enforcement Unit (“HAU”):

On behalf of UNITE HERE Local 11 (“Local 11”), this office respectfully writes to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) requesting its investigation of a potential violation of the Surplus Land Act (Gov. Code §§ 54220–54234) (“SLA”)1 involving the City of Ontario (“City”) disposition of a 2.368-acre property located at the corner of East Riverside Drive and Vineyard Avenue (i.e., APN 0218-111-12-0000) (“Property”).

On February 18, 2025, the City Council approved a Disposition and Development Agreement (“DDA”) for the sale of the City-owned Property to Ontario Ranch Hotels, LLC (“Developer”), citing the Economic Opportunity Law (Gov. Code §§ 52200-52201).2 Before the City approved the DDA, Local 11 submitted written and verbal comments raising questions about whether the City complied with the SLA. (See Local 11 letter dated February 18, 2025 [attached hereto].) As raised in these comments, Local 11’s research has not found any confirmation that the Property was first made available to housing sponsors via a written notice of availability (“NOA”). (See e.g., Gov. Code § 54222; HCD SLA Guidelines § 201.) Nor has Local 11’s research found any confirmation that the City made appropriate exempt surplus land findings during a regular public meeting. (See e.g., Gov.

Code § 54221(b)(1); SLA Guidelines §§ 103(c), 400(e).) These types of SLA issues, if verified, have been the subject of Notice of Violations (“NOV(s)”) issued by HCD for other jurisdictions, including 1 Inclusive of SLA Guidelines (8/1/24) https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-andcommunity/final-updated-surplus-land-act-guidelines-2024.pdf. 2 See City Council Agenda (2/18/25) Agenda, Item 12, https://granicus_production_attachments.s3. amazonaws.com/ontarioca/8b1c31aa587d3d63597574d77713d4830.pdf; Id., Agenda Report, https://d2kbkoa27fdvtw.cloudfront.net/ontarioca/ccfc6d371db4ae6a268fd028108a650c0.pdf; Id., Resolution, https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/ 3152722/PH_13_Ontario_Ranch_Hotels_DDA_02_RESO_RM.pdf; Id., Summary Report, https://legistarwebproduction.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/3096019/Ontario_Ranch_Hotels_LLC_52201_Sum mary_Report_ED_Opp_03.pdf.
872
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
872 of 1082
Notice of Potential Violation RE: City of Ontario (APN 0218111120000) March 14, 2025

an NOV issued to the City of Moreno Valley, where HCD rejected the claims that the SLA conflicts with Economic Opportunity Law (Gov. Code §52200-52203).3 The City approved the DDA over objections made by the public, including Local 11’s request that the City stay its action until after seeking technical advice from HCD. To date, we have yet to receive any legally sufficient explanation from the City of whether and how the City’s DDA approval has complied with the SLA requirements to make land available for housing development or declared it properly exempt. Local 11 supports housing laws intended to promote genuine housing, particularly affordable housing projects. Therefore, Local 11 respectfully requests that HCD review our attached comment letter and investigate whether the City’s approval of the DDA complied with the SLA and HCD Guidelines.

We thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me directly if you have any questions regarding this matter.

Sincerely,
_________________________________________
Jordan R. Sisson, Esq.

Attorney for UNITE HERE Local 11
ATTACHMENT: UNITE HERE LocaŽ 11 Letter (2/18/24)
CC: (email only)
Sheila Mautz, City Clerk ([email protected])
Scott Ochoa, City Manager ([email protected])
Jennifer McLain Hiramoto, Exec. Director Econ. Dev. ([email protected]) 3 City of Moreno Valley (10/18/2023) Notice of Violation RE Northwest Corner of Alessandro Boulevard and Nason Street, https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/morenovalley-nov-101823.pdf; see also San Bernardino (5/24/2023) Notice of Violation RE 295 Carousel Mall, https://www.hcd.ca.gov/ sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/San-Bernardino-CarouselMall-Follow-Up-Letter-052423.pdf; Roseville (12/4/2023) Notice of Violation RE 6382 Phillip Road, https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/ default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/roseville-nov-sla120423.pdf; Anaheim (12/8/21) Notice of Violation RE 2000 East Gene Autry Way, https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/anaheim-surplus-land-actnov-120821.pdf. 873
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
873 of 1082
‡„”—ƒ”›ͳͺǡʹͲʹͷ
VIA EMAIL:
‹–›‘—
‹Žǡ‹–›‘ˆ–ƒ”‹‘
͵Ͳ͵ƒ•––”‡‡–ǡ–ƒ”‹‘ǡͻͳ͹͸Ͷ
’—„Ž‹

‘‡–•̷‘–ƒ”‹‘
ƒǤ‰‘˜
RE: Item 12, City Council Meeting February 18, 2025;
Disposition and Development Agreement for Land Sale and 227-Room Hotel; UNITE HERE Local 11 Comments
‡ƒ”ƒ›‘”‡‘ƒ†
‘‘”ƒ„Ž‡‹–›‘—
‹Ž‡„‡”•ǣ
„‡ŠƒŽˆ‘ˆ

‘
ƒŽͳͳȋDz‘
ƒŽͳͳdzȌǡ–Š‹•‘ˆˆ‹
‡”‡•’‡
–ˆ—ŽŽ›’”‘˜‹†‡•–Š‡
ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰
‘‡–•ͳ–‘–Š‡‹–›‘ˆ–ƒ”‹‘ȋDz‹–›dzȌ”‡‰ƒ”†‹‰–Š‡’”‘’‘•‡†‹•’‘•‹–‹‘ƒ† ‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–‰”‡‡‡–ȋDzdzȌ„‡–™‡‡–Š‡‹–›ƒ†–ƒ”‹‘ƒ Š
‘–‡Ž•ǡȋDz‡˜‡Ž‘’‡”dzȌǤ
Š‡™‘—Ž†ƒŽŽ‘™ˆ‘”–Š‡•ƒŽ‡‘ˆƒʹǤ͵͸ͺǦƒ
”‡‹–›Ǧ‘™‡†’”‘’‡”–›Ž‘
ƒ–‡†ƒ––Š‡
‘”‡”‘ˆƒ•–
‹˜‡”•‹†‡”‹˜‡ƒ†‹‡›ƒ”†˜‡—‡ȋ‹Ǥ‡ǤǡͲʹͳͺǦͳͳͳǦͳʹǦͲͲͲͲȌȋDz‹–‡dz‘”Dz”‘’‡”–›dzȌ‹ ƒ–‹
‹’ƒ–‹‘‘ˆƒʹʹ͹Ǧ”‘‘ǡͷǦ•–ƒ”Ž—š—”›Š‘–‡ŽȋDz”‘Œ‡
–dzȌǤ

‘”†‹‰–‘–Š‡•–ƒˆˆ”‡’‘”–ˆ‘”–Š‡
ƒ„‘˜‡Ǧ”‡ˆ‡”‡
‡†‹–‡ǡʹ–Š‡”‘Œ‡
Ъĥ
‘•‹†‡”‡†‹–Š‡–ƒ”‹‘‡‰‹‘ƒŽ’‘”–•‘’Ž‡š
ȋDzdzȌ˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ
’ƒ
–‡’‘”–ȋ‹Ǥ‡Ǥǡ
‘ǤʹͲʹ͵ͳͳͲ͵ʹͺȌȋDz
dzȌǡ͵™Š‹
Š™ƒ•
‡”–‹ˆ‹‡†
ƒ†ƒ’’”‘˜‡†„›–Š‡‹–›‘—
‹Ž‘
—Ž›ͳ͸ǡʹͲʹͶǤȋ‰‡†ƒ‡’‘”–ǡ’ǤʹǤȌ
’‘”‡˜‹‡™‘ˆ–Š‡”‡Ž‡˜ƒ–†‘
—‡–•ǡ‘
ƒŽͳͳŠƒ••‡˜‡”ƒŽ
‘
‡”•™‹–Š–Š‡ǡ
‹
Ž—†‹‰•‡˜‡”ƒŽŽ‹˜‡‹••—‡•™‹–Š–Š‡ƒ†–Š‡’”‘’‘•‡†ʹʹ͹Ǧ”‘‘Š‘–‡Žǯ• ‘’Ž‹ƒ
‡™‹–Š–Š‡
—”’Ž—•ƒ†
–ȋDzdzȌǡ–Š‡ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒ˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ—ƒŽ‹–›
–ȋDzdzȌǡͶƒ†–Š‡‹–›ǯ•œ‘‹‰

‘†‡Ǥ•ˆ—”–Š‡”‡š’Žƒ‹‡†„‡Ž‘™ǡ‹–‹•—
Ž‡ƒ”‹ˆ–Š‡‹–›Šƒ•
‘’Ž‹‡†™‹–Š–Š‡”‡“—‹”‡‡––‘
ƒ‡Žƒ†ƒ˜ƒ‹Žƒ„Ž‡ˆ‘”Š‘—•‹‰†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–‘”†‡
Žƒ”‡†‹–’”‘’‡”Ž›‡š‡’–Ǥ††‹–‹‘ƒŽŽ›ǡ‹–•‡‡•
–Šƒ––Š‡’”‹‘”
‘Ž›
‘•‹†‡”‡†ƒͳͲͲǦ”‘‘Š‘–‡Ž‹ƒ†‹ˆˆ‡”‡–Ž‘
ƒ–‹‘Ǥ‘–‘‘ǡ–Š‡•‹‰‹ˆ‹
ƒ–Ž›
Žƒ”‰‡”Š‘–‡Ž‹•Ž‹‡Ž›–‘‡šƒ
‡”„ƒ–‡˜‡Š‹
Ž‡‹Ž‡•–”ƒ˜‡Ž‡†ȋDzdzȌƒ†ƒ••‘
‹ƒ–‡†‰”‡‡Š‘—•‡‰ƒ•
ȋDz

dzȌ‹’ƒ
–•ǡ™Š‹
Š
‘—Ž†„‡ˆ—”–Š‡”‹–‹‰ƒ–‡†–Š”‘—‰Šˆ‡ƒ•‹„Ž‡‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘‡ƒ•—”‡•‘–

‘•‹†‡”‡†Ǥ —”–Š‡”‘”‡ǡ–Š‡•–ƒˆˆ”‡’‘”–ˆƒ‹Ž•–‘’”‘˜‹†‡ƒ†Ȁ‘”‡š’Žƒ‹ ”‹–‹
ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”ƒ–‹‘ƒ„‘—–
‡›ˆ‹ƒ
‹ƒŽƒ•’‡
–•‘ˆ–Š‡‘”‡š’Žƒ‹™Š›–Š‡‹–›†‘‡•‘–”‡“—‹”‡ƒŠ‘–‡ŽǦ•’‡ ‹ˆ‹


‘†‹–‹‘ƒŽ—•‡’‡”‹–ȋDzdzȌƒ––Š‹•–‹‡ǡƒ•”‡“—‹”‡†—†‡”–Š‡‹–›ǯ•œ‘‹‰ ‘†‡Ǥ
‘”–Š‡•‡”‡ƒ•‘•ǡ‘
ƒŽͳͳ”‡•’‡
–ˆ—ŽŽ›ƒ••–Š‡‹–›–‘•–ƒ›ƒ
–‹‘‘–Š‡—–‹ŽƒŽŽ
”‡“—‹”‡‡–•Šƒ˜‡„‡‡•ƒ–‹•ˆ‹‡†ǡƒǦ
‘’Ž‹ƒ–”‡˜‹‡™Šƒ•„‡‡
‘†—
–‡†ǡƒŠ‘–‡ŽǦ•’‡
‹ˆ‹

ƒ†ƒ–‘”›
‘—–‡”–”‹’”‡†—
–‹‘’”‘‰”ƒ‹•ƒ††‡†ǡƒ†–Š‡”‡‹•ƒ‘’’‘”–—‹–›ˆ‘”–Š‡’—„Ž‹ –‘
˜‡–‡›ˆ‹ƒ
‹ƒŽ•–—†‹‡•ƒ••‘
‹ƒ–‡†™‹–Š–Š‡ƒŽ‘‰™‹–ŠƒŽŽ‡–‹–Ž‡‡–•ˆ‘”–Š‡Š‘–‡Ž”‘Œ‡ –Ǥ
ͳ
‡”‡‹ǡ’ƒ‰‡
‹–ƒ–‹‘•ƒ”‡‡‹–Š‡”–Š‡•–ƒ–‡†’ƒ‰‹ƒ–‹‘ȋ‹Ǥ‡ǤǡDz’Ǥ͓dzȌ‘” Ǧ’ƒ‰‡Ž‘ ƒ–‹‘ȋ‹Ǥ‡ǤǡDz ’Ǥ͓dzȌǤ ʹ

Ž—•‹˜‡‘ˆ–Š‡Dz‰‡†ƒ‡’‘”–dz†ƒ–‡†ʹȀͳͺȀʹͷǡDz—ƒ”›‡’‘”–dz”‡‰ƒ”†‹‰–Š‡ǡDzšŠ‹„‹–dz”‘’‡”–› ˜‹‡™ǡǡƒ†–Š‡’”‘’‘•‡†Dz‡•‘Ž—–‹‘dzǤ ͵

Ž—•‹˜‡‘ˆ–Š‡”ƒˆ–
ȋDz
dzȌǡ ‹ƒŽ
ȋDz 
dzȌǡƒ†‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘‘‹–‘”‹‰‡“—‹”‡‡–•”‘‰”ƒ
ȋDzdzȌǤ Ͷ

Ž—†‹‰Dz
—‹†‡Ž‹‡•dz
‘†‹ˆ‹‡†ƒ–ͳͶƒŽǤ‘†‡Ǥ‡‰•ǤȚͳͷͲͲͲ‡–•‡“Ǥ
874
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
874 of 1082
Council Comments RE: Ontario Ranch Hotels, LLC DDA
February 18, 202ͻ

I. LOCAL 11’S STANDING
‘
ƒŽͳͳ”‡’”‡•‡–•‘”‡–ŠƒʹͷǡͲͲͲ™‘”‡”•‡’Ž‘›‡†‹Š‘–‡Ž•ǡ”‡•–ƒ—”ƒ–•ǡƒ‹”’‘”–•ǡ •’‘”–•ƒ”‡ƒ•ǡƒ†
‘˜‡–‹‘
‡–‡”•–Š”‘—‰Š‘—–‘—–Š‡”ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒƒ†Š‘‡‹šȄ‹
Ž—†‹‰
ƒ’’”‘š‹ƒ–‡Ž›ͶͷͲ‡„‡”•™Š‘Ž‹˜‡ƒ†Ȁ‘”™‘”‹–ƒ”‹‘ǤŠ‡—‹‘Šƒ•ƒ ‹”•–‡†‡– ”‹‰Š––‘’‡–‹–‹‘’—„Ž‹
‘ˆˆ‹
‹ƒŽ•‹
‘‡
–‹‘™‹–Šƒ––‡”•‘ˆ’—„Ž‹

‘
‡”ǡ‹
Ž—†‹‰
‘’Ž‹ƒ
‡
™‹–Šƒ’’Ž‹
ƒ„Ž‡œ‘‹‰”—Ž‡•ƒ†ǡŒ—•–ƒ•†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡”•ǡ‘–Š‡”
‘—‹–›‘”‰ƒ‹œƒ–‹‘•ǡƒ†
‹†‹˜‹†—ƒŽ”‡•‹†‡–•†‘Ǥ”‘–‡
–‹‰‹–•‡„‡”•ǯ‹–‡”‡•–‹–Š‡‡˜‹”‘‡–ǡ‹
Ž—†‹‰ƒ†˜‘
ƒ–‹‰
ˆ‘”–Š‡‡˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ•—•–ƒ‹ƒ„‹Ž‹–›‘ˆ†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–’”‘Œ‡ –•ƒ†‡•—”‹‰–Š‡ƒ˜ƒ‹Žƒ„‹Ž‹–›‘ˆ
Š‘—•‹‰ƒ†Š‘–‡Ž•ȋ‹
‘’Ž‹ƒ
‡™‹–Š•–ƒ–‡ƒ†Ž‘
ƒŽ”—Ž‡•Ȍǡ‹•’ƒ”–‘ˆ‘
ƒŽͳͳǯ•
‘”‡ˆ—
–‹‘Ǥ
‡
‘‰‹œ‹‰—‹‘•ǯ‹–‡”‡•–ƒ†—‹‘‡„‡”•ǯ‹–‡”‡•–‹–Š‡•‡‹••—‡•ǡƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒ ‘—”–•Šƒ˜‡

‘•‹•–‡–Ž›—’Š‡Ž†—‹‘•ǯ•–ƒ†‹‰–‘Ž‹–‹‰ƒ–‡Žƒ†—•‡ƒ†‡˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ Žƒ‹•Ǥȋ‡‡Bakersfield
Citizens v. BakersfieldȋʹͲͲͶȌͳʹͶƒŽǤ’’ǤͶ–ŠͳͳͺͶǡͳͳͻͺǤȌ —”–Š‡”‘”‡ǡ‘ ƒŽͳͳŠƒ•’—„Ž‹

‹–‡”‡•–•–ƒ†‹‰–‘
ŠƒŽŽ‡‰‡–Š‡”‘Œ‡
–’’”‘˜ƒŽ•‰‹˜‡–Š‡‹–›ǯ•’—„Ž‹
†—–›–‘
‘’Ž›™‹–Š
ƒ’’Ž‹
ƒ„Ž‡œ‘‹‰ƒ†Žƒ™•ǡ™Š‹
Š‘
ƒŽͳͳ•‡‡•–‘‡ˆ‘”
‡Ǥȋ‡‡‡Ǥ‰ǤǡRialto Citizens for
Responsible Growth v. City of RialtoȋʹͲͳʹȌʹͲͺƒŽǤ’’ǤͶ–ŠͺͻͻǡͻͳͶǦͻͳ͸ǡǤ͸ǢLa Mirada Avenue Neighborhood Assn. of Hollywood v. City of Los AngelesȋʹͲͳͺȌʹʹƒŽǤ’’Ǥͷ–ŠͳͳͶͻǡͳͳͷͺǦͳͳͷͻǢ Weiss v. City of Los AngelesȋʹͲͳ͸ȌʹƒŽǤ’’Ǥͷ–ŠͳͻͶǡʹͲͷǦʹͲ͸ǢSave the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan BeachȋʹͲͳͳȌͷʹƒŽǤͶ–Šͳͷͷǡͳ͸͸ǡͳ͸ͻȂͳ͹ͲǤȌ II. SPECIFIC ISSUES WITH THE DDA & PROJECT

1. IT IS UNCLEAR IF THE CITY HAS COMPLIED WITH THE SURPLUS LAND ACT Š‡—”’Ž—•ƒ†
–ȋ
‘˜Ǥ‘†‡ȚȚͷͶʹʹͲȂͷͶʹ͵ͶȌȋDzdzȌǡ‹
Ž—•‹˜‡‘ˆ‹–•‰—‹†‡Ž‹‡•ȋDz

—‹†‡Ž‹‡•dzȌ’”‡’ƒ”‡†„›–Š‡‡’ƒ”–‡–‘ˆ
‘—•‹‰ƒ†‘—‹–›‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–ȋDz
dzȌǡƒ‹•
–‘ƒ‡Ž‘
ƒŽ’—„Ž‹
Žƒ†–Šƒ–‹•‘Ž‘‰‡”‡‡†‡†ˆ‘”‰‘˜‡”‡–’—”’‘•‡•ƒ˜ƒ‹Žƒ„Ž‡ˆ‘”„—‹Ž†‹‰ ƒˆˆ‘”†ƒ„Ž‡Š‘‡•ǤͷŠ‡ƒ’’Ž‹‡•–‘ƒŽŽ
‹–‹‡•ǡ‹
Ž—†‹‰
Šƒ”–‡”
‹–‹‡•Ǥȋ‡‡Anderson v. City of San
JoseȋʹͲͳͻȌͶʹƒŽǤ’’Ǥͷ–Š͸ͺ͵ǤȌ
‡‡”ƒŽŽ›ǡ„‡ˆ‘”‡†‹•’‘•‹‰‘ˆ•—”’Ž—•Žƒ†ǡƒŽ‘
ƒŽƒ‰‡
›—•–
•‡†ƒ™”‹––‡‘–‹
‡‘ˆƒ˜ƒ‹Žƒ„‹Ž‹–›ȋDzdzȌ‘ˆ–Š‡’”‘’‡”–›–‘
ǡƒ›Ž‘
ƒŽ’—„Ž‹
‡–‹–›™‹–Š‹
–Š‡Œ—”‹•†‹
–‹‘™Š‡”‡–Š‡•—”’Ž—•Ž‘
ƒŽŽƒ†‹•Ž‘
ƒ–‡†ǡƒ†ƒˆˆ‘”†ƒ„Ž‡Š‘—•‹‰•’‘•‘”•™Š‘Šƒ˜‡
‘–‹ˆ‹‡†
Ǥȋ‡‡
‘˜Ǥ‘†‡ȚͷͶʹʹʹǢ

—‹†‡Ž‹‡•ȚʹͲͳǤȌŠ‹Ž‡–Š‡”‡ƒ”‡‡š
‡’–‹‘•–‘–Š‹•
”‡“—‹”‡‡–ǡƒŽ‘
ƒŽƒ‰‡
›ǯ•†‡–‡”‹ƒ–‹‘–Šƒ–Žƒ†‹•‡š‡’–•—”’Ž—•Žƒ†—•–„‡•—’’‘”–‡†„› ™”‹––‡ˆ‹†‹‰•†—”‹‰ƒ”‡‰—Žƒ”’—„Ž‹
‡‡–‹‰‘ˆ–Š‡ƒ‰‡
›ǡ™‹–Š–Š‘•‡ˆ‹†‹‰••‡––‘–Š‡
Ǥ
ȋ‡‡
‘˜Ǥ‘†‡ȚͷͶʹʹͳȋ„ȌȋͳȌǢ
—‹†‡Ž‹‡•ȚȚͳͲ͵ȋ
Ȍƒ†ͶͲͲȋ‡ȌǤȌ

‡”‡ǡ–Š‡‹–›‹•’”‘’‘•‹‰–Š‡†‹•’‘•‹–‹‘‘ˆ–Š‡‹–›Ǧ‘™‡†”‘’‡”–›ǡ„—––Š‡ƒ˜ƒ‹Žƒ„Ž‡ †‘
—‡–ƒ–‹‘”‡˜‹‡™‡†„›‘
ƒŽͳͳ†‘‡•‘–‡–‹‘™Š‡–Š‡”–Š‡”‘’‡”–›™ƒ••—„Œ‡
––‘ƒ
‘”†‡
Žƒ”‡†‡š‡’–Ǥ‘”‹•‹–
Ž‡ƒ”™Š‡–Š‡”–Š‡”‘’‡”–›ˆƒŽŽ•™‹–Š‹ƒ›‘ˆ–Š‡
ƒ–‡‰‘”‹‡•‘ˆ
Dz‡š‡’–•—”’Ž—•Žƒ†dz—†‡”
‘˜Ǥ‘†‡ȚͷͶʹʹͳȋˆȌȋͳȌǤŠ‹Ž‡•—„†‹˜‹•‹‘ȋ
Ȍ‘–‡•ƒ‡š‡’–‹‘ˆ‘”
Žƒ†‡š
Šƒ‰‡†ˆ‘”Dzƒ‘–Š‡”’”‘’‡”–›‡
‡••ƒ”›ˆ‘”–Š‡ƒ‰‡
›ǯ•—•‡dzǡ‹–‹•—
Ž‡ƒ”Š‘™ƒ†
™Š‡–Š‡”–Šƒ–‡š‡’–‹‘™‘—Ž†ƒ’’Ž›–‘–Š‡ǡ™Š‹
Š”‡ˆ‡”‡
‡•ƒ’”‘’‘•‡†‡š
Šƒ‰‡‘ˆʹͷǡͶͺͻ
•“—ƒ”‡ˆ‡‡–ȋͲǤͷͺͷƒ
”‡•Ȍ‘Ǧ‡š
Ž—•‹˜‡ǡ”‹‰Š–Ǧ‘ˆǦ™ƒ›”‡ƒ‹‡†‘™‡†„›–Š‡Žƒ†‘™‡”ȋ‹Ǥ‡Ǥǡ͹Ǧʹͷ ͷ‡‡
—„Ž‹
ƒ†•ˆ‘”ˆˆ‘”†ƒ„Ž‡
‘—•‹‰‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–ȋ‹†‡–‹ˆ›‹‰Žƒ†ƒ
“—‹•‹–‹‘ƒ•‘‡‘ˆ–Š‡
„‹‰‰‡•–
ŠƒŽŽ‡‰‡•–‘‡™ƒˆˆ‘”†ƒ„Ž‡Š‘—•‹‰ǡƒ†‘—–Ž‹‹‰•‡˜‡”ƒŽƒ –‹‘•–ƒ‡„›–Š‡•–ƒ–‡–‘‡Šƒ
‡–Š‡
ǡ•—
Šƒ•š‡
—–‹˜‡”†‡”ǦͲ͸Ǧͳͻȏ
‘˜Ǥ‡™•‘ǡʹͲͳͻȐǡͳͶͺ͸ȏ‹‰ǡʹͲͳͻȐǡͳʹͷͷȏ‘„‡”–‹˜ƒ•ǡ ʹͲͳͻȐȌǡŠ––’•ǣȀȀ™™™ǤŠ
†Ǥ
ƒǤ‰‘˜Ȁ’Žƒ‹‰Ǧƒ†Ǧ
‘—‹–›Ǧ†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–Ȁ’—„Ž‹
ǦŽƒ†•Ǧƒˆˆ‘”†ƒ„Ž‡ǦŠ‘—•‹‰Ǧ
†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–Ǥ
875
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
875 of 1082
Council Comments RE: Ontario Ranch Hotels, LLC DDA
February 18, 202ͻ

ˆ‡‡–ƒ†Œƒ
‡––‘†‹”–•‹†‡™ƒŽƒ”‡ƒȌƒ†–‡’‘”ƒ”›
‘•–”—
–‹‘‡ƒ•‡‡–™‘—Ž†ƒ’’Ž›Ǥ͸Š‡
•‹†‡™ƒŽ‹•Ž‡••–Šƒ‘‡Ǧˆ‘—”–Š–Š‡•‹œ‡‘ˆ–Š‡ʹǤ͵͸ͺǦƒ ”‡”‘’‡”–›ǡ͹ƒ†–Š‡”‡ƒ’’‡ƒ”•–‘„‡ƒ’Ž‡
•’ƒ
‡™‹–Š‹‡š‹•–‹‰”‹‰Š–•Ǧ‘ˆǦ™ƒ›ȋ‹Ǥ‡Ǥǡ†‹”–•‹†‡™ƒŽƒ†”‘ƒ†Ȍ–‘ƒ

‡••‡š‹•–‹‰—–‹Ž‹–›Ž‹‡•
ƒŽ‘‰‹˜‡”•‹†‡”‹˜‡Ǥͺ —”–Š‡”‘”‡ǡˆ—–—”‡•–”‡‡–‹’”‘˜‡‡–•ȋ‡Ǥ‰Ǥǡ•–”‡‡–ǡ•‡™‡”ǡ–”ƒˆˆ‹ •‹‰ƒŽǡ
—–‹Ž‹–›Ž‹‡•ǡ‡–
ǤȌƒ”‡ƒŽ”‡ƒ†›ƒ–‹
‹’ƒ–‡†ƒŽ‘‰‹‡›ƒ”†”‹‰Š–Ǧ‘ˆǦ™ƒ›ȋ‹Ǥ‡Ǥǡˆ‹˜‡ǦŽƒ‡™‹–ŠͺǦˆ‘‘– —Ž–‹Ǧ—•‡–”ƒ‹ŽȌƒ••—„Œ‡
––‘–Š‡’”‡˜‹‘—•Ž›ƒ’’”‘˜‡†Ǥͻ

•—ǡ‹–‹•—
Ž‡ƒ”Š‘™–Š‹••‹‰‹ˆ‹
ƒ–Ž›•ƒŽŽ‡”–‡’‘”ƒ”›
‘•–”—
–‹‘‡ƒ•‡‡–‹•
‡
‡••ƒ”›Š‡”‡–‘“—ƒŽ‹ˆ›ƒ•‡š‡’–ǡ™Š‹
Š™‘—Ž†‡˜‡”–Š‡Ž‡••Šƒ˜‡–‘„‡†‡
Žƒ”‡†‡š‡’–‡†ƒ–ƒ
”‡‰—Žƒ”’—„Ž‹
‡‡–‹‰Ǥ

2. THE DDA’S PROPOSAL OF A 227-ROOM HOTEL WAS NOT ANALYZED UNDER THE PRIOR EIR †‡”ǡ‘
‡ƒ
Šƒ•„‡‡’”‡’ƒ”‡†ǡƒ•—„•‡“—‡–‘”•—’’Ž‡‡–
‹•”‡“—‹”‡†
ˆ‘”‰”ƒ–‹‰ƒŽƒ–‡”†‹•
”‡–‹‘ƒ”›ƒ’’”‘˜ƒŽ™Š‡–Š‡”‡Šƒ˜‡„‡‡ǣȋ‹Ȍ•—„•–ƒ–‹ƒŽ Šƒ‰‡•–‘–Š‡
’”‘Œ‡
–ǡȋ‹‹Ȍ•—„•–ƒ–‹ƒŽ
Šƒ‰‡•‹–Š‡
‹”
—•–ƒ
‡•‹˜‘Ž˜‹‰–Š‡’”‘Œ‡
–ǡ‘”ȋ‹‹‹Ȍ•‹‰‹ˆ‹
ƒ–‡™
‹ˆ‘”ƒ–‹‘‹˜‘Ž˜‹‰–Š‡’”‘Œ‡
–Ǥȋ‡‡—„Ǥ‡•Ǥ‘†‡Țʹͳͳ͸͸Ǣ
—‹†‡Ž‹‡•Țͳͷͳ͸ʹǤȌ”‘Œ‡
–•
‘–
‘–‡’Žƒ–‡†‘”‘–™‹–Š‹–Š‡‰‡‘‰”ƒ’Š‹
ƒ”‡ƒƒ›”‡“—‹”‡ƒ††‹–‹‘ƒŽƒƒŽ›•‹•ǤͳͲ
‡”‡ǡ
–Š‡
‘–‡’Žƒ–‡•ƒʹʹ͹Ǧ”‘‘Š‘–‡Žǡ™Š‹
Š–Š‡•–ƒˆˆ”‡’‘”–•—‰‰‡•–•™ƒ•
‘˜‡”‡†„›–Š‡
’”‡˜‹‘—•Ž›
‡”–‹ˆ‹‡†
Ǥͳͳ
‘™‡˜‡”ǡ–Š‡
†‘‡•‘–‡–‹‘–Š‡‘”–Š‡’”‘’‘•‡†ʹʹ͹Ǧ”‘‘
Š‘–‡Ž”‘Œ‡
–Ǥ
•–‡ƒ†ǡ–Š‡

‘–‡’Žƒ–‡†ƒ‡”‡ͳͲͲǦ”‘‘Š‘–‡ŽŽ‘
ƒ–‡†‹’Žƒ‹‰ƒ”‡ƒȋDzdzȌ
͵ǡƒ†ƒ–‹
‹’ƒ–‡†”‡–ƒ‹Ž—•‡•™‹–Š‹ʹȋ‹Ǥ‡Ǥǡ™Š‡”‡–Š‡‹–›Ǧ‘™‡†”‘’‡”–›‹•Ž‘ ƒ–‡†ȌǤͳʹ
–‹•
—
Ž‡ƒ”‹ˆ–Š‡‹–›‹•‘™
‘–‡’Žƒ–‹‰ƒ•‹‰Ž‡Žƒ”‰‡”Š‘–‡Ž‹ƒ†‹ˆˆ‡”‡–Ž‘
ƒ–‹‘ȋ‹Ǥ‡Ǥǡƒʹʹ͹Ǧ”‘‘
Š‘–‡Ž‹ʹȌ‘”‹•
‘•‹†‡”‹‰–™‘Š‘–‡Ž•ȋ‹Ǥ‡Ǥǡʹʹ͹Ǧ”‘‘•‹ʹ’Ž—•–Š‡ͳͲͲǦ”‘‘Š‘–‡Ž‹͵ȌǤ •†‹•—
••‡†„‡Ž‘™ǡ‡˜‡ƒ•‹‰Ž‡Žƒ”‰‡”Š‘–‡Ž™‘—Ž†Ž‹‡Ž›Šƒ˜‡‡šƒ ‡”„ƒ–‡†‹’ƒ
–•‘–ƒƒŽ›œ‡†
‘”‹–‹‰ƒ–‡†—†‡”–Š‡
‡”–‹ˆ‹‡†
ǤŠ‡”‡ˆ‘”‡ǡ–Š‡’”‘’‘•‡†ʹʹ͹Ǧ”‘‘Š‘–‡Ž†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–ƒ’’‡ƒ”• ͸‡‡‰‡†ƒ‡’‘”–ǡ’ǤʹǢšŠ‹„‹–ȋƒ”‡ƒ‰‡‡”ƒŽŽ›Ž‘ ƒ–‡†ƒŽ‘‰•‹†‡™ƒŽƒ”‡ƒȌǢǡ ’Ǥ͹ǡͷͻǡ͹ͺ
ȋ•‡
–‹‘ͳǤͳǤͶͻǡšŠ•ǤǦͳƬǦͳȌǤ
͹ ‘”‡šƒ’Ž‡ǡ–Š‹•‡š‡’–‹‘Šƒ•„‡‡
‹–‡†„›‘–Š‡”ƒ‰‡
‹‡•‡š
Šƒ‰‹‰”‡Žƒ–‹˜‡Ž›
‘’ƒ”ƒ„Ž‡
’”‘’‡”–‹‡•Ǥȋ‡‡‡Ǥ‰Ǥǡƒ’‹–‘ŽƒŽƒ‹‰‘‹••‹‘‰‡†ƒ‡’‘”–ȋͶȀͶȀʹͶȌǡ’ǤͳȏͷǡͷͻʹǦ•ˆ’”‘’‡”–›ȏ‘“—‡Ž ‹‘Ž‡‡–ƒ”›
Š‘‘Ž‹•–”‹
–Ȑ‹‡š
Šƒ‰‡ˆ‘”ͶǡʹͺͶǦ•ˆ’”‘’‡”–›ȏ‹–›‘ˆƒ’‹–‘ŽƒȐȌǡ
Š––’•ǣȀȀ

‡‡–‹‰•’—„Ž‹
Ǥ„Ž‘„Ǥ
‘”‡Ǥ—•‰‘˜
Ž‘—†ƒ’‹Ǥ‡–Ȁ
ƒ’‹–‘Žƒ
ƒǦ‡‡–Ǧ
͹ƒͳ͸ͻͻ
ˆ†‡͹ˆͶ†Ͳˆͺ†ʹ„
‡ͷ†ˆʹʹƒͷ‡ʹʹȀ
Ǧ––ƒ
Š‡–ǦͲͲ͵Ǧˆƒͳ͵Ͳ‡„͹†ƒ„ͺͶͻ†ͲƒͲ͹ˆƒ„Ͷ†͵ˆͷ͹‡ƒƒͳǤ’†ˆǤ ͺ‡‡ ‘‘‰Ž‡ƒ’•ǡŠ––’•ǣȀȀ™™™Ǥ‰‘‘‰Ž‡Ǥ
‘Ȁƒ’•Ȁ’Žƒ
‡ȀΪ‹‡›ƒ”†Ϊ˜‡ΪΨʹ͸ΪΪ‹˜‡”•‹†‡Ϊ”ǡڐ–ƒ”‹‘ǡ
ΪΪͻͳ͹͸ͳȀ̷͵ͶǤͲͳͻͷͷ͵ǡǦͳͳ͹Ǥ͸ͳͲͺͶʹ͵ǡ͵ƒǡ͸Ͳ›ǡʹ͹ͷǤͷͷŠǡͻͲǤ͵ʹ–Ȁ†ƒ–ƒαǨ͵͹Ǩͳ‡ͳǨ͵ͷǨͳ•‰͸ʹ‰͸˜Šͳ˜‘ͷ ‘’Ž–Ǧ™Ǩʹ‡ͲǨ͸•Š––’•ǣΨʹ Ψʹ •–”‡‡–˜‹‡™’‹š‡Ž•Ǧ’ƒǤ‰‘‘‰Ž‡ƒ’‹•Ǥ ‘Ψʹ ˜ͳΨʹ –Š—„ƒ‹ŽΨ͵
„̴
Ž‹‡–Ψ
͵ƒ’•̴•˜Ǥ–ƒ
–‹Ž‡Ψʹ͸™Ψ͵ͻͲͲΨʹ͸ŠΨ͵͸ͲͲΨʹ͸’‹–
ŠΨ͵ǦͲǤ͵ͳͺͷ͵ͶͳͲͷʹ͵͵͵͸ͺ͵ͶΨʹ͸’ƒ‘‹†Ψ͵‰͸ʹ‰
͸˜Šͳ˜‘ͷ‘’Ž–Ǧ™Ψʹ͸›ƒ™Ψ͵ʹ͹ͷǤͷͶ͸ʹͻͻʹͷͶʹͶ͵ͶǨ͹‹ͳ͸͵ͺͶǨͺ‹ͺͳͻʹǨͶ͸Ǩ͵ͷǨͳ•ͲšͺͲ ͵͵Ͷ
†ͳˆ͵ͻͻ†͹
„ǣͲšͳͶ
ƒͶͳͶ„ʹ͵Ͳ͵ͺͲͻͷǨͺʹǨ͵†͵ͶǤͲͳͻͷͻͺͳǨͶ†Ǧͳͳ͹Ǥ͸ͳͲͻʹͶǨͳ͸•Ψʹ ‰Ψʹ ͳͳ‰†œ–͹–’„ǫ‡–”›α––—Ƭ‰̴‡’α ‰‘›
ͳ
š‹Ͷ™
‘
™Œšͳ ™Ψ͵Ψ͵Ǥ ͻ‡‡
ǡ ’ǤͳͲͳǡͳͳ͹ǡͳʹ͹Ǧͳ͵͸ǡͳͷͳǦͳͷͻǡ͸ͻʹǢ•‡‡ƒŽ•‘‰‡†ƒ‡’‘”–ȋ͹Ȁͳ͸ȀʹͶǡ –‡ʹͲǡ’ǤͶǤ ͳͲ‡‡‡Ǥ‰ǤǡConcerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v 32nd Dist. Agric. Ass'nȋͳͻͺ͸ȌͶʹ͵†ͻʹͻǡͻ͵͹ȋ’Žƒ•ˆ‘” ƒ’’”‘˜‡†ƒ’Š‹–Š‡ƒ–‡”’”‘Œ‡
–
Šƒ‰‡†–‘‹
”‡ƒ•‡•‡ƒ–‹‰•‹‰‹ˆ‹
ƒ–Ž›ǡ‡š’ƒ†–Š‡•‹–‡ǡƒ†”‡‘”‹‡––Š‡
•–ƒ‰‡–‘ˆƒ
‡‡ƒ”„›”‡•‹†‡
‡•ȌǢSave Berkeley's Neighborhoods v Regents of Univ. of CalǤȋʹͲʹͲȌͷͳͷ–Š ʹʹ͸ǡʹ͵͹ȋ
Žƒ‹–Šƒ–—‹˜‡”•‹–›
Šƒ‰‡†’”‘Œ‡
–†‡•
”‹„‡†‹
ƒ’—•Ž‘‰Ǧ”ƒ‰‡†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–’Žƒ„›
ƒ’’”‘˜‹‰‹
”‡ƒ•‡•‹•–—†‡–‡”‘ŽŽ‡–™‡ŽŽ„‡›‘††‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–’Žƒƒ† ’”‘Œ‡
–‹‘•ǡ™‹–Š‘—–

‘•‹†‡”‹‰™Š‡–Š‡”ˆ—”–Š‡””‡˜‹‡™™ƒ•”‡“—‹”‡†ǡƒŽŽ‡‰‡†˜‹‘Žƒ–‹‘‘ˆȌǤ ͳͳ‡‡—ƒ”›‡’‘”–ǡ’ǤͳǢ‰‡†ƒ‡’‘”–ǡ’ǤʹǢǡ ’Ǥ͸ͲȏšŠǤ ‘’‡‘ˆ‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–ȐǤ ͳʹ
ǡ ’’Ǥ͵ʹǡͶͳǦͶ͵ǡͳͳͶǦͳͳ͹ȋ’”‘Œ‡
–
‘’‘‡–•ƒ†’Žƒ‹‰ƒ”‡ƒ•Ȍǡͳ͹͸Ǧͳ͹ͺȋŽ‹•–‹‰–Š‡’”‘Œ‡ –
ƒ’’”‘˜ƒŽ•ȌǢǡ ’Ǥ͹Ǥ
876
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
876 of 1082
Council Comments RE: Ontario Ranch Hotels, LLC DDA
February 18, 202ͻ

–‘”‡ˆŽ‡
–•—„•–ƒ–‹ƒŽ
Šƒ‰‡•–‘–Š‡’”‘Œ‡
–ǡ‡ƒ‹‰–Šƒ–ˆ—”–Š‡””‡˜‹‡™•Š‘—Ž†„‡”‡“—‹”‡† „‡ˆ‘”‡–Š‡‹–›ƒ’’”‘˜‡•–Š‡Ǥ

3. EXACERBATED GHG/VMT IMPACTS CAN BE FURTHER MITIGATED •‡–‹‘‡†ƒ„‘˜‡ǡ–Š‡•–ƒˆˆ”‡’‘”–•—‰‰‡•–•–Š‡’”‘’‘•‡†ƒ –‹‘™ƒ•
‘˜‡”‡†„›–Š‡’”‹‘”

ǡ‹
Ž—†‹‰–Š‡‘—
‹Žˆ‹†‹‰–Šƒ–DzƒŽŽ‡˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ‹’ƒ
–•dzŠƒ˜‡„‡‡ƒ††”‡••‡†™‹–Š‹–Š‡
’”‹‘”
ƒ†–Šƒ–Dz‘‡™‘”ƒ††‹–‹‘ƒŽ‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘‡ƒ•—”‡•‘”ƒŽ–‡”ƒ–‹˜‡•ƒ”‡”‡“—‹”‡†Ǥdz ȋ”‘’‘•‡†‡•‘Ž—–‹‘ǡ’Ǥ͵ǤȌ
‘™‡˜‡”ǡ–Š‡’”‹‘”

‘–‡’Žƒ–‡†‘Ž›ƒͳͲͲǦ”‘‘Š‘–‡Žǡ‹
Ž—†‹‰
ƒ••‡••‹‰•ƒ†

•ƒ••‘
‹ƒ–‡†™‹–Š–Š‡Š‘–‡Ž—•‡Ǥͳ͵›‘”‡–Šƒ†‘—„Ž‹‰–Šƒ–•‹œ‡ǡ–Š‡ ƒ–‹
‹’ƒ–‡†”‘Œ‡
–™‘—Ž†’‘••‹„Ž›•‹‰‹ˆ‹
ƒ–Ž›‹
”‡ƒ•‡–Š‡ƒ‘—–‘ˆ•ƒ†

•ȋ‹
Ž—†‹‰
–Š‘•‡†‡”‹˜‹‰ˆ”‘‘„‹Ž‡‡‹••‹‘•Ȍƒ••‘
‹ƒ–‡†™‹–Š–Š‡Š‘–‡Ž—•‡ȋ‹Ǥ‡Ǥǡ‡™‘”‡šƒ
‡”„ƒ–‡†
‹’ƒ
–•ȌǤŠ‡•‡ƒ”‡‹’ƒ
–•‰‘‹‰ƒ„‘˜‡ƒ†„‡›‘†–Š‘•‡’”‡˜‹‘—•Ž›ˆ‘—†•‹‰‹ˆ‹ ƒ–ƒ†
—ƒ˜‘‹†ƒ„Ž‡ǤͳͶ•‹–”‡Žƒ–‡•–‘Š‘–‡ŽǦ”‡Žƒ–‡††‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–™‹–Š‹•ʹƒ†͵ǡ–Š‡ Žƒ”‰‡Ž›”‡Ž‹‡•
‘‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘‡ƒ•—”‡•

ǦͶȋ‹Ǥ‡Ǥǡ’‘‹–•›•–‡—†‡”‹–›ǯ•‘—‹–›Ž‹ƒ–‡ –‹‘Žƒ
ȋDzdzȌȌƒ† Ǧͳƒȋ†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–‘ˆ”ƒ•’‘”–ƒ–‹‘‡ƒ†ƒƒ‰‡‡–ȋDzdzȌȌǤͳͷȋ‡‡ ‡š
‡”’–•„‡Ž‘™ǤȌ
GHG-4 The City of Ontario shall require applicants to design and construct buildings in Planning Areas 2, 3, and 4 to achieve a 100-point score with the 2022 Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP), Table 6, “Screening Table for Implementing GHG Performance Standards for Commercial, Office, Medical, Hotel, Industrial, and Retail Development, 2030.” Alternatively, the analysis of development projects can be done through emissions calculations to demonstrate equivalent reductions using CalEEMod or a similar tool. Projects that do not use the CCAP Screening Tables to demonstrate consistency with the 2022 CCAP must demonstrate that they will generate annual GHG emissions that do not exceed the following emission screening thresholds from the CCAP:

1. For residential development completed between 2020 and 2030, the project shall not produce GHG emissions greater than 5.85 MTCO 2e/dwelling unit.

2. For residential development completed after 2030, the project shall not produce GHG emissions greater than 1.53 MTCO 2e/dwelling unit.

3. For nonresidential developments of all types completed between 2020 and 2030, the project shall not produce GHG emissions greater than 8.84 MTCO2e/2,500 square feet of conditioned space.

4. For nonresidential developments of all types completed after 2030, the project shall not produce GHG emissions greater than 3.61 MTCO 2e/2,500 square feet of conditioned space.

For projects that include both residential and nonresidential space, the residential and nonresidential components must be assessed separately against their respective applicable thresholds
###
ͳ͵
ǡ’’‡†‹šͳȋ‹”—ƒŽ‹–›

‘†‡Ž‹‰Ȍǡ ’’ǤͶǡ͵ͳǡ͸ͺ͵Ǣ
ǡ’’‡†‹šͳȋ
‡‘”ƒ†—Ȍǡ ’’Ǥͻǡ͵ͶǢ 
ǡ ’Ǥͳ͹ͳǤ
ͳͶ‡‡‡Ǥ‰Ǥǡ ‹†‹‰•‘ˆ ƒ
–ƒ†–ƒ–‡‡–‘ˆ˜‡””‹†‹‰‘•‹†‡”ƒ–‹‘•ǡ’’ǤͳͲͷǦͳͲͻǡͳͳͷǦͳͳͻǡͳ͵͹ǡ ͳͶͳǦͳͶʹǤ
ͳͷ
„‹†Ǥǡ•‡‡ƒŽ•‘ǡ’’Ǥʹ͵ǡ͵Ͳǡ
877
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
877 of 1082
Council Comments RE: Ontario Ranch Hotels, LLC DDA
February 18, 202ͻ

TRAF-1a Commercial/Hospitality TDM Measures. Applicants for commercial and hotel development in Planning Areas 2, 3, and 4 shall prepare Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures analyzed under a VMT-reduction methodology consistent with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) Final Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity (2021) and approved by the City of Ontario. Measures shall include but are not limited to:
x Implement a voluntary commute trip reduction program for employees. x Implement an employee parking cash-out program for employees. x Collaborate with the City to support transit service expansion. x Comply with requirements detailed in the Parking Management Plan, including providing parking validation for retail and hospitality visitors. ȋ‡‡
ǡǡ’’Ǥʹ͵ǡ͵ͲǤȌ
Š‹Ž‡–Š‡
•–ƒ–‡†–Š‡”‡™‡”‡‘‘–Š‡”ˆ‡ƒ•‹„Ž‡‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘‡ƒ•—”‡•ǡͳ͸ƒ††‹–‹‘ƒŽŽ› ˆ‡ƒ•‹„Ž‡‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘‡ƒ•—”‡•†‘•‡‡ƒ˜ƒ‹Žƒ„Ž‡–‘”‡†—
‡–Š‡‹’ƒ
–•exacerbated„›–Š‡Žƒ”‰‡”
Š‘–‡Ž”‘Œ‡
–ͳ͹Ȅ‡•’‡
‹ƒŽŽ›‡ƒ•—”‡•–Šƒ–
ƒ‹‹‹œ‡•ƒ†ƒ••‘
‹ƒ–‡†

‘„‹Ž‡‡‹••‹‘•
”‡
‘‡†‡†„›–Š‡ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒ‹”‘ŽŽ—–‹‘‘–”‘Žˆˆ‹
‡”•••‘
‹ƒ–‹‘ȋDzdzȌƒ†‘–Š‡”
’—„Ž‹
ƒ‰‡
‹‡•ȋ‡Ǥ‰Ǥǡ
‘˜‡”‘”ǯ•ˆˆ‹
‡‘ˆŽƒ‹‰ƒ†‡•‡ƒ”
ŠȋDzdzȌǡ–Š‡‘—–Š‡”ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒ
••‘
‹ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ
‘˜‡”‡–•ȋDz
dzȌǡ‘—–Š‘ƒ•–‹”—ƒŽ‹–›ƒƒ‰‡‡–‹•–”‹
–ȋDzdzȌǡ
ƒ†–Š‡ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒ‹”‡•‘—”
‡•‘ƒ”†ȋDzdzȌȌǤͳͺ ‘”‡šƒ’Ž‡ǡ–Š‡‹–›
‘—Ž†”‡“—‹”‡ƒ
ƒ†ƒ–‘”›”ƒ–Š‡”–Šƒ‡”‡Ž›˜‘Ž—–ƒ”›
‘—–‡–”‹’”‡†—
–‹‘’”‘‰”ƒȋDzdzȌǡ’”‘˜‹†‡
•—„•‹†‹œ‡†–”ƒ•‹–’ƒ••‡•ǡ‹
Ž—†‡„‹‡Ȁ•
‘‘–‡”Ǧ•Šƒ”‡ˆƒ
‹Ž‹–‹‡•ǡƒ†‘–Š‡”•–”ƒ–‡‰‹‡•Ǥͳͻ
‡•–‹ƒ–‡•–Šƒ–ƒƒ†ƒ–‘”›‹•‘”‡–Šƒ•‹š–‹‡•‘”‡‡ˆˆ‡ –‹˜‡ƒ–”‡†—
‹‰

‹’ƒ
–•
ȋ‹Ǥ‡Ǥǡ—’–‘ʹ͸ΨȌƒ•
‘’ƒ”‡†–‘ƒ˜‘Ž—–ƒ”›ȋ‹Ǥ‡Ǥǡ—’–‘ͶΨȌǤʹͲ —”–Š‡”‘”‡ǡ‹–‹•— Ž‡ƒ”™Š›
•‘‡‘ˆ–Š‡ʹʹ͹”‘‘•
‘—Ž†‘–ƒ

‘‘†ƒ–‡•‘‡ˆ‘”‘ˆ‘Ǧ•‹–‡Š‘—•‹‰ǡ•—
Šƒ•ƒˆˆ‘”†ƒ„Ž‡‘”
ͳ͸
„‹†ǤǡͳͲͻǡͳͳͻ
ͳ͹‘–Š‡‡š–‡–‹’ƒ
–•ƒ”‡’ƒ”–‘ˆ–Š‡‡š‹•–‹‰„ƒ•‡Ž‹‡
‘†‹–‹‘•ǡ‹–‹•‡˜‡”–Š‡Ž‡••’”‘’‡”–‘‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‡ƒ
†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–ǯ•exacerbating effects‘‡š‹•–‹‰‹’ƒ
–•Ǥȋ‡‡Clews Land & Livestock, LLC v. City of San Diego ȋʹͲͳ͹ȌͳͻƒŽǤ’’Ǥͷ–Šͳ͸ͳǡͳͻͶȏ“—‘–‹‰California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist.ȋʹͲͳͷȌ͸ʹƒŽǤͶ–Š͵͸ͻǡ͵͹͹ǡ͵ͺͺȐǤȌ ͳͺ‡‡ȋ‡ ǤʹͲʹͳȌ
ƒ†„‘‘ˆ‘”ƒŽ›œ‹‰
”‡‡Š‘—•‡
ƒ•‹••‹‘‡†—
–‹‘•ǡ••‡••‹‰Ž‹ƒ–‡
—Ž‡”ƒ„‹Ž‹–‹‡•ǡƒ††˜ƒ
‹‰
‡ƒŽ–Šƒ†“—‹–›ǡ’’Ǥ͵ͳǦ͵ʹǡ͹͵ǡ͹͸ǡͺͲǦͻ͸ǡŠ––’•ǣȀȀ™™™Ǥƒ‹”“—ƒŽ‹–›Ǥ‘”‰Ȁ Ž‹ƒ–‡Šƒ‰‡Ȁ‘
—‡–•Ȁ ‹ƒŽΨʹͲ
ƒ†„‘‘̴Ͷ͵ͶǤ’†ˆǢȋ—‰ǤʹͲͳͲȌ—ƒ–‹ˆ›‹‰

•ƒ†
‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘ǡ’’Ǥ͸ͶǦ͹ͶǡŠ––’•ǣȀȀ™™™Ǥ
‘–”ƒ
‘•–ƒǤ
ƒǤ‰‘˜Ȁ‘
—‡–‡–‡”Ȁ‹‡™Ȁ͵Ͷͳʹ͵ȀǦʹͲͳͲǦ

Ǧ
—ƒ–‹ˆ‹
ƒ–‹‘Ǧ Ǣȋ‡
ǤʹͲͳͺȌ‡
Š‹
ƒŽ†˜‹•‘”›ǡ’’Ǥʹ͹ǡŠ––’•ǣȀȀ‘’”Ǥ
ƒǤ‰‘˜Ȁ†‘
•ȀʹͲͳͻͲͳʹʹǦ͹Ͷ͵̴
‡
Š‹
ƒŽ̴†˜‹•‘”›Ǥ’†ˆǢ
ȋ‡
ǤʹͲͳͻȌ ‹ƒŽ”‘‰”ƒ
ǡ’’ǤʹǤͲǦͳͺȂʹǤͲǦ͹ͳȋ•‡‡’”‘Œ‡
–ǦŽ‡˜‡Ž‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘
‡ƒ•—”‡•ˆ‘”ƒ‹”“—ƒŽ‹–›ǡ

ǡƒ†–”ƒ•’‘”–ƒ–‹‘‹’ƒ
–•ȌǡŠ––’•ǣȀȀ•
ƒ‰Ǥ
ƒǤ‰‘˜Ȁ•‹–‡•Ȁƒ‹Ȁˆ‹Ž‡•Ȁˆ‹Ž‡Ǧ
ƒ––ƒ
Š‡–•Ȁˆ’‡‹”̴
‘‡
–•‘
ƒŽ̴
‘’Ž‡–‡Ǥ’†ˆǫͳ͸Ͳ͹ͻͺͳ͸ͳͺǢ
ȋ’”ǤʹͲʹͶȌǡ”‘‰”ƒ
ǡ’’ǤǦ͹ȂǦͶͺǡ
Š––’•ǣȀȀ•
ƒ‰Ǥ
ƒǤ‰‘˜Ȁ•‹–‡•Ȁƒ‹Ȁˆ‹Ž‡•Ȁˆ‹Ž‡Ǧƒ––ƒ
Š‡–•Ȁ‡šŠ‹„‹–̴ƒ̴”’̴ͷͲͺ̴ˆ‹ƒŽǤ’†ˆǫͳ͹ͳʹͲͲ͵͸ʹͷǢ
ʹͲʹʹ
‘’‹‰ŽƒǡͶǡ͹ǡʹͶǡʹͻƬ’’‡†‹šǡ’’Ǥʹ͵ǡŠ––’•ǣȀȀ™™ʹǤƒ”„Ǥ ƒǤ‰‘˜Ȁ‘—”Ǧ™‘”Ȁ’”‘‰”ƒ•Ȁƒ„Ǧ͵ʹǦ

Ž‹ƒ–‡Ǧ
Šƒ‰‡Ǧ•
‘’‹‰Ǧ’ŽƒȀʹͲʹʹǦ•
‘’‹‰Ǧ’ŽƒǦ†‘
—‡–•Ǣǯ•ʹͲͳ͹
‘’‹‰Žƒǡ’’‡†‹šǦ‘
ƒŽ

–‹‘ǡ’’ǤͳǦͺǡ͹ǦͻƬ’’‡†‹šǡ’ǤʹǡŠ––’•ǣȀȀ™™™Ǥƒ”„Ǥ ƒǤ‰‘˜Ȁ

Ȁ•
‘’‹‰’ŽƒȀƒ’’̴„̴Ž‘
ƒŽ̴ƒ
–‹‘̴ˆ‹ƒŽǤ’†ˆǤ ͳͻ‡‡‡Ǥ‰Ǥǡȋ‡
ǤʹͲʹͳȌǡ•—’”ƒˆǤͳ͸ǡ’’Ǥͺ͵Ǣȋ—‰ǤʹͲͳͲȌǡ•—’”ƒˆǤͳ͸ǡ’Ǥ͸͸Ǥ ʹͲȋ‡
ǤʹͲʹͳȌǡ•—’”ƒˆǤͳ͸ǡƒ–’’Ǥͺ͵ǡͺ͸Ǥ
878
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
878 of 1082
Council Comments RE: Ontario Ranch Hotels, LLC DDA
February 18, 202ͻ

™‘”Ǧˆ‘”
‡Š‘—•‹‰ǤŠ‡”‡ˆ‘”‡ǡ™‡—”‰‡–Š‡‹–›–‘
‘•‹†‡”ƒ‘”‡”‘„—•–ǡŠ‘–‡ŽǦ•’‡
‹ˆ‹

ƒ†ƒ–‘”›
‘—–‡””‡†—
–‹‘’”‘‰”ƒ–Šƒ–
‘—Ž†‹
Ž—†‡ǣ
x ’‡
‹ˆ‹
’‡”ˆ‘”ƒ
‡Ž‡˜‡Ž–‘„‡”‡ƒ
Š‡†ȋ‡Ǥ‰Ǥǡ•’‡
‹ˆ‹
‘”ƒ˜‡”ƒ‰‡†ƒ‹Ž›–”‹’”‡†—
–‹‘
‘”„‘–ŠȌǢ
x ’‡
‹ˆ‹‡†’ƒ”–‹
‹’ƒ–‹‘Ž‡˜‡Žȋ‡Ǥ‰ǤǡͳͲͲΨ‘ˆ‡’Ž‘›‡‡•ȌǢ
x ƒ”–‹
‹’ƒ–‹‘‹‰—ƒ”ƒ–‡‡†”‹†‡’”‘‰”ƒ•ˆ‘”‡’Ž‘›‡‡•™Š‘‡‡†–‘”‡•’‘†–‘ ‡‡”‰‡
‹‡•ƒ”‹•‹‰™Š‡‘”ƒŽ’—„Ž‹
–”ƒ•‹–‹•‹ˆ‡ƒ•‹„Ž‡Ǣ
x

‡–‹˜‹œ‡‡’Ž‘›‡‡
ƒ”’‘‘ŽȀ˜ƒ’‘‘Žƒ

‡••–‘’”‡ˆ‡”‡–‹ƒŽ’ƒ”‹‰•’ƒ
‡•‘”Š‘–‡Ž˜ƒŽ‡–
•‡”˜‹
‡‘”„‘–ŠǢ
x —„•‹†‹œ‡†–”ƒ•‹–’ƒ••‡•ˆ‘”Š‘–‡Ž™‘”‡”•ƒ†’ƒ–”‘•Ǣ x ”‘˜‹†‡‡†Ǧ‘ˆǦ–”‹’ˆƒ
‹Ž‹–‹‡•Ǣƒ†
x ‡†‹
ƒ–‡†•Š—––Ž‡•‡”˜‹
‡ˆ‘”Š‘–‡Ž’ƒ–”‘•–‘™ƒ”†‡ƒ”„›†‡•–‹ƒ–‹‘•Ǥʹͳ

4. MISSING INFORMATION AND PROJECT PIECEMEALING
Š‡•–ƒˆˆ”‡’‘”–ƒŽ•‘ˆƒ‹Ž•–‘‡š’Žƒ‹ƒ†Ȁ‘”’”‘˜‹†‡‘–Š‡”‡›‹ˆ‘”ƒ–‹‘Ǥ ‘”‡šƒ’Ž‡ǡ–Š‡ •–ƒˆˆ”‡’‘”–
‹–‡•ƒŠ‘’•‘ƬŠ‘’•‘‡ƒŽ•–ƒ–‡ƒŽ—ƒ–‹‘ƒ†‘•—Ž–‹‰ǡ 
Ǥƒ’’”ƒ‹•ƒŽǡ
™Š‹
Š‹•‘–‹
Ž—†‡†Ǥȋ‡‡—ƒ”›‡’‘”–ǡ’Ǥ͵ǤȌŠ‹•‹••‹‰‹ˆ‹
ƒ–„‡
ƒ—•‡–Š‡•–ƒˆˆ”‡’‘”–†‘‡•
‘–‡š’Žƒ‹–‘–Š‡’—„Ž‹
—‡”‘—•‡›‹••—‡•™‹–Š–Š‡ǡˆ‘”‡šƒ’Ž‡ǣȋͳȌŠ‘™™ƒ•–Š‡ˆƒ‹” ƒ”‡–˜ƒŽ—‡‘ˆ–Š‡‹–›Ǧ‘™‡†’”‘’‡”–›†‡–‡”‹‡†–‘„‡Dz̈́ͳͶǤͲͲ’‡”•“—ƒ”‡ˆ‘‘–dzǢȋʹȌ™Šƒ–‹•–Š‡ †‹ˆˆ‡”‡
‡„‡–™‡‡–Š‡‹–›ǯ•’—”
Šƒ•‡’”‹
‡ȋ‹Ǥ‡Ǥǡ̈́ͳǤͶ‹ŽŽ‹‘Ȍƒ†–Š‡‡•–‹ƒ–‡†”‡—•‡˜ƒŽ—‡‘ˆ–Š‡ ”‘’‡”–›–‘–Š‡‡˜‡Ž‘’‡”ǡ™Š‹
Š‹•ƒ†‹––‡†Ž›˜ƒŽ—‡†Dz•‹‰‹ˆ‹
ƒ–Ž›Š‹‰Š‡”dzǢƒ†ȋ͵ȌŠ‘™—
Š
‹
”‡ƒ•‡†Dz”‡˜‡—‡dz‹•–Š‡‹–›‡š’‡
–‹‰ˆ”‘–Š‡‡™Š‘–‡Žȋ‡Ǥ‰Ǥǡ’”‘’‡”–›–ƒšǡǡ‡–
ǤȌǤȋ
†ǤȌ
—”–Š‡”‘”‡ǡƒ•’ƒ”–‘ˆ–Š‡‹–›ǯ•ƒ
–‹‘‹
—Ž›ʹͲʹͶǡ–Š‡”‘’‡”–›™ƒ•”‡œ‘‡†ǡʹʹ™Š‹
Š
”‡“—‹”‡•ƒŠ‘–‡Ž—†‡”•‡
–‹‘ͷǤͲ͵ǤʹͷͲ‘ˆ–Š‡‹–›ǯ•‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–‘†‡ǡ™Š‹
Š”‡“—‹”‡•
ȋƒ‘‰‘–Š‡”–Š‹‰•Ȍƒƒ”‡–ˆ‡ƒ•‹„‹Ž‹–›•–—†›ʹ͵ȄƒŽ•‘‘–‡–‹‘‡†‘”’”‘˜‹†‡†‹–Š‡•–ƒˆˆ ”‡’‘”–Ǥ
††‹–‹‘ƒŽŽ›ǡ–Š‡‹
”‡ƒ•‡†Š‘–‡Ž
‘’‘‡–ƒ†ˆƒ‹Ž—”‡–‘
‘•‹†‡”–Š‡Š‡”‡”ƒ‹•‡•–Š‡

‘
‡”‘ˆ™Š‡–Š‡”–Š‡‹–›‹•‹’”‘’‡”Ž›’‹‡
‡‡ƒŽ‹‰–Š‡”‘Œ‡
–ƒ†’”‘Œ‡
–ƒ’’”‘˜ƒŽ•Ǥ†‡”
ǡ–Š‡‹–›—•–ƒ••‡••Dz–Š‡™Š‘Ž‡‘ˆƒƒ
–‹‘dzƒ†‘–‹’”‘’‡”Ž›’‹‡
‡‡ƒŽƒ’”‘Œ‡
–ǯ•
ƒƒŽ›•‹•™Š‡”‡„›–Š‡ˆ—ŽŽ‹’ƒ
–•‘ˆƒ†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–ƒ”‡ƒ•‡†„›
Š‘’’‹‰—’–Š‡‘˜‡”ƒŽŽ’”‘Œ‡
–
‹–‘•ƒŽŽ‡”†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–’”‘Œ‡
–•Ǥȋ
—‹†‡Ž‹‡•ȚȚͳͷͲͲ͵ȋŠȌǡͳͷ͵͹ͺȋƒȌǤʹͶȌŠ‹•ƒƒŽ›•‹•—•– ‹
Ž—†‡ƒŽŽ’Šƒ•‡•‘ˆ–Š‡’”‘Œ‡
–ƒ†ƒŽŽ”‡ƒ•‘ƒ„Ž›ˆ‘”‡•‡‡ƒ„Ž‡
‘•‡“—‡
‡•‘ˆ–Š‡’”‘Œ‡
–Ǥȋ
†ǤǡȚ
ͳͷͳʹ͸ǤʹͷȌŠ‹•ƒƒŽ›•‹••Š‘—Ž†„‡’”‡’ƒ”‡†ƒ•‡ƒ”Ž›ƒ•ˆ‡ƒ•‹„Ž‡‹–Š‡’Žƒ‹‰’”‘ ‡••ƒ†„‡ˆ‘”‡
–Š‡‹–›
‘‹–•–‘ƒ›ƒ
–‹‘Ǥȋ
†ǤǡȚͳͷͲͲͶȋ„ȌǤȌ
‡”‡ǡ–Š‡’”‹‘”
Ž‘‘‡†ƒ–‘Ž›ƒͳͲͲǦ”‘‘
Š‘–‡ŽȄ‘–ƒʹʹ͹Ǧ”‘‘Š‘–‡ŽȄƒ†–Š‡‹–›•‡‡•–‘„‡
‘•‹†‡”‹‰
‘‹––‹‰–‘–Š‡Žƒ”‰‡”Š‘–‡Ž
”‘Œ‡
–™‹–Š‘—–
‘†—
–‹‰ƒ•—„•‡“—‡–ƒƒŽ›•‹•ƒ†‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‹‰ƒǤ
ʹͳ‡‡‡Ǥ‰Ǥǡƒ–ƒ‘‹
ƒ—‹
‹’ƒŽ‘†‡ȚͻǤͷǤͳ͵ͲȋȌȋʹȌȋ„ȌǢŠ––’•ǣȀȀ™™™Ǥ‘
–ƒǤ‡–Ȁ‰‡––‹‰Ǧƒ”‘—†Ȁ
”‹†‡•Šƒ”‡Ȁ‘
Ǧ”‹†‡•Šƒ”‡Ȁ‡’Ž‘›‡”•Ȁ‰—ƒ”ƒ–‡‡†Ǧ”‹†‡ǦŠ‘‡Ǧ’”‘‰”ƒȀǢŠ––’•ǣȀȀ™™™Ǥ ‹ǤŠ‡ƒŽ†•„—”‰Ǥ
ƒǤ—•Ȁ
‰‡†ƒ‡–‡”Ȁ‹‡™ ‹Ž‡Ȁ
–‡Ȁ͵Ͳͻͺǫˆ‹Ž‡
αʹͳ͹͵ͳǤ ʹʹ•‡‡
—Ž›‡•‘Ž—–‹‘ǡ ’’ǤͳǦʹǤ ʹ͵ ‡˜Ǥ‘†‡ǡ ’Ǥͳ͹ǡͶͶǡͷͶǡͳ͵ͲǦͳ͵ʹǤ ʹͶ‡‡ƒŽ•‘Santee v. County of San DiegoȋͳͻͺͻȌʹͳͶƒŽǤ’’Ǥ͵†ͳͶ͵ͺǡͳͶͷͶǢSan Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. Cnty. of StanislausȋͳͻͻͶȌʹ͹ƒŽǤ’’ǤͶ–Š͹ͳ͵ǡ͹͵ͲǤ ʹͷ‡‡ƒŽ•‘Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v Regents of Univ. of CalǤȋͳͻͺͺȌͶ͹ƒŽǤ͵†͵͹͸ǡ͵ͻ͸Ǧ͵ͻͺǢCity of Santee v County of San DiegoȋͳͻͺͻȌʹͳͶƒŽǤ’’Ǥ͵†ͳͶ͵ͺǡͳͶͷͶǤ 879
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
879 of 1082
Council Comments RE: Ontario Ranch Hotels, LLC DDA
February 18, 202ͻ

III. CONCLUSION

•—ǡ‘
ƒŽͳͳ‹•
‘
‡”‡†–Šƒ––Š‡‹–›ƒ›‘–„‡ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰‘”ƒŽ”—Ž‡•–Šƒ– ™‘—Ž†ƒ‡–Š‡‹–›ƒ”
‡Ž•ƒ˜ƒ‹Žƒ„Ž‡–‘Š‘—•‹‰†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡”•Ǥ‘
ƒŽͳͳ‹•ƒŽ•‘
‘
‡”‡†ƒ„‘—––Š‡
‹–›ǯ•”‡Ž‹ƒ
‡‘ƒ‹ƒ†‡“—ƒ–‡”‡˜‹‡™ƒ†‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘–Šƒ–•‡‡•–‘Šƒ˜‡‡˜‡”

‘–‡’Žƒ–‡†–Š‡‘”ƒʹʹ͹Ǧ”‘‘Š‘–‡Žƒ––Š‡”‘’‡”–›ȋƒ‘‰‘–Š‡” ‘
‡”•ȌǤ‘
ƒŽͳͳ
”‡•’‡
–ˆ—ŽŽ›—”‰‡•–Š‡‹–›–‘•–ƒ›ƒ
–‹‘‘–Š‡—–‹Ž–Š‡‹••—‡•‡–‹‘‡†ƒ„‘˜‡ƒ”‡
ƒ†‡“—ƒ–‡Ž›ƒ††”‡••‡†Ǥ
‘
ƒŽͳͳ”‡•‡”˜‡•–Š‡”‹‰Š––‘•—’’Ž‡‡––Š‡•‡
‘‡–•ƒ–ˆ—–—”‡Š‡ƒ”‹‰•ƒ†
’”‘
‡‡†‹‰•ˆ‘”–Š‹•”‘Œ‡
–Ǥȋ‡‡Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist. ȋͳͻͻ͹Ȍ͸ͲƒŽǤ’’ǤͶ–ŠͳͳͲͻǡͳͳʹͲȏŽ‹–‹‰ƒ–‹‘‘–Ž‹‹–‡†‘Ž›–‘ Žƒ‹•ƒ†‡†—”‹‰


‘‡–’‡”‹‘†ȐǤȌŠ‹•‘ˆˆ‹
‡”‡“—‡•–•ǡ–‘–Š‡‡š–‡–‘–ƒŽ”‡ƒ†›‘–Š‡‘–‹
‡Ž‹•–ǡƒŽŽ‘–‹
‡•‘ˆ
ƒ
–‹‘•ƒ†ƒ›ƒ’’”‘˜ƒŽ•ǡ”‘Œ‡
–†‡–‡”‹ƒ–‹‘•ǡ‘”’—„Ž‹
Š‡ƒ”‹‰•–‘„‡Š‡Ž†‘–Š‡
”‘Œ‡
–—†‡”•–ƒ–‡‘”Ž‘
ƒŽŽƒ™”‡“—‹”‹‰Ž‘
ƒŽƒ‰‡
‹‡•–‘ƒ‹Ž•—
Š‘–‹
‡•–‘ƒ›’‡”•‘™Š‘Šƒ•
ˆ‹Ž‡†ƒ™”‹––‡”‡“—‡•–ˆ‘”–Š‡Ǥȋ‡‡—„Ǥ‡•Ǥ‘†‡ȚȚǡʹͳͲͻʹǤʹǡʹͳͳ͸͹ȋˆȌƒ† ‘˜Ǥ‘†‡Ț͸ͷͲͻʹǤȌ
Ž‡ƒ•‡•‡†‘–‹
‡„›‡Ž‡
–”‘‹
ƒ†”‡‰—Žƒ”ƒ‹Ž–‘–Š‡ƒ††”‡••‹†‡–‹ˆ‹‡†‘’ƒ‰‡‘‡‘ˆ–Š‹•Ž‡––‡”Ǥ Šƒ›‘—ˆ‘”
‘•‹†‡”ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ–Š‡•‡
‘‡–•Ǥ‡ƒ•–Šƒ––Š‹•Ž‡––‡”‹•’Žƒ
‡†‹–Š‡
ƒ†‹‹•–”ƒ–‹˜‡”‡
‘”†ˆ‘”–Š‡”‘Œ‡
–Ǥ
‹
‡”‡Ž›ǡ
̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴

‘”†ƒǤ‹••‘ǡ•“Ǥ
––‘”‡›ˆ‘”

‘
ƒŽͳͳ
880
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
880 of 1082
From: Kirsten Squarcia
To: City Clerk
Subject: FW: Slides for tonight
Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 10:47:28 PM
Attachments: City Council 11-18-25-v2.pptx
Kirsten Squarcia
Interim Deputy City Manager/City Clerk
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408) 777-3225
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 1:57 PM
To: Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]>
Subject: Slides for tonight
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.

Kirsten,
If I end up speaking tom=night, I want to use the same slides as a few weeks ago.

Best,
Orrin
881
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
881 of 1082
P roje ct Background
882
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
882 of 1082
The Coalition
ᵧDrive n by a coalition of organizations :
-Rotary Club of Cupe rtino- Proje ct le ad
-Charitie s Hous ing- Proje ct Manage r and prope rty manage r-Hous ing Choice s - Advocate and future cas e manage me nt -We s t Valle y Community Se rvice s - Othe r hous ing s e rvice s 883
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
883 of 1082
Today’s P lan
ᵧ40 Units of affordable hous ingᵧ19 Units targe te d for Adults with Inte lle ctual and De ve lopme ntal Dis abilitie s ( I/ DD)
ᵧUs e s “ s urplus land” to re duce cos ts
884
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
884 of 1082
Com m unity Outre ach
• Firs t Me e ting 7/ 3/ 24• Se cond Me e ting 1/ 28/ 25• Third Me e ting 9/ 11/ 25 885
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
885 of 1082
Re s pons e t o Com m unit y Is s ue s
886
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
886 of 1082
Re s pons e t o Com m unit y Is s ue s
887
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
887 of 1082
Inde pe nde nt Living
888
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
888 of 1082
Hous ing Ele m e nt Site
889
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
889 of 1082
From: Paul Krupka
To: Public Comments
Cc: Brian Avery; Lina Meng
Subject: Public Comment – Special Meeting on December 12, 2025 – Study Session on the Mary Avenue Project (“Project”)
Date: Thursday, December 11, 2025 3:01:00 PM
Attachments: krupka Georgia t 50.png
Cupertino CC re Mary Avenue Villas 121125 f.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 City Council Members:

Please accept and consider my attached public comment letter during your deliberations on December 12, 2025.

Thank you!
Sincerely,
Paul Krupka
Paul J. Krupka, PE
(he/him/his)

KRUPKA CONSULTING
Trusted Advisor | Transportation
650.504.2299
[email protected]
890
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
890 of 1082

KRUPKA CONSULTING
431 Yale Drive | San Mateo, CA | 94402
650.504.2299 | [email protected] | pkrupkaconsulting.com December 11, 2025
City Council Members by email only > [email protected] City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
RE: Public Comment – Special Meeting on December 12, 2025 – Study Session on the Mary Avenue Project (“Project”)
Dear City Council Members:

I am supporting Brian Avery, owner of the Glenbrook Apartments, and Lina Meng, a neighbor, both of whom represent the Garden Gate Neighborhood Group, in providing transportation advisory services and a professional opinion on the Mary Avenue Villas Project. I offer the following information and comments for your consideration.

Qualifications
I am a registered Civil Engineer and Traffic Engineer in California and have over 40 years of diverse experience across all phases of project delivery, including preliminary assessment, conceptual planning, feasibility analysis, design, and construction. I have demonstrated expertise in transportation, traffic, and transit planning, engineering, and design related to transit-oriented development, transit facilities, parking facilities, roadway and highway improvements, large and small development projects, neighborhood, community, downtown, city, subarea, county, and sub-regional plans, and transit and highway corridors.

Comments
I have visited the Project site and surroundings, observed traffic and parking activities, surveyed peak parking occupancy on Mary Avenue and at Memorial Park, and reviewed recent photographic evidence of related parking conditions during Memorial Park events. I have reviewed the Transportation Study for Proposed Affordable Housing Project on Mary Avenue (Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., November 13, 2025, the Memorial Park Specific Plan (City of Cupertino, February 2024), including the Memorial Park Parking Study (City of Cupertino, January 2024), the Westport Mixed-Use Project Environmental Impact Report Addendum No. 1 (PlaceWorks, December 2024), and information on current and planned development at De Anza College.

The Project will have a significant impact by removing 89 spaces of public on-street parking on Mary Avenue (95 spaces with recommended Project changes in the aforementioned Transportation Study), amid heavy observed demand for this parking (upwards of 60 percent occupied) during many major events at Memorial Park. This 37+% reduction in on-street parking supply will affect residents who rely on it, spreading parking demand further into residential neighborhoods. This impact was documented in the formal Project application in April 2025. It was acknowledged in the aforementioned Transportation Study. Still, it was seemingly dismissed with this simple conclusion – “With the Project, there would be 152 on-street 891
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
891 of 1082
City of Cupertino City Council Members
December 11, 2025, Page 2
parking spaces…, which would still provide enough spaces to meet the anticipated parking demand…along the project frontage.” The anticipated parking demand noted was only 37 spaces, which reflects a non-Memorial Park event condition.

My peak parking occupancy survey on Saturday, November 1, 2025, found a demand of 42 spaces (17% occupied (42/241)) on Mary Avenue (total parking supply of 241 spaces). The photographic evidence I cited above indicated a demand of approximately 140 spaces (58% occupied) during Memorial Park events. With the Project, this level of demand would equal 96% of the total parking supply (146 spaces).

Other approved and planned developments will exacerbate this significant impact. • Memorial Park enhancements, intended to serve existing and new patrons, will increase parking demand in the neighborhood and on Mary Avenue. While the aforementioned parking study did not include Mary Avenue, it cited “Maintain Current Parking Configuration along Mary Avenue” as a recommended management strategy.
• Completion of the Westport Mixed-Use Project will reduce residential and retail areas, associated vehicle trips, and the total parking supply, but will require accommodating the resulting parking demand off-site along Mary Avenue.
• The replacement of the Flint Center at De Anza College will enhance opportunities for public and on-campus entertainment and increase public reliance on off-site parking on Mary Avenue.

Conclusion
The project's significant impact has not been adequately studied to determine appropriate mitigations.

It is in your community's best interests that you strongly consider doing so.

I appreciate your consideration.

Sincerely,

KRUPKA CONSULTING
Paul Krupka, P.E.

Owner
Cc: Brian Avery
Lina Meng
892
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
892 of 1082
From: Hal and Janet Van Zoeren
To: Public Comments; City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; bcc: Cupertino ForAll; Hal and Janet Van Zoeren; Connie Cunningham; Andy Lief; Saadati Louise; Kathy Robinson; Kiran Varshneya; Orrin Mahoney; Gia Pham HCC; Housing Choices
Subject: Mary Avenue Villas, a Cupertino community created project Date: Thursday, December 11, 2025 11:19:51 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 Cupertino City Council Members,
As you most likely know, a few individuals have fired up a group of heartless NIMBYs by feeding them misinformation regarding the Mary Avenue Villas project and the characteristics of those it would benefit. In their quest to kill the project, these community members and their naive followers keep trying to delay the project by adding to their numbers and falsely claiming
• Mary Avenue will no longer be a safe place to
o Drive
o Bicycle
o Walk or
o Exist
• The decrease in parking spaces will be detrimental to those who can now park along Mary Avenue and, therefore, will create a problem for the adjacent neighborhoods
• The health and welfare of the residents of Mary Avenue Villas will be compromised by
o Air pollution from the adjacent freeway
o Soil pollution
o No where for fiire trucks and EMT vehicles to park during their assumed to be frequently needed visits to these villas
It will not be possible to placate these false excuses for the supposed concerns of this NIMBY group. Those spreading these lies choose not to listen to the facts that dispute them. They simply do not want the Mary Avenue Villas project in their backyard or anywhere near it, and they continue using these false claims as ammunition to defeat it.

This is sad because the people who need affordable housing like this are members of our Cupertino community, many have family here, and may have grown up attending school here as well. They will benefit from continuing to live near their supportive families and friends and the local amenities that they use. It was also sad to hear one of the NIMBYs attempt to spread to others his fear of living near the people who might live in the villas if they are developed.

Sad as well has been hearing the ignorant attempts of NIMBYs, who clearly lack familiarity with people who have IDD, to inappropriatly characterize people with IDD, how impaired their mobility is, and how dangerous it will be for others to live near people with IDD and how dangerous for the villas residents it will be for them to live on Mary Ave due to the unsafe traffic conditions this project will create.
893
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
893 of 1082
People with IDD are members of our Cupertino Family at large. They attend our schools, live in our neighborhood, shop at our stores, go to our library, our churches, and our colleges.

They walk our streets and ride our buses. As a representative of Cupertino, do you want to take the position that our community members with IDD are dangerous and unworthy of housing in this city? I find it hard to believe you want that, so please do not give in to this vocal minority group of troublemakers!
Finding a way to create housing in Cupertino to meet the needs of people with IDD has been an enormous task. Some of us began working on it for over 25 years! However, within the last 5 years or so, many Cupertino community members have united together to meet this challenge. The feasible plan they have developed has involved the cooperative efforts of the Housing Choices Coalition, the Cupertino Rotary, and Charities Housing Developers, who together have formed a leading partnership. They have received additional help and expertise from West Valley Community Services, several past Cupertino mayors and past city managers, several city staff members, and many other Cupertino citizens. The incredibly unique plan that has been developed is designed to create affordable housing well-needed by people with IDD and or with similar economic status in Cupertino. Our Cupertino community has worked together to do this!
Not only have these community members and groups found a way to make the project affordable, but they have identified a site that will meet other needs of Mary Avenue Villas' future residents as well, many of whom cannot drive and do not own cars. The villas will be near bus routes, grocery stores, drug stores, Quinlin Center, the Cupertino library, parklands, the senior center, West Valley Community Services, DeAnza Community College, and a bus route to The College of Adaptive Arts, located at West Valley Community College. In addition, many of the people living in the Mary Ave Villas will be able to receive services from West Valley Community Services and or the San Andreas Regional Center via the Housing Choices programs, the Independent Living Skill programs, or the Supported Living Services programs.

This community project will benefit the community at large by housing some of its most economically deprived residents. Please do not allow the very vocal, self-centered members of our community to use their false claims to delay this project while they continue to seek a way to kill it.

As Cupertino City Council members, you have shown your support for the IDD community by your recent presentation of awards to both the Parents Helping Parents and The Friends of Children with Special Needs organizations, and by awarding approximately 4 million dollars toward the community’s Mary Avenue Villas project. Our community has very much appreciated this support! As a community, we are also counting on you to keep this project moving forward in a timely fashion.

Thank you for your support!
Most sincerely,
Janet and Harold Van Zoeren
894
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
894 of 1082
From: Paul Krupka
To: Public Comments
Cc: Brian Avery; Lina Meng
Subject: Public Comment – Special Meeting on December 12, 2025 – Study Session on the Mary Avenue Project (“Project”)
Date: Thursday, December 11, 2025 3:01:00 PM
Attachments: krupka Georgia t 50.png
Cupertino CC re Mary Avenue Villas 121125 f.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 City Council Members:

Please accept and consider my attached public comment letter during your deliberations on December 12, 2025.

Thank you!
Sincerely,
Paul Krupka
Paul J. Krupka, PE
(he/him/his)

KRUPKA CONSULTING
Trusted Advisor | Transportation
650.504.2299
[email protected]
895
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
895 of 1082

KRUPKA CONSULTING
431 Yale Drive | San Mateo, CA | 94402
650.504.2299 | [email protected] | pkrupkaconsulting.com December 11, 2025
City Council Members by email only > [email protected] City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
RE: Public Comment – Special Meeting on December 12, 2025 – Study Session on the Mary Avenue Project (“Project”)
Dear City Council Members:

I am supporting Brian Avery, owner of the Glenbrook Apartments, and Lina Meng, a neighbor, both of whom represent the Garden Gate Neighborhood Group, in providing transportation advisory services and a professional opinion on the Mary Avenue Villas Project. I offer the following information and comments for your consideration.

Qualifications
I am a registered Civil Engineer and Traffic Engineer in California and have over 40 years of diverse experience across all phases of project delivery, including preliminary assessment, conceptual planning, feasibility analysis, design, and construction. I have demonstrated expertise in transportation, traffic, and transit planning, engineering, and design related to transit-oriented development, transit facilities, parking facilities, roadway and highway improvements, large and small development projects, neighborhood, community, downtown, city, subarea, county, and sub-regional plans, and transit and highway corridors.

Comments
I have visited the Project site and surroundings, observed traffic and parking activities, surveyed peak parking occupancy on Mary Avenue and at Memorial Park, and reviewed recent photographic evidence of related parking conditions during Memorial Park events. I have reviewed the Transportation Study for Proposed Affordable Housing Project on Mary Avenue (Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., November 13, 2025, the Memorial Park Specific Plan (City of Cupertino, February 2024), including the Memorial Park Parking Study (City of Cupertino, January 2024), the Westport Mixed-Use Project Environmental Impact Report Addendum No. 1 (PlaceWorks, December 2024), and information on current and planned development at De Anza College.

The Project will have a significant impact by removing 89 spaces of public on-street parking on Mary Avenue (95 spaces with recommended Project changes in the aforementioned Transportation Study), amid heavy observed demand for this parking (upwards of 60 percent occupied) during many major events at Memorial Park. This 37+% reduction in on-street parking supply will affect residents who rely on it, spreading parking demand further into residential neighborhoods. This impact was documented in the formal Project application in April 2025. It was acknowledged in the aforementioned Transportation Study. Still, it was seemingly dismissed with this simple conclusion – “With the Project, there would be 152 on-street 896
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
896 of 1082
City of Cupertino City Council Members
December 11, 2025, Page 2
parking spaces…, which would still provide enough spaces to meet the anticipated parking demand…along the project frontage.” The anticipated parking demand noted was only 37 spaces, which reflects a non-Memorial Park event condition.

My peak parking occupancy survey on Saturday, November 1, 2025, found a demand of 42 spaces (17% occupied (42/241)) on Mary Avenue (total parking supply of 241 spaces). The photographic evidence I cited above indicated a demand of approximately 140 spaces (58% occupied) during Memorial Park events. With the Project, this level of demand would equal 96% of the total parking supply (146 spaces).

Other approved and planned developments will exacerbate this significant impact. • Memorial Park enhancements, intended to serve existing and new patrons, will increase parking demand in the neighborhood and on Mary Avenue. While the aforementioned parking study did not include Mary Avenue, it cited “Maintain Current Parking Configuration along Mary Avenue” as a recommended management strategy.
• Completion of the Westport Mixed-Use Project will reduce residential and retail areas, associated vehicle trips, and the total parking supply, but will require accommodating the resulting parking demand off-site along Mary Avenue.
• The replacement of the Flint Center at De Anza College will enhance opportunities for public and on-campus entertainment and increase public reliance on off-site parking on Mary Avenue.

Conclusion
The project's significant impact has not been adequately studied to determine appropriate mitigations.

It is in your community's best interests that you strongly consider doing so.

I appreciate your consideration.

Sincerely,

KRUPKA CONSULTING
Paul Krupka, P.E.

Owner
Cc: Brian Avery
Lina Meng
897
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
897 of 1082
From: Hal and Janet Van Zoeren
To: Public Comments; City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; bcc: Cupertino ForAll; Hal and Janet Van Zoeren; Connie Cunningham; Andy Lief; Saadati Louise; Kathy Robinson; Kiran Varshneya; Orrin Mahoney; Gia Pham HCC; Housing Choices
Subject: Mary Avenue Villas, a Cupertino community created project Date: Thursday, December 11, 2025 11:19:51 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 Cupertino City Council Members,
As you most likely know, a few individuals have fired up a group of heartless NIMBYs by feeding them misinformation regarding the Mary Avenue Villas project and the characteristics of those it would benefit. In their quest to kill the project, these community members and their naive followers keep trying to delay the project by adding to their numbers and falsely claiming
• Mary Avenue will no longer be a safe place to
o Drive
o Bicycle
o Walk or
o Exist
• The decrease in parking spaces will be detrimental to those who can now park along Mary Avenue and, therefore, will create a problem for the adjacent neighborhoods
• The health and welfare of the residents of Mary Avenue Villas will be compromised by
o Air pollution from the adjacent freeway
o Soil pollution
o No where for fiire trucks and EMT vehicles to park during their assumed to be frequently needed visits to these villas
It will not be possible to placate these false excuses for the supposed concerns of this NIMBY group. Those spreading these lies choose not to listen to the facts that dispute them. They simply do not want the Mary Avenue Villas project in their backyard or anywhere near it, and they continue using these false claims as ammunition to defeat it.

This is sad because the people who need affordable housing like this are members of our Cupertino community, many have family here, and may have grown up attending school here as well. They will benefit from continuing to live near their supportive families and friends and the local amenities that they use. It was also sad to hear one of the NIMBYs attempt to spread to others his fear of living near the people who might live in the villas if they are developed.

Sad as well has been hearing the ignorant attempts of NIMBYs, who clearly lack familiarity with people who have IDD, to inappropriatly characterize people with IDD, how impaired their mobility is, and how dangerous it will be for others to live near people with IDD and how dangerous for the villas residents it will be for them to live on Mary Ave due to the unsafe traffic conditions this project will create.
898
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
898 of 1082
People with IDD are members of our Cupertino Family at large. They attend our schools, live in our neighborhood, shop at our stores, go to our library, our churches, and our colleges.

They walk our streets and ride our buses. As a representative of Cupertino, do you want to take the position that our community members with IDD are dangerous and unworthy of housing in this city? I find it hard to believe you want that, so please do not give in to this vocal minority group of troublemakers!
Finding a way to create housing in Cupertino to meet the needs of people with IDD has been an enormous task. Some of us began working on it for over 25 years! However, within the last 5 years or so, many Cupertino community members have united together to meet this challenge. The feasible plan they have developed has involved the cooperative efforts of the Housing Choices Coalition, the Cupertino Rotary, and Charities Housing Developers, who together have formed a leading partnership. They have received additional help and expertise from West Valley Community Services, several past Cupertino mayors and past city managers, several city staff members, and many other Cupertino citizens. The incredibly unique plan that has been developed is designed to create affordable housing well-needed by people with IDD and or with similar economic status in Cupertino. Our Cupertino community has worked together to do this!
Not only have these community members and groups found a way to make the project affordable, but they have identified a site that will meet other needs of Mary Avenue Villas' future residents as well, many of whom cannot drive and do not own cars. The villas will be near bus routes, grocery stores, drug stores, Quinlin Center, the Cupertino library, parklands, the senior center, West Valley Community Services, DeAnza Community College, and a bus route to The College of Adaptive Arts, located at West Valley Community College. In addition, many of the people living in the Mary Ave Villas will be able to receive services from West Valley Community Services and or the San Andreas Regional Center via the Housing Choices programs, the Independent Living Skill programs, or the Supported Living Services programs.

This community project will benefit the community at large by housing some of its most economically deprived residents. Please do not allow the very vocal, self-centered members of our community to use their false claims to delay this project while they continue to seek a way to kill it.

As Cupertino City Council members, you have shown your support for the IDD community by your recent presentation of awards to both the Parents Helping Parents and The Friends of Children with Special Needs organizations, and by awarding approximately 4 million dollars toward the community’s Mary Avenue Villas project. Our community has very much appreciated this support! As a community, we are also counting on you to keep this project moving forward in a timely fashion.

Thank you for your support!
Most sincerely,
Janet and Harold Van Zoeren
899
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
899 of 1082
From: Jordan Clancy Behmke
To: Public Comments
Subject: Additional Objections To Mary Avenue Project
Date: Friday, December 12, 2025 11:11:55 AM
Attachments: December 12 2025 Objection to Mary Ave Cupertino Project 12 12 25 jcb.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 note this item was recently changed on today's agenda to allow comment thus this submitted slightly after the meeting.

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 900
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
900 of 1082
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 901
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
901 of 1082
6203 San Ignacio Avenue, Suite 110, San Jose, Ca 95119
P: (408) 987-6399; [email protected]

December 12, 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 2 Special Meeting on December 12, 2025 at 9:00 a.m.

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

Thank you for accepting my previous written and oral objections at the December 2, 2025 City Council meeting on the Mary Avenue Project. 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.

There are a couple of additional points I would like to highlight as the City Council considers voting on continuing this project and potentially assigning someone to negotiate the sale or lease of the land.

This letter is submitted slightly late as the status of this item was only changed to allow comments early this morning.

1. Negotiating the Sale or Lease of this Parcel Is Inappropriate at this time As The Right of Way Issues Have Not Been Addressed
This should be done before a negotiator is appointed, as it will equip the negotiator with a precise understanding of the parcel's boundaries, rights, and limitations—ensuring they can negotiate effectively and transparently without overpromising or facing unforeseen obstacles that could derail the deal or expose the City to legal risks.

Even the most skilled negotiator cannot succeed if placed in an untenable position, where the rights they describe during negotiations do not align with what can ultimately be delivered. To prevent this, the City must first complete the mandatory processes under Streets and Highways Code §8300 et seq., which explicitly require public hearings and opportunities for public comment on any changes to rights of way.

Rushing to appoint a negotiator before fulfilling these steps not only violates procedural safeguards but also undermines the integrity of the negotiation process itself.

This Project demands rigorous adherence to the City's own municipal code and applicable state laws governing the vacation of public land (including the Surplus Land Act, Gov’t Code §§54220-54234), alterations to rights of way (Streets and Highways Code §8300 et seq.), and the disposal of public property (Brown Act). These changes involve public land, rights of way, and the potential sale or lease of 902
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
902 of 1082
6203 San Ignacio Avenue, Suite 110, San Jose, Ca 95119
P: (408) 987-6399; [email protected]

City assets, making full compliance non-negotiable. Approving the Project or selecting a negotiator prematurely reverses the logical sequence—putting the cart before the horse—and severely limits meaningful public input, as the City would already be contractually committed, rendering subsequent hearings perfunctory at best.

By prioritizing the completion of the right of way process, the City upholds transparency, protects taxpayer interests, and maximizes the Project's long-term viability. Until these essential procedural requirements are fully satisfied, my Clients strongly urge the City Council to vote no on proceeding further, allowing time to conduct the necessary hearings, gather public feedback, and establish clear parameters before any negotiation begins.

2. 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 site's documented contamination with hazardous substances renders it profoundly unsuitable for development, particularly as a housing project targeted at individuals with disabilities, who are disproportionately vulnerable to the insidious health effects of such toxins. Multiple expert reports confirm elevated levels of lead—exceeding both Residential and Construction Worker Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs)—along with arsenic above Construction Worker ESLs and detectable concentrations of pesticides 4,4-DDE and 4,4-DDT. The Subsurface Investigation Report, prepared by Intertek PSI and dated April 4 and 24, 2025 (collectively, the "Subsurface Investigation Report," attached as Exhibit A), explicitly classifies the site's soil as hazardous waste under California standards, stating on page 8 that "the soil represented by these samples would be classified as hazardous by the State of California." A subsequent peer review Memorandum from Baseline Environmental Consulting, dated May 16, 2025 (the "Memorandum," attached as Exhibit B), corroborates these findings, noting on page 2 that lead concentrations surpass safe thresholds for both residential occupants and workers, while affirming the soil's hazardous designation for disposal.

These contaminants pose severe, long-term risks that are amplified for people with disabilities, many of whom already contend with compromised immune systems, neurological sensitivities, or other vulnerabilities that heighten susceptibility to environmental toxins. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3033466/
Lead, for instance, has no safe exposure level and is notorious for causing permanent intellectual disabilities, learning deficits, behavioral disorders, and IQ loss—even at low doses—through damage to the brain and central nervous system.
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/lead-poisoning-and-health Children and adults exposed to lead often experience exacerbated developmental disabilities, including deficits in cognition, attention, memory, and executive function, with effects persisting into adulthood and increasing the likelihood of lifelong impairments.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28257404/
Arsenic compounds this threat by inducing cognitive dysfunction, memory impairment, and intellectual disabilities, with chronic exposure linked to reduced IQ, mental retardation, and a spectrum of developmental anomalies encompassing physical, psychological, sensory, and speech impairments. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4321597/
903
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
903 of 1082
6203 San Ignacio Avenue, Suite 110, San Jose, Ca 95119
P: (408) 987-6399; [email protected]

While they were present in smaller concentrations the pesticides 4,4-DDE and 4,4-DDT, persistent breakdown products of banned insecticides, further endanger vulnerable groups by disrupting neurodevelopment, impairing cognitive performance, and affecting the central nervous system, immune function, and liver—potentially leading to increased infection susceptibility and chronic health adversities in those with pre-existing conditions.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK590079/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11404404/
For individuals with disabilities, these risks are not abstract; compromised immune systems—prevalent in many such populations—render them acutely susceptible to toxin-induced immunosuppression, heightening vulnerability to infections, chronic inflammation, and even cancer. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8325494/
Heavy metals like lead and pesticides can directly impair white blood cell activity, disrupt hormonal balance, and trigger autoimmune responses, transforming low-level exposures into cascading health crises for those already managing fragile physiologies.
https://immusehealth.com/news/post/impact-environmental-toxins-immunity The site's proximity to Highways 85 and 280 exacerbates this peril, as ongoing traffic emissions will likely deposit additional airborne pollutants, including particulate matter and hydrocarbons, that accumulate in soil and amplify toxin bioavailability—further straining residents' health and undermining any partial remediation efforts.

The Memorandum underscores the inadequacy of superficial measures, recommending comprehensive further testing and, at minimum, remedial actions such as soil capping and minimized excavation. Yet, as detailed on page 3, these steps alone are insufficient without robust engineering controls, institutional safeguards, and regulatory oversight to prevent exposure risks for future occupants. Critically, both reports mandate the preparation of a Soil Management Plan (SMP) and Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan (SSHSP) prior to redevelopment, alongside the Applicant's entry into a Remedial Action Agreement with the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health to oversee remediation. The Subsurface Investigation Report echoes this, emphasizing 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." Alarmingly, none of these expert-recommended actions have been implemented, leaving construction workers, neighboring residents, and future disabled occupants exposed to immediate and enduring hazards during site disturbance and long-term habitation.

Given the project's emphasis on housing for people with disabilities—a group inherently more at risk from environmental toxins due to immunological and physiological vulnerabilities—the City must exercise utmost caution and mandate full compliance with these safeguards. https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/arsenic
Approving the lease and disposition agreement without first engaging the Department of Environmental Health to evaluate remediation feasibility for sensitive residential use would be irresponsible, potentially condemning residents to avoidable health deterioration. An environmental action plan must also address highway-adjacent pollutant accumulation to ensure holistic protection. Since the Applicant has failed to initiate these vital steps, my Clients implore the City to reject the agreement outright. At the very least, 904
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
904 of 1082
6203 San Ignacio Avenue, Suite 110, San Jose, Ca 95119
P: (408) 987-6399; [email protected]

postpone the decision and direct the Applicant to secure the required Remedial Action Agreement, thereby prioritizing public health over expediency and safeguarding this vulnerable community from preventable harm.

The City has a solemn duty—both moral and legal—to ensure that housing intended for individuals with disabilities is not only built on land that is demonstrably safe. Placing this vulnerable population on a site already classified as California hazardous waste, where lead levels exceed residential screening thresholds and remediation remains incomplete and unapproved, is the opposite of protective stewardship. Rather than force a compromised project forward on contaminated ground, the responsible path is to reject the current lease and disposition agreement and immediately redirect efforts toward identifying and securing an alternative, uncontaminated parcel elsewhere in Cupertino. Suitable vacant or underutilized sites exist within the City’s inventory that do not require multi-year hazardous-waste oversight, soil export as hazardous material, or perpetual institutional controls. Prioritizing a clean site would allow the project to deliver truly affordable, accessible housing to disabled residents without exposing them to lifelong health risks, without burdening taxpayers with future remediation liabilities, and without undermining public trust. The needs of Cupertino’s disabled community deserve a location that safeguards their health from day one—not one that gambles with it.

3. 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 City cannot responsibly approve this Project when the Transportation Assessment we are relying on—prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants and submitted November 13, 2025 (attached as Exhibit C)—is fundamentally inaccurate, outdated, and materially incomplete. That document entirely fails to analyze the imminent and dramatic change in parking behavior that will occur on January 6, 2026, when De Anza College eliminates free visitor parking and begins charging for all spaces (see https://www.deanza.edu/parking/#oneday and the College’s official announcement at https://www.instagram.com/p/DPsXkeTERd-/). For decades, Mary Avenue and surrounding residential streets have served as the primary overflow parking area for thousands of De Anza students, staff, and visitors who currently park for free on campus. Once paid parking is enforced, the a non-negligible number of those vehicles will be displaced directly onto Mary Avenue and adjacent neighborhood streets—exactly the location where the Project now proposes to narrow the roadway, shrink the bike lane, and eliminate existing on-street parking spaces.

Although the Transportation Assessment was finalized while this policy change was publicly confirmed, it contains no modeling, no data, and no mitigation measures whatsoever for the thousands of additional vehicles that will soon compete for the very parking and roadway capacity the Project intends to remove.

The Assessment’s brief mention of “festival days” at De Anza is irrelevant and grossly inadequate; the new paid-parking regime will create festival-level congestion every single weekday and weekend alike.

The result will potentially be chronic gridlock, illegal parking on sidewalks and lawns, blocked driveways, compromised emergency-vehicle access, and a sharply elevated risk of pedestrian and cyclist collisions—precisely in a neighborhood that is about to add dozens of new residents, many of whom rely on wheelchairs, walkers, or other mobility aids.

Approving the lease or sale of the lot on the strength of a traffic study that is already demonstrably obsolete would be indefensible. It would expose the City to legitimate claims of arbitrary and capricious decision-making, violate basic principles of CEQA and the City’s own General Plan circulation policies, and place existing residents and future disabled tenants in harm’s way. My clients therefore urge the Council to reject the Project outright until a revised, post-January 2026 traffic impact analysis— 905
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
905 of 1082
6203 San Ignacio Avenue, Suite 110, San Jose, Ca 95119
P: (408) 987-6399; [email protected]

incorporating actual observed parking displacement from the new De Anza policy—has been prepared, publicly circulated, and independently peer-reviewed. Anything less is not caution; it is recklessness.

Residents who use wheelchairs, power scooters, or have severe mobility, visual, or cognitive impairments typically require far more frequent paratransit shuttles (such as VTA ACCESS and Outreach), private accessible vans, non-emergency medical transport, ride-hailing vehicles equipped with ramps, and delivery services for groceries, medical supplies, and oxygen tanks. Each of these vehicles requires extended curbside dwell time—often 10–20 minutes or more—to safely load and unload passengers and equipment. The Project’s proposal to eliminate existing on-street parking and narrow Mary Avenue will leave zero legal space for these essential vehicles can use without blocking travel lanes, bike lanes, or neighboring driveways.

4. We Again Urge the City to Consider Any Appearance of Self-Dealing and Recuse Themselves if Necessary
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.

5. 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:

1. Enter into a Remedial Action Agreement with the Department of Environmental Health;

2. 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

3. Consider finding an alternative and safer site for this project.

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. The City must also investigate whether there is a better suited site in the City that won't pose an environmental danger to its constituents or decrease the quality of life of the neighborhood by increasing traffic and reducing the safety.

All of this must be completed before we consider appointing a negotiator to sell or lease this parcel.

Based on the foregoing, my Clients respectfully and vehemently urge the councilmembers to vote no or implement an alternative action plan as set forth above. 906
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
906 of 1082
6203 San Ignacio Avenue, Suite 110, San Jose, Ca 95119
P: (408) 987-6399; [email protected]

Sincerely,
Jordan Behmke, Esq.

Principal Attorney
Enc.

Exhibit A Subsurface Investigation Report
Exhibit B- Memorandum
Exhibit C- Transportation Assessment
cc. Clients
907
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
907 of 1082

"
908
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
908 of 1082

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
909
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
909 of 1082
0575-2869 – Subsurface Investigation
Charities Housing, Cupertino, California
April 24, 2025
June
www.intertek.com/building/environmental
June

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
910
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
910 of 1082
911
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
911 of 1082
0575-2869 – Subsurface Investigation
Charities Housing, Cupertino, California
April 24, 2025

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.
912
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
912 of 1082
0575-2869 – Subsurface Investigation
Charities Housing, Cupertino, California
April 24, 2025

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.
913
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
913 of 1082
0575-2869 – Subsurface Investigation
Charities Housing, Cupertino, California
April 24, 2025

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.
914
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
914 of 1082
0575-2869 – Subsurface Investigation
Charities Housing, Cupertino, California
April 24, 2025

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:
x Organochlorine pesticides according to EPA Method 8081 x 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:
x Arsenic was detected in three soil samples with concentrations ranging from 3.51 to 7.25 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg).
x 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. x 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.
x 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.
x The arsenic concentrations detected were below established background arsenic concentration for Santa Clara Valley of up to 20 mg/kg (“Establishing Background Arsenic in 915
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
915 of 1082
0575-2869 – Subsurface Investigation
Charities Housing, Cupertino, California
April 24, 2025

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.
x 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.
916
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
916 of 1082
0575-2869 – Subsurface Investigation
Charities Housing, Cupertino, California
April 24, 2025

www.intertek.com/building/environmental

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The results of the subsurface investigation are summarized below. x 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. x 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. x 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. 917
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
917 of 1082
www.intertek.com/building

FIGURES
918
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
918 of 1082
919
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
919 of 1082
920
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
920 of 1082
www.intertek.com/building
TABLE
921
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
921 of 1082
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
2NA 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
922
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
922 of 1082
www.intertek.com/building

APPENDIX A

CITY OF CUPERTINO ENCROACHMENT PERMIT
923
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
923 of 1082
PW-2025-0143
643.26 1,000
355581
3/14/25
9/10/25
924
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
924 of 1082

ȱ

DZ
܆ ˜›”ȱ‘˜ž›œȱ•’–’Žȱ˜ȱ˜—Š¢ȱȮȱ›’Š¢DZȱտȱŝDZŖŖȱŠǯ–ǯȱȱտ ŞDZŖŖȱŠǯ–ǯȱȱȱ˜ȱȱȱȱȱտ ŚDZřŖȱ™ǯ–ǯȱȱȱȱȱտȱŜDZŖŖȱ™ǯ–ǯ ܆ ˜›”ȱ‘˜ž›œȱ’—ȱ™ŠŸŽ–Ž—ȱ•’–’Žȱ˜DZ տ ŞDZŖŖȱŠǯ–ǯȱȱտ şDZřŖȱŠǯ–ǯȱȱ˜ȱȱտȱřDZřŖȱ™ǯ–ǯȱȱտȱŚDZřŖȱ™ǯ–ǯ ܆ —¢ȱŸ’˜•Š’˜—ȱ˜ȱ ˜›”’—ȱ‘˜ž›œȱœ‘Š••ȱ›Žœž•ȱ’—ȱȃȱ Ȅȱ—˜’ŒŽ
܆  ˜ȱ•Š—Žœȱ˜ȱ›Š’Œȱ˜ȱ‹Žȱ–Š’—Š’—ŽȱŠȱŠ••ȱ’–Žœ
܆ Ž›–Š—Ž—ȱ™ŠŸ’—ȱ–žœȱ‹Žȱ’—œŠ••Žȱ


ȱśȱ

 ȱ ŠŽ›ȱŒ˜–™•Ž’˜—ǰȱ›Š’Œȱ–Š›”’—œȱŠ—ȱ‹’”Žȱ•Š—Žȱ–Š›”’—œȱ˜ȱ‹Ž ›Ž™•ŠŒŽ  ’‘’—ȱśȱŠ¢œȱ˜ ™ŠŸŽ–Ž—ȱ›Žœ˜›Š’˜—ǯ
܆ ŠŸŽ–Ž—ȱŽ•’—ŽŠ’˜—ȱ˜›ȱœ’—œȱŠ–ŠŽȱž›’—ȱŒ˜—œ›žŒ’˜—ȱœ‘Š••ȱ‹Žȱ›Ž™•ŠŒŽȱ’—ȱ”’— ܆ ŠŸŽ–Ž—ȱœŽŒ’˜—ȱœ‘Š••ȱ–ŠŒ‘ȱŽ¡’œ’—
܆ ›ŽŽȱžȱ˜›Š˜›’ž–ȱ™™•’ŽœȱǻȱŗŚǯŖŞǯŖŚŖǼ
܆ •ž››¢ȱŽŠ•ȱŽšž’›Žȱȱȱ܆ȱ
Š•ȱ’‘ȱȱȱȱȱ܆ȱž••ȱ’‘ȱȱȱȱȱ܆ Slurry seal entire excavation and 2ft beyond on all sides of Ž—’›ŽȱŽ¡ŒŠŸŠ’˜—ȱ’—ȱœ‘ŽŽœǯ ܆ ••ȱ›Ž—Œ‘’—ȱœ‘Š••ȱ‹Žȱ‹ŠŒ”’••Žȱ˜ȱŠȱ–’—’–ž–ȱ˜ȱşśƖȱ›Ž•Š’ŸŽȱŒ˜–™ŠŒ’˜— ܆ ›Ž—Œ‘ȱ™•ŠŽœȱ’—ȱ‘Žȱ›ŠŸŽ•ȱ Š¢ȱœ‘Š••ȱ‹Žȱ›Š’Œȱ›ŠŽǰȱ™›˜™Ž›•¢ȱœŽŒž›ŽȱŠ—ȱœ‘Š••ȱ‹Žȱ›ŽŒŽœœŽȱž™˜—ȱ›ŽšžŽœǯ ŽŽȱŒ˜ž—Ž›Ȭœ’—” œŽŽ•ȱ™•ŠŽ ›Žšž’›Ž–Ž—œȱŠŠŒ‘Žǯ
܆
ȱ›Ž—Œ‘ȱ’œȱřȂȱ˜ȱ•Žœœȱ›˜–ȱ’™ȱ˜ȱ žŽ›ǰȱŒ˜—›ŠŒ˜›ȱœ‘Š••ȱ›Ž™ŠŸŽȱ˜ȱ’™ȱ˜ȱ žŽ›ǯ ܆
˜‹œ’Žȱœ‘Š••ȱ‹Žȱ™›˜™Ž›•¢ȱ™˜œŽȱŚŞȱ‘˜ž›œȱ’—ȱŠŸŠ—ŒŽǯȱŠ›”’—ȱ–Š¢ȱ—˜ȱ‹Ž ›Žœ›’ŒŽȱ˜—ȱŠž›Š¢ȱ˜›ȱž—Š¢ǯ ˜ȬŠ›”’—ȱœ’—œȱ–Š¢ȱ—˜ȱ‹Ž ™˜œŽȱ–˜›Žȱ‘Š—ȱśȱŠ¢œȱ‹Ž˜›Žȱ‘ŽȱœŠ›ȱ˜ȱ ˜›”ǰȱ–Š¢ȱ—˜ȱ›ŽŽ›ȱ˜ȱ˜ ’—ȱŠ Š¢ǰȱ–žœȱ‹Žȱ›Ž–˜ŸŽȱŠŽ›ȱ‘Žȱ™›˜“ŽŒȱ’œȱŒ˜–™•ŽŽǰȱŠ—ȱ–žœȱ—˜ Œ˜ŸŽ›ȱŠȱ™Ž›’˜ȱ˜ȱ–˜›Žȱ‘Š—ȱřȱ ŽŽ”œǯȱ˜ȬŠ›”’—ȱœ’—œȱ–žœȱ’—Œ•žŽȱ‘Žȱ™›˜“ŽŒȇœȱ™Ž›–’ȱ—ž–‹Ž›ǰȱŒ˜—œ›žŒ’˜—ȱŠŽœǰȱ™›˜“ŽŒȱŽœŒ›’™’˜—ǰȱŠ— Œ˜—ŠŒȱ’—˜›–Š’˜—ȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱ›Žœ™˜—œ’‹•Žȱ™Š›¢ǯ
܆ ȱ‘ŽŽȱŠŒ‘Ž
܆
܆
ȱ

DZ
ϭͿ ‘Žȱž‹•’Œȱ˜›”œȱ
—œ™ŽŒ˜›ȱ˜ȱ‘Žȱ’¢ȱ˜ȱž™Ž›’—˜ǰȱǻŚŖŞǼȱŘŖśȬŜřŘŜȱ˜›ȱǻŚŖŞǼȱŝŝŝȬřřśŚǰȱœ‘Š••ȱ‹Žȱ—˜’’ŽȱŠȱ•ŽŠœȱŚŞȱ‘˜ž›œȱ™›’˜›ȱ˜ȱ‹Ž’——’—ȱ ˜›” ’— ‘Žȱ™ž‹•’Œȱ’‘Ȭ˜ȬŠ¢ȱ˜›ȱ›ŽšžŽœ’—ȱ’—œ™ŽŒ’˜—ȱ˜ȱ ˜›”ǯȱȱȱŽ›ȱ‘Žȱ ˜›”ȱ’œȱŒ˜–™•ŽŽǰȱ—˜’¢ȱ‘Žȱž‹•’Œȱ˜›”œȱ —œ™ŽŒ˜›ȱ˜ȱœŒ‘Žž•ŽȱŠȱ’—Š•
’—œ™ŽŒ’˜—ǯ
ϮͿ ȱŒ˜™¢ȱ˜ȱ‘’œȱ™Ž›–’ȱ–žœȱ‹Žȱ”Ž™ȱ˜—ȱ‘Žȱ“˜‹ȱœ’Žǯ
ϯͿ ‘ŽȱŠ™™•’ŒŠ—ȱœ‘Š••ȱ—˜’¢ȱ˜ž—¢ȱ˜––ž—’ŒŠ’˜—œǰȱǻŚŖŞǼȱŘşşȬŘśŖŗǰȱŠ •ŽŠœȱŘŚȱ‘˜ž›œȱ™›’˜›ȱ˜ Š—¢ȱ ˜›”ȱ’— ‘Žȱ›ŠŸŽ•Žȱ Š¢ȱœŽŒ’˜—ȱ˜ Šȱœ›ŽŽǯ ϰͿ Ž›–’ŽŽȱœ‘Š••ȱŽ–™•˜¢ȱŒ˜—œ›žŒ’˜—ȱ‹Žœȱ–Š—ŠŽ–Ž—ȱ™›ŠŒ’ŒŽœȱ ‘’Œ‘ȱ ’••ȱ™›ŽŸŽ—ȱ™˜••žŠ—œȱœžŒ‘ȱŠœȱ–žǰȱœ’•ǰȱŒ‘Ž–’ŒŠ•ȱ›Žœ’žŽǰȱŠ—ȱ Šœ‘’—œ ›˜–ȱŒ˜—Œ›ŽŽȱœŠ ȬŒž’—ȱ›˜–ȱŽ—Ž›’—ȱœ˜›–ȱ›Š’—œǯȱ—¢ȱœ™’••œȱ˜›ȱ’œŒ‘Š›Žœȱ‘ŠȱŒ˜ž•ȱ™˜Ž—’Š••¢ȱ˜›ȱŠŒžŠ••¢ȱŽ—Ž›ȱŠȱœ˜›–ȱ›Š’—ȱ˜›ȱ›ŽŒŽ’Ÿ’— ŠŽ›ǰȱ–žœȱ‹Žȱ’––Ž’ŠŽ•¢ȱ›Ž™˜›Žȱ˜ȱ‘Žȱ’¢ȱǻŚŖŞȬŝŝŝȬřřśŚǼǯȱŽŽȱ˜—œ›žŒ’˜—ȱŽœȱŠ—ŠŽ–Ž—ȱ™›ŠŒ’ŒŽœȱŠŠŒ‘–Ž—ǯ ϱͿ ‘ŽȱŠ™™•’ŒŠ—ȱŠ›ŽŽœȱ‘Šȱ’ȱ‘ŽȱŽ—Œ›˜ŠŒ‘–Ž—ȱ˜›ȱ ‘’Œ‘ȱ‘’œȱ™Ž›–’ȱ’œȱ’œœžŽȱ ‘’Œ‘ȱœ‘Š••ȱŠȱŠ—¢ȱ’–Žȱ’—ȱ‘Žȱžž›Žȱ’—Ž›Ž›Žȱ ’‘ȱ‘ŽȱžœŽǰȱ›Ž™Š’›ǰ ’–™›˜ŸŽ–Ž—ǰȱ ’Ž—’—ǰȱ˜›ȱŒ‘Š—Žȱ˜ȱ›ŠŽȱ˜ȱŠ—¢ȱœ›ŽŽǰȱ›˜Š Š¢ǰȱ‘’‘ Š¢ǰȱœ’Ž Š•”ǰȱŒž›‹ǰȱ›Š’—ǰȱ˜›ȱ’‘Ȭ˜ȬŠ¢ǰȱŠ™™•’ŒŠ—ȱ˜›ȱ‘’œȱœžŒŒŽœœ˜› ˜› Šœœ’—œǰȱœ‘Š••ȱ ’‘’—ȱŗŚȱŠ¢œȱŠŽ›ȱ›ŽŒŽ’™ȱ˜ȱ ›’Ž—ȱ—˜’ŒŽȱ›˜–ȱ‘Žȱ’›ŽŒ˜›ȱ˜ȱž‹•’Œȱ˜›”œȱ˜ȱ˜ȱœ˜ǰȱŠȱ’œȱ˜ —ȱŽ¡™Ž—œŽȱŽ’‘Ž›ȱ›Ž–˜ŸŽȱœžŒ‘ Ž—Œ›˜ŠŒ‘–Ž—ȱœž‹“ŽŒȱ˜ȱŠ™™›˜ŸŠ•ȱ›˜–ȱ‘Žȱ’›ŽŒ˜›ǰȱ˜›ȱ›Ž•˜ŒŠŽȱ˜ȱŠȱœ’Žȱ ‘’Œ‘ȱ–Š¢ȱ‹ŽȱŽœ’—ŠŽȱ‹¢ȱ‘Žȱ’›ŽŒ˜›ǯȱ—¢ȱŽ—Œ›˜ŠŒ‘–Ž—ȱ›Ž–˜ŸŽ ‹¢ ‘Žȱ’¢ȱ ’••ȱ—˜ȱ‹Ž ›Ž™•ŠŒŽǯ
ϲͿ ˜ȱ‘Žȱž••ŽœȱŽ¡Ž—ȱŠ••˜ Žȱ‹¢ȱ•Š ǰȱ
ȱŠ—ȱȱœ‘Š••ȱ’—Ž–—’¢ȱŠ—ȱ‘˜•ȱ‘Š›–•Žœœȱ
ǰȱ’œȱ’¢ȱ˜ž—Œ’•ǰȱ‹˜Š›œȱŠ—
Œ˜––’œœ’˜—œǰȱ˜’ŒŽ›œǰȱ˜’Œ’Š•œǰȱŠŽ—œǰȱŽ–™•˜¢ŽŽœǰȱœŽ›ŸŠ—œǰȱŒ˜—œž•Š—œȱŠ—ȱŸ˜•ž—ŽŽ›œȱǻ‘Ž›Ž’—ŠŽ›ǰȱȃ —Ž–—’ŽŽœȄǼȱ›˜–ȱŠ—ȱŠŠ’—œȱŠ—¢
•’Š‹’•’¢ǰ •˜œœǰȱŠ–ŠŽǰȱŽ¡™Ž—œŽǰȱŠ—ȱŒ˜œȱǻ’—Œ•ž’—ȱ›ŽŠœ˜—Š‹•Žȱ•ŽŠ•ȱŽŽœȱŠ—ȱŒ˜œœȱ˜ȱ•’’Š’˜—ȱ˜›ȱŠ›‹’›Š’˜—Ǽǰȱ›Žœž•’—ȱ›˜–ȱ’—“ž›¢ȱ˜ȱ˜›ȱŽŠ‘ ˜ Š—¢ ™Ž›œ˜—ǰȱŠ–ŠŽȱ˜ȱ™›˜™Ž›¢ǰȱ˜›ȱ•’Š‹’•’¢ȱ˜›ȱ˜‘Ž›ȱŒ•Š’–œǰȱœ˜™ȱ—˜’ŒŽœǰȱŽ–Š—œǰȱŒŠžœŽœȱ˜ȱŠŒ’˜—œȱŠ—ȱŠŒ’˜—œǰȱŠ›’œ’—ȱ˜žȱ˜ȱ˜›ȱ’—ȱŠ—¢ȱ Š¢ ›Ž•ŠŽ ˜ȱ˜—›ŠŒ˜›Ȃœȱ™Ž›˜›–Š—ŒŽȱ˜›ȱ—˜—™Ž›˜›–Š—ŒŽȱ˜ȱ‘’œȦ‘Ž›ȱž’Žœȱž—Ž›ȱ‘’œȱ›ŽŽ–Ž—ǰȱ˜›ȱ›˜–ȱ—Ž•’Ž—ȱŠŒœȱ˜›ȱ˜–’œœ’˜—œȱ˜›ȱ ’••ž• –’œŒ˜—žŒ ˜ȱ˜—›ŠŒ˜›ǰȱ’œȱŠŽ—œǰȱŽ–™•˜¢ŽŽœǰȱ˜›ȱœž‹Œ˜—›ŠŒ˜›œǯȱ˜—›ŠŒ˜›ȱœ‘Š••ǰȱŠȱ‘’œȦ‘Ž›ȱ˜ —ȱŒ˜œȱŠ—ȱŽ¡™Ž—œŽǰȱŽŽ—ȱŠ—¢ȱŠ—ȱŠ••ȱŒ•Š’–œǰ ŠŒ’˜—œǰȱœž’œ ˜›ȱ•ŽŠ•ȱ™›˜ŒŽŽ’—œȱ‘Šȱ–Š¢ȱ‹Žȱ‹›˜ž‘ȱŠŠ’—œȱ‘Žȱ’¢ȱ˜›ȱŠ—¢ȱ˜ȱ‘Žȱ —Ž–—’ŽŽœȱǻ ’‘ȱŒ˜ž—Œ’•ȱŠŒŒŽ™Š‹•Žȱ˜ȱ’¢Ǽȱ’—ȱŒ˜——ŽŒ’˜— ’‘ȱ‘’œ Ž›–’ȱ˜›ȱŠ›’œ’—ȱ˜žȱ˜ȱŽŸŽ•˜™Ž›Ȃœȱ™Ž›˜›–Š—ŒŽȱ˜›ȱ—˜—™Ž›˜›–Š—ŒŽȱ˜ȱ‘’œȦ‘Ž›ȱž’ŽœȱŠ—ȱ˜‹•’Š’˜—œȱ‘Ž›Žž—Ž›ǰȱŽ¡ŒŽ™ȱ˜ȱ‘ŽȱŽ¡Ž— Š—¢ȱ˜ȱ‘Ž ˜›Ž˜’—ȱ’œȱŒŠžœŽȱ‹¢ȱ‘Žȱ—Ž•’Ž—ŒŽȱ˜›ȱ ’••ž•ȱ–’œŒ˜—žŒȱ˜ȱ‘Žȱ ȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱ
ȂȱŠŽ—œǰȱŽ–™•˜¢ŽŽœȱŠ—ȱ’—Ž™Ž—Ž—ȱŒ˜—›ŠŒ˜›œǯ
ϳͿ ‘˜ž•ȱ‘ŽȱŽ›–’ŽŽȱ™›˜Ÿ’ŽȱœŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽœȱ ‘’Œ‘ȱŠ›Žȱœž‹“ŽŒȱ˜ȱ‘Žȱ’¢Ȃœȱ›Š—Œ‘’œŽȱ˜›’—Š—ŒŽǰȱŽ›–’ŽŽȱŠ›ŽŽœȱ˜ȱ™Š¢ȱŠ—¢ȱŠ™™•’ŒŠ‹•Žȱ’¢ȱ›Š—Œ‘’œŽ ŽŽǯ
ϴͿ ‘’œȱŽ—Œ›˜ŠŒ‘–Ž—ȱ™Ž›–’ȱœ‘Š••ȱ‹Ž Ž›–’—Š‹•ŽȱŠȱ‘Žȱœ˜•Žȱ’œŒ›Ž’˜—ȱ˜ ‘Žȱ’¢ȱž™˜—ȱřŖȱŠ¢œȱ ›’Ž—ȱ—˜’ŒŽȱ˜ ‘ŽȱŽ›–’ŽŽǯ ϵͿ ‘ŽȱŠ™™•’ŒŠ—ȂœȱŒ˜—›ŠŒ˜›ȱœ‘Š••ȱŒŠ››¢ȱŠȱŠ••ȱ’–ŽœȱŒ˜––Ž›Œ’Š•ȱŽ—Ž›Š•ȱ•’Š‹’•’¢ȱ’—œž›Š—ŒŽȱ ’‘ȱŠȱŒ˜–‹’—Žȱœ’—•Žȱ•’–’ȱ˜ȱǞŘǯŖȱ–’••’˜—ȱ™Ž› ˜ŒŒž››Ž—ŒŽDzǞŚǯŖȱ–’••’˜—ȱŠ›ŽŠŽDzȱŠ—ȱ™›˜Ÿ’ŽȱŠȱŽ›’’ŒŠŽȱ˜ȱ —œž›Š—ŒŽȱŠ—ȱ—˜›œŽ–Ž—ȱ—Š–’—ȱ‘Žȱ’¢ȱŠœȱ’’˜—Š•ȱ —œž›Žǯȱ
—œž›Ž›œȱ–žœ
‹Žȱ•’ŒŽ—œŽ ˜ȱ˜ȱ‹žœ’—Žœœȱ ’‘’—ȱ‘ŽȱŠŽȱ˜ȱŠ•’˜›—’ŠȱŠ—ȱ‘ŠŸŽȱŠȱŒž››Ž—ȱŽœȂœȱ ž’ŽȱŠ’—ȱ˜ȱǰȱ•Šœœȱ

ȱ˜›ȱ‹ŽŽ›ȱ˜›ȱ‘Šȱ’œȱ˜‘Ž› ’œŽ
ŠŒŒŽ™Š‹•Žȱ˜ȱ‘Ž ’¢ǯ

—œž›Š—ŒŽȱœ‘Š••ȱ‹Žȱ™›’–Š›¢ȱŠ—ȱ—˜—ȬŒ˜—›’‹ž˜›¢ǯ
ϭϬͿ ••ȱ ˜›”ȱ ’‘’—ȱ‘Žȱ™ž‹•’Œȱ’‘ȱ˜ȱŠ¢ȱ–žœȱ‹ŽȱŒ˜–™•ŽŽȱ‹¢ȱŠȱŒ˜—›ŠŒ˜›ȱ ‘˜ȱ‘˜•œȱŠȱŒž››Ž—ȱ•Šœœȱȱ˜›ȱŠ™™›˜™›’ŠŽȱ•Šœœȱȱ•’ŒŽ—œŽȱŠ—ȱŠ Œž››Ž—ȱ’¢ȱ˜ȱž™Ž›’—˜ȱ‹žœ’—Žœœȱ•’ŒŽ—œŽǯ
ϭϭͿ Ž›–’ŽŽȱŠ—ȱ˜—›ŠŒ˜›ȱœ‘Š••ȱŒ˜–™•¢ȱ ’‘ȱ‘Š™Ž›ȱŗŗǯřŘȱ˜ȱ‘Žȱž™Ž›’—˜ȱž—’Œ’™Š•ȱ˜ŽȱȈ›žŒ”ȱ›Š’Œȱ˜žŽœȈȱǻŽŽȱŠŠŒ‘Žȱ›žŒ”ȱ›Š’Œ Žœ›’Œ’˜—œ Š™Ǽǯȱ˜ȱ™Ž›œ˜—ȱœ‘Š••ȱ˜™Ž›ŠŽȱ˜›ȱ›’ŸŽȱŠ—¢ȱ›žŒ”ȱ‘ŠȱŽ¡ŒŽŽœȱŠȱ›˜œœȱ Ž’‘ȱ˜ȱ‘›ŽŽȱ˜—œȱ‹Ž ŽŽ—ȱ‘Žȱ‘˜ž›œȱ˜ȱŝDZŖŖȱŠǯ–ǯȱŠ— şDZřŖ Š–ȱ˜›ȱŘDZŖŖȱ™ǯ–ǯȱŠ—ȱŚDZŖŖȱ™ǯ–ǯȱ˜—ȱ‘Žȱ˜••˜ ’—ȱ›˜Š Š¢ȱœŽ–Ž—œDZ Šǯ Š—¢ȱ›˜Š Š¢ȱ ‘’Œ‘ȱ›ž—œȱŒ˜—’ž˜žœȱ˜ȱŠ—ȱ’œ  ’‘’—ȱśŖŖ ŽŽȱ˜ Š—¢ ™ž‹•’ŒȱœŒ‘˜˜•ȱǻŽ¡Œ•ž’—ȱ ˜–ŽœŽŠȱ Š—ȱ˜••’—Ž›ȱǼ
‹ǯ Œ•Ž••Š—ȱ˜Šǰȱ‹Ž ŽŽ—ȱŽ••’—ȱ˜ŠȱŠ—ȱž‹‹ȱ˜Šǯ ˜‘˜•ŽœȱŠ—ȱ‹˜›Žȱ™’œȱœ‘Š••ȱ‹Žȱ’••Žȱ˜ȱ›ŠŽȱ ’‘ȱŒž‹ŠŒ”ȱŠȱŽ—ȱ˜ȱŽŠŒ‘ȱ ˜›”ȱŠ¢ǯȱȈ˜™ȱ‘ŠȈȱ™•ŠŽœȱ–Š¢ȱ—˜ȱ‹ŽȱžœŽȱ˜—ȱ™ž‹•’Œȱœ›ŽŽœǯ ‘Ž›DZ
ϭͿ ‘Ž ž‹•’Œ ˜›”œ
—œ™ŽŒ˜›ȱ˜ȱ‘Ž ’¢ȱ˜ ž™ǰ Ž›’—˜ǰ ǻŚŖŞǼ ŘŖśȬŜřŘŜ ˜› ǻŚŖŞǼ ŝŝŝȬřřśŚǰ œ‘Š•• ‹Ž —˜’’ŽȱŠȱ•ŽŠœȱŚŞȱ‘˜ž›œ ™›’˜›ȱ˜ ‹Ž ’——’—  ˜›” ’— ‘Ž ™ž‹•’Œȱ’‘Ȭ˜ȬŠ¢ ™ ˜› ›ŽšžŽœ’— ’—œ™ŽŒ’˜— ˜  ˜›”ǯȱȱȱŽ›ȱ‘Ž  ˜›” ’œȱŒ˜–™•ŽŽǰȱ—˜’¢ȱ‘Žȱž‹•’Œȱ˜›”œȱ —œ™ŽŒ˜›ȱ˜ œŒ‘Žž•Ž Š ’—Š•
’—œ™ŽŒ’˜—ǯ
925
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
925 of 1082
www.intertek.com/building

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY REPORT
926
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
926 of 1082






 













 







!

 



 



!"
#$%
&


'
($
$

)*+
,

* 
 -
 .-/ *$
0. 0.

!12
123


4-.$

.5
*
*

, - -*
*/4

* .

 2
23 927
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
927 of 1082







 
" #

$%

  


 !  " ##$%&'
(
))
*+

)  *
,

 * / '&. -.-$# .#$






 













 







!
&# ' (


)' *
! 
&# $
+,+-.'+"/0".0"&+*/&

"
 $
".0#
$#.
. 
 
-.%-$# %$ 
-$-$# .
".$
$#.
$ 
 
-.%-$# %
$ 
-$-$# .
"$0#
$#.


 
-.%-$# %# 
-$-$# .
"$$
$#.
 
 
-.%-$# %#% 
-$-$# .
"
0#
$#.
# 
 
-.%-$# '$# 
-$-$# .
"
$
$#.
& 
 
-.%-$# '
 
-$-$# .
"0#
$#.
 
 
-.%-$# '% 
-$-$# .
"$
$#.
% 
 
-.%-$# . 
-$-$# .
"#0#
$#.
' 
 
-.%-$# .
% 
-$-$# .
"#$
$#.
. 
 
-.%-$# .# 
-$-$# .
"&0#
$#.
.. 
 
-.%-$# .. 
-$-$# .
"&$
$#.
.$ 
 
-.%-$# .$ 
-$-$# .
1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

 . 3 $
928
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
928 of 1082







 
" #

$%

  


 !  " ##$%&'
(
))
*+

)  *
,

 * / '&. -.-$# .#$






 













 







!
/./.'0,&&1**+"-
(


)'%
+
)
" 2

1 
 *
$
".0#
$#.
.
,

" #


3 &# '%
)
 

 $0
- 4
&.

1 

0
- 4
&.

(


)'%
+
)
" 2

1 
 *
$
".$
$#.
$
,

" #


3 &# '%
1 

0
- 4
&.

(


)'%
+
)
" 2

1 
 *
$
"$0#
$#.


,

" #


3 &# '%
)
 
 $0
- 4
&.

1 

0
- 4
&.

(


)'%
+
)
" 2

1 
 *
$
"$$
$#.

,

" #


3 &# '%
)
 
 $0
- 4
&.

1 4

0
- 4
&.

1 
 0.
- 4
.
..
1 4 0$#
- 
1* 5) 46


(


)'%
+
)
" 2

1 
 *
$
"
0#
$#.
#
,

" #


3 &# '%
1


4 0
- 4
&.

/7224
 #0
- 4
%%.
/722
4  #0
- 4
%%.
1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

 $ 3 $
929
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
929 of 1082







 
" #

$%

  


 !  " ##$%&'
(
))
*+

)  *
,

 * / '&. -.-$# .#$






 













 







!
(


)'%
+
)
" 2

1 
 *
$
"
$
$#.
&
,

" #


3 &# '%
1 


0
- 4
&.

/7224  #0
- 4
%%.
/722


#0
- 4
%%.
&# '% "0# (


)'%
$#.

," 2


$
&# '% "$ (


)'%
$#.
%
," 2


$
&# '% "#0# (


)'%
$#.
'
," 2


$
&# '% "#$ (


)'%
$#.
.
," 2


$
&# '% "&0# (


)'%
$#.
..
," 2


$
1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 


3 $
930
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
930 of 1082







 
" #

$%

  


 !  " ##$%&'
(
))
*+

)  *
,

 * / '&. -.-$# .#$






 













 







!
(


)'%
+
)
" 2

1 
 *
$
"&$
$#.
.$
,

" #


3 &# '%
1 


0
- 4
&.

1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

  3 $
931
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
931 of 1082







 
" #

$%

  


 !  " ##$%&'
(
))
*+

)  *
,

 * / '&. -.-$# .#$






 













 







!
9 1

 8)
 "+
8,

;
) 2



, 9: +
)
56


.


6 7&8
&2
&

(


 '

*
()/+

5 +




 $0
- . $#*
& 
-$-$# 
-$.-$# 4
&.

 $ 

0 < < << < <
0 3



 

$ ()/+*
$4
4+
,+"=*
2 #0
- . $#*
#% 
-$#-$# 
-$&-$# 4
%%.


"=* >1
?
2 #0 < < < << <

"=*
2 #0 < < < << <
"=*
2 #0 < < < << <
=,+
2 #0 < < < << <


2 #0 < < < << <
=,+ ,6

2 #0 < < < << <


*+
2 #0 < < < << <
,+*+
2 #0 < < < << <
4)
3 
2 #0 < < < << <
/7224
2 #0 < < < << <
2 

2 #0 < < < << <
4

2 #0 < < < << <
/7222
2 #0 < < < << <
4)
3 
2 #0 < < < << <
/722

2 #0 < < < << <
4
 +9
2 #0 < < < << <
4)
3 )
3
2 #0 < < < << <
+69+
2 #0 < < < << <
4
 
2 #0 < < < << <

6,+
2 $ < < < << <
"
# $
 

 %
  ! 

  
"
# $(





! 

    "&'
1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

 # 3 $
932
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
932 of 1082







 
" #

$%

  


 !  " ##$%&'
(
))
*+

)  *
,

 * / '&. -.-$# .#$






 













 







!
9 1

 8)
 "+
8,

;
) 2



, 9: +
)
56

.


6
7&8
&2
&

(


 '

*
()/+

5 )

2 $0
- . $#*
& 
-$-$# 
-$.-$# 4
&.

 $ 

0 < < << < <
0 3



 

$ ()/+*
$4
4+
,+"=*
2 #0
- . $#*
#% 
-$#-$# 
-$&-$# 4
%%.


"=* >1
?
2 #0 < < < << <

"=*
2 #0 < < < << <
"=*
2 #0 < < < << <
=,+
2 #0 < < < << <


2 #0 < < < << <
=,+ ,6

2 #0 < < < << <


*+
2 #0 < < < << <
,+*+
2 #0 < < < << <
4)
3 
2 #0 < < < << <
/7224
2 #0 < < < << <
2 

2 #0 < < < << <
4

2 #0 < < < << <
/7222
2 #0 < < < << <
4)
3 
2 #0 < < < << <
/722

2 #0 < < < << <
4
 +9
2 #0 < < < << <
4)
3 )
3
2 #0 < < < << <
+69+
2 #0 < < < << <
4
 
2 #0 < < < << <

6,+
2 $ < < < << <
"
# $
 

 %
  ! 

  
"
# $(





)! 

    "&'
1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

 & 3 $
933
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
933 of 1082







 
" #

$%

  


 !  " ##$%&'
(
))
*+

)  *
,

 * / '&. -.-$# .#$






 













 







!
9 1

 8)
 "+
8,

;
) 2



, 9: +
)
5
6


.


6 7&8
&2
&

(


 '

*
()/+

5 +



 $0
- . $#*
& 
-$-$# 
-$.-$# 4
&.

 $ 

0 < < << < <
0 3



 

$ ()/+*
$4
4+
,+"=*
2 #0
- . $#*
#% 
-$#-$# 
-$&-$# 4
%%.


"=* >1
?
2 #0 < < < << <

"=*
2 #0 < < < << <
"=*
2 #0 < < < << <
=,+
2 #0 < < < << <


2 #0 < < < << <
=,+ ,6

2 #0 < < < << <


*+
2 #0 < < < << <
,+*+
2 #0 < < < << <
4)
3 
2 #0 < < < << <
/7224
2 #0 < < < << <
2 

2 #0 < < < << <
4

2 #0 < < < << <
/7222
2 #0 < < < << <
4)
3 
2 #0 < < < << <
/722

2 #0 < < < << <
4
 +9
2 #0 < < < << <
4)
3 )
3
2 #0 < < < << <
+69+
2 #0 < < < << <
4
 
2 #0 < < < << <

6,+
2 $ < < < << <
"
# $
 

 %

*
! 

  
"
# $(





*! 

    "&'
1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

  3 $
934
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
934 of 1082







 
" #

$%

  


 !  " ##$%&'
(
))
*+

)  *
,

 * / '&. -.-$# .#$






 













 







!
9 1

 8)
 "+
8,

;
) 2



, 9: +
)
5
6

.


6 7&8
&2
&

(


 '

*
()/+

5 +



 $0
- . $#*
& 
-$-$# 
-$.-$# 4
&.

 $ 4

0 < < << < <
.*
()

9

&
 *
$
 $ 
 0.
- . $#*'' 
-$%-$# 
-
.-$# 4
.
..
&.*
()

9

&
 *
$

1* 5)
46


)
 $ 4 0$#
- . $#*#$ 
-$%-$# 
-
.-$#
0 3



 

$ ()/+*
$4
4+
,+"=*
2 #
- . $#*
#% 
-$#-$# 
-$&-$# 4
%%. 8


"=* >1
?
2 # < < < << < 8

"=*
2 # < < < << < 8
"=*
2 # < < < << < 8
=,+
2 # < < < << < 8


2 # < < < << < 8
=,+ ,6

2 # < < < << < 8


*+
2 # < < < << < 8
,+*+
2 # < < < << < 8
4)
3 
2 # < < < << < 8
/7224
2 # < < < << < 8
2 

2 # < < < << < 8
4

2 # < < < << < 8
/7222
2 # < < < << < 8
4)
3 
2 # < < < << < 8
/722

2 # < < < << < 8
4
 +9
2 # < < < << < 8
4)
3 )
3
2 # < < < << < 8
+69+
2 # < < < << < 8
4
 
2 # < < < << < 8

6,+
2 $ < < < << < 8
"
# $
 

 %

)
! 

   +
) 
1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

 % 3 $
935
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
935 of 1082







 
" #

$%

  


 !  " ##$%&'
(
))
*+

)  *
,

 * / '&. -.-$# .#$






 













 







!
9 1

 8)
 "+
8,

;
) 2



, 9: +
)
5
6

.


6 7&8
&2
&

(


 '

0 3



 

$ ()/+*
$4
4+
"
# $(





1! 

'

//
/*/ +
)0"&' ,-.

.
1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

 ' 3 $
936
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
936 of 1082







 
" #

$%

  


 !  " ##$%&'
(
))
*+

)  *
,

 * / '&. -.-$# .#$






 













 







!
9 1

 8)
 "+
8,

;
) 2



, 9: +
)
56


.


6 7&8
&2
&

(


 '

*
()/+

5 )

2 $0
- . $#*
& 
-$-$# 
-$.-$# 4
&.

 $


4 0 < < << < <
0 3



 

$ ()/+*
$4
4+
,+"=*
2 #0
- . $#*
#% 
-$#-$# 
-$&-$# 4
%%.


"=* >1
?
2 #0 < < < << <

"=*
2 #0 < < < << <
"=*
2 #0 < < < << <
=,+
2 #0 < < < << <


2 #0 < < < << <
=,+ ,6

2 #0 < < < << <


*+
2 #0 < < < << <
,+*+
2 #0 < < < << <
4)
3 
2 #0 < < < << <


:6/
 #0 < < << < <
2 

2 #0 < < < << <
4

2 #0 < < < << <
/7222
2 #0 < < < << <
4)
3 
2 #0 < < < << <


:6. 4
 #0 < < << < <
4
 +9
2 #0 < < < << <
4)
3 )
3
2 #0 < < < << <
+69+
2 #0 < < < << <
4
 
2 #0 < < < << <

6,+
2 $ < < < << <
"
# $
 

 %
 
! 

   "
 
"
# $(




 )

! 

    "

1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

 . 3 $
937
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
937 of 1082







 
" #

$%

  


 !  " ##$%&'
(
))
*+

)  *
,

 * / '&. -.-$# .#$






 













 







!
9 1

 8)
 "+
8,

;
) 2



, 9: +
)
56

.


6 7&8
&2
&

(


 '

*
()/+

5 )

2 $0
- . $#*
& 
-$-$# 
-$.-$# 4
&.

 $ 


0 < < << < <
0 3



 

$ ()/+*
$4
4+
,+"=*
2 #0
- . $#*
#% 
-$#-$# 
-$&-$# 4
%%.


"=* >1
?
2 #0 < < < << <

"=*
2 #0 < < < << <
"=*
2 #0 < < < << <
=,+
2 #0 < < < << <


2 #0 < < < << <
=,+ ,6

2 #0 < < < << <


*+
2 #0 < < < << <
,+*+
2 #0 < < < << <
4)
3 
2 #0 < < < << <


:6/  #0 < < << < <
2 

2 #0 < < < << <
4

2 #0 < < < << <
/7222
2 #0 < < < << <
4)
3 
2 #0 < < < << <


:6.

#0 < < << < <
4
 +9
2 #0 < < < << <
4)
3 )
3
2 #0 < < < << <
+69+
2 #0 < < < << <
4
 
2 #0 < < < << <

6,+
2 $ < < < << <
"
# $
 

 %

! 

  
"
# $(





! 

    "&'
1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

 .. 3 $
938
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
938 of 1082







 
" #

$%

  


 !  " ##$%&'
(
))
*+

)  *
,

 * / '&. -.-$# .#$






 













 







!
9 1

 8)
 "+
8,

;
) 2



, 9: +
)
5 6


.


6 7&8
&2
&

(


 '

*
()/+

5 )

2 $0
- . $#*
& 
-$-$# 
-$.-$# 4
&.

1
2 0 < < < << <
0 3



 

$ ()/+*
$4
4+
,+"=*
2 #0
- . $#*
#% 
-$#-$# 
-$&-$# 4
%%.


"=* >1
?
2 #0 < < < << <

"=*
2 #0 < < < << <
"=*
2 #0 < < < << <
=,+
2 #0 < < < << <


2 #0 < < < << <
=,+ ,6

2 #0 < < < << <


*+
2 #0 < < < << <
,+*+
2 #0 < < < << <
4)
3 
2 #0 < < < << <
/7224
2 #0 < < < << <
2 

2 #0 < < < << <
4

2 #0 < < < << <
/7222
2 #0 < < < << <
4)
3 
2 #0 < < < << <
/722

2 #0 < < < << <
4
 +9
2 #0 < < < << <
4)
3 )
3
2 #0 < < < << <
+69+
2 #0 < < < << <
4
 
2 #0 < < < << <

6,+
2 $ < < < << <
"
# $
 

 %
 *  ! 

  
"
# $(




  ! 

  
1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

 .$ 3 $
939
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
939 of 1082







 
" #

$%

  


 !  " ##$%&'
(
))
*+

)  *
,

 * / '&. -.-$# .#$






 













 







!
9 1

 8)
 "+
8,

;
) 2



, 9: +
)
5 6

.


6 47&8
&2
&

(


 '

*
()/+

5 )

2 $0
- . $#*
& 
-$-$# 
-$.-$# 4
&.

1
2 0 < < < << <
0 3



 

$ ()/+*
$4
4+
,+"=*
2 #0
- . $#*
#% 
-$#-$# 
-$&-$# 4
%%.


"=* >1
?
2 #0 < < < << <

"=*
2 #0 < < < << <
"=*
2 #0 < < < << <
=,+
2 #0 < < < << <


2 #0 < < < << <
=,+ ,6

2 #0 < < < << <


*+
2 #0 < < < << <
,+*+
2 #0 < < < << <
4)
3 
2 #0 < < < << <
/7224
2 #0 < < < << <
2 

2 #0 < < < << <
4

2 #0 < < < << <
/7222
2 #0 < < < << <
4)
3 
2 #0 < < < << <
/722

2 #0 < < < << <
4
 +9
2 #0 < < < << <
4)
3 )
3
2 #0 < < < << <
+69+
2 #0 < < < << <
4
 
2 #0 < < < << <

6,+
2 $ < < < << <
"
# $
 

 %
 )! 

  
"
# $(




 1! 

    "&'
1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

 .
3 $
940
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
940 of 1082







 
" #

$%

  


 !  " ##$%&'
(
))
*+

)  *
,

 * / '&. -.-$# .#$






 













 







!
9 1

 8)
 "+
8,

;
) 2



, 9: +
)
56


.


6 7&8
&2
&

(


 '

*
()/+

5 )

2 0
- $ $#*
& 
-$-$# 
-$.-$# 4
&.
8.
1
2 &0 < < < << < 8.
0 3



 

$ ()/+*
$4
4+
,+"=*
2 #
- . $#*
#% 
-$#-$# 
-$&-$# 4
%%. 8


"=* >1
?
2 # < < < << < 8

"=*
2 # < < < << < 8
"=*
2 # < < < << < 8
=,+
2 # < < < << < 8


2 # < < < << < 8
=,+ ,6

2 # < < < << < 8


*+
2 # < < < << < 8
,+*+
2 # < < < << < 8
4)
3 
2 # < < < << < 8
/7224
2 # < < < << < 8
2 

2 # < < < << < 8
4

2 # < < < << < 8
/7222
2 # < < < << < 8
4)
3 
2 # < < < << < 8
/722

2 # < < < << < 8
4
 +9
2 # < < < << < 8
4)
3 )
3
2 # < < < << < 8
+69+
2 # < < < << < 8
4
 
2 # < < < << < 8

6,+
2 $ < < < << < 8
"
# $
 

 %
 ))
! 

   +
) 
"
# $(




 *))! 

    +
)
1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

 . 3 $
941
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
941 of 1082







 
" #

$%

  


 !  " ##$%&'
(
))
*+

)  *
,

 * / '&. -.-$# .#$






 













 







!
9 1

 8)
 "+
8,

;
) 2



, 9: +
)
56

.


6
7&8
&2
&

(


 '

*
()/+

5 )

2 $0
- . $#*
& 
-$-$# 
-$.-$# 4
&.

1
2 0 < < < << <
0 3



 

$ ()/+*
$4
4+
,+"=*
2 #
- . $#*
#% 
-$#-$# 
-$&-$# 4
%%. 8


"=* >1
?
2 # < < < << < 8

"=*
2 # < < < << < 8
"=*
2 # < < < << < 8
=,+
2 # < < < << < 8


2 # < < < << < 8
=,+ ,6

2 # < < < << < 8


*+
2 # < < < << < 8
,+*+
2 # < < < << < 8
4)
3 
2 # < < < << < 8
/7224
2 # < < < << < 8
2 

2 # < < < << < 8
4

2 # < < < << < 8
/7222
2 # < < < << < 8
4)
3 
2 # < < < << < 8
/722

2 # < < < << < 8
4
 +9
2 # < < < << < 8
4)
3 )
3
2 # < < < << < 8
+69+
2 # < < < << < 8
4
 
2 # < < < << < 8

6,+
2 $ < < < << < 8
"
# $
 

 %
 1
! 

   +
) 
"
# $(





)! 

    +
)
1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

 .# 3 $
942
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
942 of 1082







 
" #

$%

  


 !  " ##$%&'
(
))
*+

)  *
,

 * / '&. -.-$# .#$






 













 







!
9 1

 8)
 "+
8,

;
) 2



, 9: +
)
56


.


67&8
&2
&

(


 '

*
()/+

5 )

2 0
- $ $#*
& 
-$-$# 
-$.-$# 4
&.
8.
1
2 &0 < < < << < 8.
0 3



 

$ ()/+*
$4
4+
,+"=*
2 #
- . $#*
#% 
-$#-$# 
-$&-$# 4
%%. 8


"=* >1
?
2 # < < < << < 8

"=*
2 # < < < << < 8
"=*
2 # < < < << < 8
=,+
2 # < < < << < 8


2 # < < < << < 8
=,+ ,6

2 # < < < << < 8


*+
2 # < < < << < 8
,+*+
2 # < < < << < 8
4)
3 
2 # < < < << < 8
/7224
2 # < < < << < 8
2 

2 # < < < << < 8
4

2 # < < < << < 8
/7222
2 # < < < << < 8
4)
3 
2 # < < < << < 8
/722

2 # < < < << < 8
4
 +9
2 # < < < << < 8
4)
3 )
3
2 # < < < << < 8
+69+
2 # < < < << < 8
4
 
2 # < < < << < 8

6,+
2 $ < < < << < 8
"
# $
 

 %

! 

   +
) 
"
# $(




  
! 

    +
)
1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

 .& 3 $
943
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
943 of 1082







 
" #

$%

  


 !  " ##$%&'
(
))
*+

)  *
,

 * / '&. -.-$# .#$






 













 







!
9 1

 8)
 "+
8,

;
) 2



, 9: +
)
56

.


6
7&8
&2
&

(


 '

*
()/+

5 )

2 $0
- . $#*
& 
-$-$# 
-$.-$# 4
&.

 $ 


0 < < << < <
0 3



 

$ ()/+*
$4
4+
,+"=*
2 #0
- . $#*
#% 
-$#-$# 
-$&-$# 4
%%.


"=* >1
?
2 #0 < < < << <

"=*
2 #0 < < < << <
"=*
2 #0 < < < << <
=,+
2 #0 < < < << <


2 #0 < < < << <
=,+ ,6

2 #0 < < < << <


*+
2 #0 < < < << <
,+*+
2 #0 < < < << <
4)
3 
2 #0 < < < << <
/7224
2 #0 < < < << <
2 

2 #0 < < < << <
4

2 #0 < < < << <
/7222
2 #0 < < < << <
4)
3 
2 #0 < < < << <
/722

2 #0 < < < << <
4
 +9
2 #0 < < < << <
4)
3 )
3
2 #0 < < < << <
+69+
2 #0 < < < << <
4
 
2 #0 < < < << <

6,+
2 $ < < < << <
"
# $
 

 %
 ) ! 

  
"
# $(




 1! 

  
1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

 . 3 $
944
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
944 of 1082







 
" #

$%

  


 !  " ##$%&'
(
))
*+

)  *
,

 * / '&. -.-$# .#$






 













 







!
8)
 1


8,

;
) 1!
,

8)



@84*
@84*
1 ) 8
2
8
2
9 1


)
*
()/+

56;2
)


&2
&

(


 '

5




6/+

5 5
7


65<8
, 
-$-$# 9: 
-$.-$#
)

2 $0
-
1
2 0 <
&7


65&8
, 
-$-$# 9: 
-$.-$#
)
 .. $0 . %.$
- ..
1 .
0 . %.$ < .
*
!&# 7


6*&8 &2

%.


6 
, 
-$-$# 9: 
-$.-$#
)
 #0 $0 . 0$# A
- &0 #.$#
1 0%
0 . .0 A < &0 #.$#
*
!&# 2#7


6*&8 &2

%.


6 
, 
-$-$# 9: 
-$.-$#
)
 
0 $0 . 0$# $ A
- &&0 $0$ #.$#
1 0
0 . .0 $ A < &
0& .0.# #.$#
1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

 .% 3 $
945
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
945 of 1082







 
" #

$%

  


 !  " ##$%&'
(
))
*+

)  *
,

 * / '&. -.-$# .#$






 













 







!
8)
 1


8,

;
) 1!
,

8)



@84*
@84*
1 ) 8
2
8
2
9 1


)
.*
()

9

&
 *
$6;2
)


&2
&

(


 '

5




6.*

5
7


65<8
, 
-$%-$# 9: 
-
.-$#
1
2 0.
-
&7


65&8
, 
-$%-$# 9: 
-
.-$#
1 .0%$ 0. $0 #.$#
- '.0.
*
!&# 7


6*&8 &2

%.

46


, 
-$%-$# 9: 
-
.-$#
1 .0'. 0. $0 0'' #.$#
- '0%
*
!&# 2#7


6*&8 &2

%.

46


, 
-$%-$# 9: 
-
.-$#
1 .0'
0. $0 0''

- '#0' .0. #.$#
1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

 .' 3 $
946
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
946 of 1082







 
" #

$%

  


 !  " ##$%&'
(
))
*+

)  *
,

 * / '&. -.-$# .#$






 













 







!
8)
 1


8,

;
) 1!
,

8)



@84*
@84*
1 ) 8
2
8
2
9 1


)
&.*
()

9

&
 *
$6;2
)


&2
&

(


 '

5





6&. 


5
7



65<8
, 
-$%-$# 9: 
-
.-$#
1 0'' 0$#
- A".
&7



65&8
, 
-$%-$# 9: 
-
.-$#
1
%0# 0$# 0 #.$#
- '&0.
*
!&# 7



6*&8 &2

%.

46
, 
-$%-$# 9: 
-
.-$#
1
#0$ 0$# 0 0$.. #.$#
- %0#
*
!&# 2#7



6*&8 &2

%.

46
, 
-$%-$# 9: 
-
.-$#
1
#0. 0$# 0 0$..

- %0
0$$ #.$#
1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

 $ 3 $
947
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
947 of 1082







 
" #

$%

  


 !  " ##$%&'
(
))
*+

)  *
,

 * / '&. -.-$# .#$






 













 







!
8)
 1


8,

;
) 1!
,

8)



@84*
@84*
1 ) 8
2
8
2
9 1


)
0 3



 

$ ()/+*
$4
4+6;2
)


&2
&

(


 '

5



46/+
5&
5
7

465<8
, 
-$-$# 9: 
-$&-$#
,+"=*
2 #0
-


"=* >1
? <
2 #0

"=*
2 #0 <
"=*
2 #0 <
=,+
2 #0 <


2 #0 <
=,+ ,6
 <
2 #0


*+ <
2 #0
,+*+ <
2 #0
4)
3 
2 #0 <
/7224
2 #0 <
2 

2 #0 <
4

2 #0 <
/7222
2 #0 <
4)
3 
2 #0 <
/722

2 #0 <
4
 +9
2 #0 <
4)
3 )
3 <
2 #0
+69+
2 #0 <
4
 
2 #0 <

6,+
2 $ <
"
# $
 

 %
 1
* 




1 *
"
# $(












&7

465&8
, 
-$-$# 9: 
-$&-$#


"=* >1
? #0# #0
- 0 ..
.$
=,+ #0& #0 < 0 .. .$

 0' #0 < 0 .$ .$
2 
 &0 #0 < 0$ .. .$
4
 0. #0 < 0$ .. .$
/722
#0
#0 < 0 .$#

.
"
# $
 

 %
 1 


1 

"
# $(




 
) 



) 

1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

 $. 3 $
948
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
948 of 1082







 
" #

$%

  


 !  " ##$%&'
(
))
*+

)  *
,

 * / '&. -.-$# .#$






 













 







!
8)
 1


8,

;
) 1!
,

8)



@84*
@84*
1 ) 8
2
8
2
9 1


)
0 3



 

$ ()/+*
$4
4+6;2
)


&2
&

(


 '

5



46/+
5&
*
!&# 7

46*&8 &2

%.


6 
, 
-$-$# 9: 
-$&-$#


"=* >1
?
0% #0
- 0
2 '
0
.$
=,+
0 #0 < 0
2 #0
.$

 $0% #0 < 0
2 &$0.
.$
2 

0$ #0 < 0$
2 %#0
.$
4

#0
#0 < 0$
2 %0'
.$
/722
$&0$ #0 < 0
2 &0'
.$
"
# $
 

 %
 






"
# $(




  


 

"&'
*
!&# 2#7

46*&8 &2

%.


6 
, 
-$-$# 9: 
-$&-$#


"=* >1
?
&0 #0
- 0
2 %'0.
.$ 0''

=,+ $0# #0 < 0
2 &%0%
.$ %0#%


 $.0# #0 < 0
2 #
0%
.$ .0


2 

.0# #0 < 0$
2 %0
.$ %0


4


0 #0 < 0$
2 %$0
.$ &0%

/722
$
0 #0 < 0
2 #0
.$ ..0

"
# $
 

 %
 
 



 

"
# $(




 








1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

 $$ 3 $
949
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
949 of 1082







 
" #

$%

  


 !  " ##$%&'
(
))
*+

)  *
,

 * / '&. -.-$# .#$






 













 







!
,

$ 



B* 
 !9 
)
 3 )

)+  

)0
+  ) ,
)  !
 !9 3 + 


 )
>)?0


+ )
 !9 )
 , 


 + )
,

) 3  ,))



6 330
+ )
 !9 )

+
 , 


 +
+
  1*0
8 8,
 

 3 +
) 
,
>)? +)
 
)  
 3 


 ))9 
  +
+ !) 3
3
 
,
>)?
-

6 330
8.
+ 8,
 1

 +)
 
)  
 3 


 ))9 
 

6 30
A
+ ),
 !9 - 8
2 ) 
)
 , 

) 3 +  - 20
+
+ ) ,
)  ,

1* !90
A".
+
+
 
) 9   
 
! + 81C +!/ 

) )) + .@ 3 + )
, )
/
+
+
) 


 
 
+ 

0

, )
) ,   9 
+
)
)
8
2 8
!
 2
33
9

8  8,

2 9

24 4*
42   
! + ,
 


24 9 24
4*
42 1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

 $
3 $
950
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
950 of 1082
951
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
951 of 1082
952
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
952 of 1082
953
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
953 of 1082






!&
'
( 




!
"
 #$% !&
'
)*+
(


(


(
,
,



(
(
%-.
!&
'
./
( 0
1!1

!
!(

 







 




!"
#$
%&&

#$
''($
'!"
$
'%&&

$
)*)*+ $,+
#-
)*)*+ $
)*)*+ $*.

( 



& &(


/0 !"
$
2 3
-4


- 5 

!**



)%1 &


(
# 





"






2
/
3
3
3
4
!"

" 3




6

2 7!8* 


,
#,

#( 9:.
#(

;'<'*
9=
>
 


( 5  )*)*+ +$ +
1


# 
) )*+.$*
.. 
"
 )*)*+ +$ + ) )*+.$*



6
 7!8* 


,
#,

#(
9:.
#(

;'<'*
9=
>
 


( 5  )*)*+ +$ +
1


# 
) )*+.$*
.. 
"
 )*)*+ +$ + ) )*+.$*




6 
2 7!8* 


,
#,

#(

9:.
#(

;'<'*
9=
>
 


( 5  )*)*+ +$ +
1


# 
) )*+.$+
.. 
"
 )*)*+ +$ + ) )*+.$+



6  7!8* 


,
#,

#(
#9:.
#(

;'<'*
9=
>
 


( 5  )*)*+ +$ +
1


# 
) )*+.$+.
.. 
"
 )*)*+ +$ + ) )*+.$+.



6

2 7!8* 


,
#,

%(
9:.
#(

;'<'*
9=
>
 


( 5  )*)*+ +$ +
1


# 
) )*+
$*+
.. 
"
 )*)*+ +$ + ) )*+
$*+

& 2* 954
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
954 of 1082






!&
'
( 




!
"
 #$% !&
'
)*+
(


(


(
,
,



(
(
%-.
!&
'
./
( 0
1!1
-4


- 5 

!**





$6
 7!8* 


,
#,

%(

9:.
#(

;'<'*
9=
>
 


( 5  )*)*+ +$ +
1


# 
) )*+
$
.. 
"
 )*)*+ +$ + ) )*+
$



"6
2 7!8* 


,
#,

%(#9:.
#(

;'<'*
9=
>
 


( 5  )*)*+ +$ +
1


# 
) )*+
$.
.. 
"
 )*)*+ +$ + ) )*+
$.



#6 7!8* 


,
#,


(

9:.
#(

;'<'*
9=
>
 


( 5  )*)*+ +$ +
1


# 
) )*+ $
.. 
"
 )*)*+ +$ + ) )*+ $



%6

2 7!8* 


,
#,


(
#9:.
#(

;'<'*
9=
>
 


( 5  )*)*+ +$ +
1


# 
) )*+ $.
.. 
"
 )*)*+ +$ + ) )*+ $.




6
 7!8* 


,
#,


(

9:.
#(

;'<'*
9=
>
 


( 5  )*)*+ +$ +
1


# 
) )*+ $+
.. 
"
 )*)*+ +$ + ) )*+ $+




6$
2 7!8* 


,
#,


("9:.
#(

;'<'*
9=
>
 


( 5  )*)*+ +$ +
1


# 
) )*+ $
.. 
"
 )*)*+ +$ + ) )*+ $



6$ 7!8* 


,
#,

(

9:.
#(

;'<'*
9=
>
 


( 5  )*)*+ +$ +
1


# 
) )*+ *$
.. 
"
 )*)*+ +$ + ) )*+ *$
!
# '
&*2* 955
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
955 of 1082






!&
'
( 




!
"
 #$% !&
'
)*+
(


(


(
, #,

%(
(
#-.
!&
'
./
( 0
1!1

!
!(

 







 




!"
#$
%&&

#$
''($
'!"
$
'%&&

$
)*)*+ $,+
#-
)*)*+ $
)*)*+ $*.

( 



& &(


/0 !"
$
2 3
-4


- 5 

!**



)%1 &


(
# 





"






2
/
3
3
3
4
!"

" 3




6

2 7!8* 


,
#,

#( 9:.
#(

;'<'*
9=
>
 


( 5  )*)*+ +$ +
1


# 
) )*+.$*
.. 
"
 )*)*+ +$ + ) )*+.$*



6
 7!8* 


,
#,

#(
9:.
#(

;'<'*
9=
>
 


( 5  )*)*+ +$ +
1


# 
) )*+.$*
.. 
"
 )*)*+ +$ + ) )*+.$*




6 
2 7!8* 


,
#,

#(

9:.
#(

;'<'*
9=
>
 


( 5  )*)*+ +$ +
1


# 
) )*+.$+
.. 
"
 )*)*+ +$ + ) )*+.$+



6  7!8* 


,
#,

#(
#9:.
#(

;'<'*
9=
>
 


( 5  )*)*+ +$ +
1


# 
) )*+.$+.
.. 
"
 )*)*+ +$ + ) )*+.$+.
%

1 ) )*+ +$ * 
) )*+.$+.
%
%"6
&

"
(
5  ) )*+ +$ * 
) )*+.$+.

%
%"6
&

"
(
5  ) )*+ +$ * 
) )*+.$+.

%

1 ) )*+ +$ * 
) )*+.$+.

& 2* 956
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
956 of 1082






!&
'
( 




!
"
 #$% !&
'
)*+
(


(


(
, #,

%(
(
#-.
!&
'
./
( 0
1!1
-4


- 5 

!**





6

2 7!8* 


,
#,

%(
9:.
#(

;'<'*
9=
>
 


( 5  )*)*+ +$ +
1


# 
) )*+
$*+
.. 
"
 )*)*+ +$ + ) )*+
$*+



$6
 7!8* 


,
#,

%(

9:.
#(

;'<'*
9=
>
 


( 5  )*)*+ +$ +
1


# 
) )*+
$
.. 
"
 )*)*+ +$ + ) )*+
$



"6
2 7!8* 


,
#,

%(#9:.
#(

;'<'*
9=
>
 


( 5  )*)*+ +$ +
1


# 
) )*+
$.
.. 
"
 )*)*+ +$ + ) )*+
$.



#6 7!8* 


,
#,


(

9:.
#(

;'<'*
9=
>
 


( 5  )*)*+ +$ +
1


# 
) )*+ $
.. 
"
 )*)*+ +$ + ) )*+ $



%6

2 7!8* 


,
#,


(
#9:.
#(

;'<'*
9=
>
 


( 5  )*)*+ +$ +
1


# 
) )*+ $.
.. 
"
 )*)*+ +$ + ) )*+ $.




6
 7!8* 


,
#,


(

9:.
#(

;'<'*
9=
>
 


( 5  )*)*+ +$ +
1


# 
) )*+ $+
.. 
"
 )*)*+ +$ + ) )*+ $+




6$
2 7!8* 


,
#,


("9:.
#(

;'<'*
9=
>
 


( 5  )*)*+ +$ +
1


# 
) )*+ $
.. 
"
 )*)*+ +$ + ) )*+ $



6$ 7!8* 


,
#,

(

9:.
#(

;'<'*
9=
>
 


( 5  )*)*+ +$ +
1


# 
) )*+ *$
.. 
"
 )*)*+ +$ + ) )*+ *$
!
# '
&*2* 957
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
957 of 1082






 













 







!

 



 



!"
#$%
&


'
($
$

)*+
,

* 
 -
 .-/ *$
0. 0.


121324-.$

.5
*
*

, - -*
*/4

* .
6 3
32 958
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
958 of 1082







 
" #

$%

  


 !  " ##$%&'
(
))
*+

)  *
,

 * / '&. -.%-$# .#$.






 













 







!
&# ' (


)' *
! 
&# $
+,+-.'+"/0".0"&+*/&

"
 $
"0#
$#.. 
 -..-$# .. -.#-$# ....
"$
$#.$ 
 -..-$# .$ -.#-$# ....
"%0#
$#.

 -..-$# ..
 -.#-$# ....
"%$
$#. 
 -..-$# ..$ -.#-$# ....
1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

 . 3 % 959
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
959 of 1082







 
" #

$%

  


 !  " ##$%&'
(
))
*+

)  *
,

 * / '&. -.%-$# .#$.






 













 







!
/./.'0,&&1**+"-
(


)'%
+
)
" 2

1 
 *
$
"0#
$#..
,

" #


3 &# '%
1 4

0
- 4
&.

(


)'%
+
)
" 2

1 
 *
$
"$
$#.$
,

" #


3 &# '%
1 

0
- 4
&.

(


)'%
+
)
" 2

1 
 *
$
"%0#
$#.

,

" #


3 &# '%
1 

0
- 4
&.

(


)'%
+
)
" 2

1 
 *
$
"%$
$#.
,

" #


3 &# '%
1 

0
- 4
&.

1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

 $ 3 % 960
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
960 of 1082







 
" #

$%

  


 !  " ##$%&'
(
))
*+

)  *
,

 * / '&. -.%-$# .#$.






 













 







!
6 1

 5)
 "+
5,

8
) 2



, 67 +
)
56


.

6
7&8
&2
&

(


 '

*
()/+

5  $ 4

0
- . $#2$
& -.#-$# -.-$# 4
&.

1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 


3 % 961
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
961 of 1082







 
" #

$%

  


 !  " ##$%&'
(
))
*+

)  *
,

 * / '&. -.%-$# .#$.






 













 







!
6 1

 5)
 "+
5,

8
) 2



, 67 +
)
56

.

6

7&8
&2
&

(


 '

*
()/+

5  $ 

0
- . $#2$
& -.#-$# -.-$# 4
&.

1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

  3 % 962
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
962 of 1082







 
" #

$%

  


 !  " ##$%&'
(
))
*+

)  *
,

 * / '&. -.%-$# .#$.






 













 







!
6 1

 5)
 "+
5,

8
) 2



, 67 +
)
546


.

6
7&8
&2
&

(


 '

*
()/+

5  $ 

0
- . $#2$
& -.#-$# -.-$# 4
&.

1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

 # 3 % 963
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
963 of 1082







 
" #

$%

  


 !  " ##$%&'
(
))
*+

)  *
,

 * / '&. -.%-$# .#$.






 













 







!
6 1

 5)
 "+
5,

8
) 2



, 67 +
)
546

.

6

7&8
&2
&

(


 '

*
()/+

5  $ 

0
- . $#2$
& -.#-$# -.-$# 4
&.

1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

 & 3 % 964
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
964 of 1082







 
" #

$%

  


 !  " ##$%&'
(
))
*+

)  *
,

 * / '&. -.%-$# .#$.






 













 







!
5)
 1


5,

8
) 1!
,

5)



954*
954*
1 ) 5
2
5
2
6 1


)
*
()/+

5692
)


&2
&

(


 '

5




6/+

5 5
7


65:8
, -.#-$# 67 -.-$#
1
2 0
-
&7


65&8
, -.#-$# 67 -.-$#
1 '.0

0 . #.$#
- '.0

*
!&# 7


6*&8 &2

%.

6

, -.#-$# 67 -.-$#
1 0$
0 . 0$ :
- &&0$ #.$#
*
!&# 2#7


6*&8 &2

%.

6

, -.#-$# 67 -.-$#
1 0
0 . 0$ $ :
- &&0 0&#
#.$#
1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

  3 % 965
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
965 of 1082







 
" #

$%

  


 !  " ##$%&'
(
))
*+

)  *
,

 * / '&. -.%-$# .#$.






 













 







!
,

$ 



:
+ ),
 !6 - 5
2 ) 
)
 , 

) 3 +  - 20
+
+ ) ,
)  ,

1* !60

, )
) ,   6 
+
)
)
5
2 5
!
 2
33
6

5  5,

2 6

24 4*
42   
! + ,
 


24 6 24
4*
42 1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

 % 3 % 966
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
966 of 1082
967
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
967 of 1082
968
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
968 of 1082





 $
%& 





 !"#  $
%'
()
&

&

&*+

+

*&
&

,
 $
%,-
& .
/ /

 &

 







 




!"
#$
%&&

#$
''($
'!"
$
'%&&

$
)**)*+ $,+
#-
) +)*+ $
) +)*+ +$

( 


 ./

0(

12 !"
$ *0 1
23



2 4

 ((



)%3 &


(
# 





"






4
1
5
5
5
5
!"

" 5




5

0 6 7(

*+

+


&

89,
!&

:%;%(
8<
=
 
3 )**)*+ +$ + )6)*+ $ 



5
 6 7(

*+

+


&
89,
!&

:%;%(
8<
=
 
3 )**)*+ +$ + )6)*+ $*



>5!
0 6 7(

*+

+


&>*89,
!&

:%;%(
8<
=
 
3 )**)*+ +$ + )6)*+ $



*5! 6 7(

*+

+


&* 89,
!&

:%;%(
8<
=
 
3 )**)*+ +$ + )6)*+ $*



5#
0 6 7(

*+

+


&**89,
!&

:%;%(
8< ? 
=
788%59:



"5# 6 7(

*+

+


&

89,
!&

:%;%(
8< ? 
=
788%59:




5


0 6 7(

*+

+

&
#89,
!&

:%;%(
 ? 
8<=
788%59:

& 4* 969
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
969 of 1082





 $
%& 





 !"#  $
%'
()
&

&

&*+

+

*&
&

,
 $
%,-
& .
/ /
23



2 4

 ((





!5

 6 7(

*+

+

&
89,
!&

:%;%(
8< ? 
=
788%59:



#5


0 6 7(

*+

+


&

89,
!&

:%;%(
 ? 
8<=
788%59:




5

 6 7(

*+

+


&

89,
!&

:%;%(
8< ? 
=
788%59:




5

0 6 7(

*+

+

&>"89,
!&

:%;%(
 ? 
8<=
788%59:



5
 6 7(

*+

+

&*
89,
!&

:%;%(
8< ? 
=
788%59:
!
# '
&*4* 970
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
970 of 1082

#
971
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
971 of 1082
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.: 23308Ͳ04
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 326Ͳ27Ͳ030 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) 972
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
972 of 1082
Memorandum
May 16, 2025

23308Ͳ04 Mary Ave Phase II Peer Rev
which is based on the nonͲcancer hazard. Typically, the lower of the ESLs for cancer risk and nonͲcancer hazard is referenced as the appropriate ESL. The Draft Subsurface Investigation Report indicates that arsenic concentrations detected at the Site were below established background arsenic concentrations for Santa Clara Valley of up to 20 mg/kg and references the December 2011 background arsenic study titled Establishing Background Arsenic in Soil of the Urbanized San Francisco Bay Region by Dylan Duverge.

Baseline notes that this 2011 background arsenic study lists a range of arsenic concentrations detected in the northern Santa Clara Valley as being up to 20 mg/kg; however, it concludes that 11 mg/kg is an appropriate upper estimate (99th percentile) of regional background concentrations of arsenic, and 11 mg/kg is typically referred to as a screening level for naturally occurringbackground arsenic in the Bay Area. The concentration of arsenic detected at the Site range from 3.51 to 7.25 mg/kg, and therefore these arsenic concentrations appear to be naturally occurring background concentrations.

The Draft Subsurface Investigation Report indicates that based on the concentrations detected, arsenic and OCPs are not contaminants of concern, while lead is considered to be a contaminant of concern. Lead was detected in seven of the soil samples with concentrations that are typical of background conditions with the exception of the soil sample collected from boring B2 (near the center of the landscaped area on the Site) at 2 feet (sample ID B2Ͳ2), which was reported to contain 680 mg/kg of lead, exceeding the Residential ESL (80 mg/kg) and Construction Worker ESL (160 mg/kg). To evaluate whether the soil represented by sample B2Ͳ 2 would be a hazardous waste, when excavated, the sample was analyzed for soluble lead by the Waste Extraction Test (WET) and Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Potential (TCLP) methods.

Soluble lead analyzed by the WET method was detected at a concentration of 18 milligrams per liter (mg/L), which exceeds the Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC) of 5 mg/L. Soluble lead analyzed by the TCLP method was detected at a concentration of 1.1 mg/L, which is below the TCLP threshold of 5 mg/L. Based on the total and soluble lead results, the soil represented by sample B2Ͳ2 would be classified as nonͲResource Conservation and Recovery Act (nonͲRCRA) hazardous waste (or California hazardous waste) for waste disposal purposes.

The Draft Subsurface Investigation Report recommended additional soil sampling in the area of boring B2 prior to Site redevelopment to further define the extent of lead impacted soil and minimize the volume of soil being removed from the property as a California hazardous waste.

The Draft Subsurface Investigation Report recommended that if soil represented by sample B2Ͳ 2 would not be below a proposed building, as the new building would create a cap to eliminate contact with lead impacted soil, the soil represented by this sample should be excavated and removed from the property.
973
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
973 of 1082
Memorandum
May 16, 2025

Baseline notes that while capping of lead impacted soil beneath buildings 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 that the lead impacted soil would not create an exposure concern for future Site occupants or construction/maintenance workers. For situations where contaminated soil is capped, regulatory agencies typically require the establishment of a deed restriction and implementation of operation and maintenance activities to ensure that future Site occupants and construction/maintenance workers are aware of the remedial cap and contaminated soil conditions, and to ensure that the contaminated soil would remain capped and not be disturbed without appropriate precautions.

The Draft Subsurface Investigation Report also recommends that a Soil Management Plan (SMP) and a SiteͲSpecific Health and Safety Plan (SSHSP) be prepared prior to conducting any soil excavation as part of redevelopment of the subject property due to the detected concentrations of arsenic and lead. Baseline generally agrees with these recommendations; however, Baseline notes that response actions such as preparation and implementation of an SMP are typically not performed (or required by regulatory agencies) to address naturally occurring background concentrations of metals. The health and safety of construction workers is ultimately the responsibility of the contractor. The project applicant should provide the project contractor with the results of all soil sampling performed at the Site, and the contractor must prepare and implement an appropriate SSHSP that addresses potential exposure to soil as required by California Code of Regulations Title 8.
Subsurface Investigation Report
The Subsurface Investigation Report describes sampling and analysis of soil that was performed at the Site including the sampling and analytical results discussed in the Draft Subsurface Investigation Report, and additional sampling performed to evaluate the extent of lead impacted soil identified by sample B2Ͳ2. Two borings, B7 and B8, were advanced approximately 10 feet north and south of boring B2, respectively.Soil samples were collected from depths of

0.5 and 2 feet bgs, and the samples were analyzed for lead. Based on our review of the Subsurface Investigation Report, it appears that appropriate soil sampling and laboratory analytical methods were performed.
The analytical results from the soil samples collected from borings B7 and B8 revealed background concentrations of lead, indicating that the elevated lead is a localized condition in the area of boring BͲ2. The Subsurface Investigation Report also recommended that if soil represented by sample B2Ͳ2 would not be below a proposed building, the soil represented by this sample should be excavated and removed from the property. The Subsurface Investigation Report recommended that an SMP and SSHSP should be prepared for the proposed project that have appropriate stipulations associated with the lead impacted soil. 974
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
974 of 1082
Memorandum
May 16, 2025

Baseline notes that the lateral extent of lead impacted soil appears to have been defined to the north and south of boring BͲ2, however the vertical extent of lead impacted soil in the area of boring B2 has not been defined. Lead contamination from ADL is typically confined to the upper few feet of soil, and excavation of lead impacted soil at the Mary Avenue Dog Park (located adjacent to the north of the Site) extended to a maximum depth of below 2 feet bgs,1 which suggests that the impacts from lead at the Site may also be limited to the upper few feet of soil.

The lateral extent of lead impacted soil was also not defined to the east or west of boring BͲ2, however boring BͲ2 was located very close to the western Site boundary, and the eastͲwest dimension of the Site is relatively narrow (approximately 50 to 60 feet). Baseline considers the detection of lead at a concentration exceeding the Residential ESL and Construction Worker ESL in sample B2Ͳ2 to be a potentially unacceptable health risk for construction workers and future residential occupants of the Site. Section 17.04.050(B) of the City’s Municipal Code indicates:
If a Focused or other Phase II ESA, as required pursuant to Section 17.04.040(B)(1), identifies an unacceptable or a potentially unacceptable health risk, the project applicant shall, depending on the contaminant, contact either the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) or local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). The project applicant shall enter into a regulatory agency oversight program with an appropriate regulatory agency, or an established voluntary oversight program alternative with an appropriate regulatory agency, as determined by the City, and follow the regulatory agency’s recommended response actions until the agency reaches a no further action determination, prior to issuance of any permit for a project that allows ground disturbing activity.
Based on the requirements of the City’s Municipal Code, Baseline recommends that the project applicant enter into a Remedial Action Agreement with the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health as an appropriate regulatory agency to oversee soil remediation at the Site.

Baseline recommends approval of the permit application for the project from a hazardous materials contamination standpoint, with the following conditions:

Remediation of lead impacted soil at the Site should be performed in accordance with an SMP prepared and implemented under regulatory agency oversight. The SMP should be prepared and certified by a qualified Environmental Professional, and should be submitted to the City 1 TRC, 2013. Environmental Services, Soil Removal Completion Report, Cupertino Dog Park, Cupertino, California, December 18.
975
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
975 of 1082
Memorandum
May 16, 2025

and the regulatory oversight agency for review and approval. The SMP should include the following:
x A description of the precise extent of proposed contaminated soil removal, proposed remediation goals, and detailed procedures for soil handling, soil characterization for offͲSite disposal or onͲSite reͲuse, confirmation sampling and analysis, and importing of clean fill material.
x Measures to prevent potential exposure of the surrounding public to contaminants that could be released in fugitive dust (e.g., dust control procedures, air monitoring protocols, and air monitoring action levels) during the removal of contaminated soil and other construction activities, in addition to preventing potential exposure of future Site occupants to contaminated soil.
x Notification procedures and response actions that would be taken if previously unidentified soil contamination or underground features of environmental concern (e.g., sumps, underground storage tanks) are identified during project construction activities.
x A requirement that all remedial excavation and contaminated soil handling and disposal activities be overseen by a qualified Environmental Professional, and that all confirmation and waste characterization soil sampling be performed by a qualified Environmental Professional.
The excavation and offͲSite disposal of contaminated soil and confirmation sampling results should be documented in a Completion Report prepared and certified by a qualified Environmental Professional which should be submitted to the regulatory oversight agency for review and approval, and the project applicant should provide the City with written evidence that the regulatory oversight agency has issued a no further action determination for the Site prior to the City issuing any permits that would allow other ground disturbing activity (beyond soil remediation) at the Site.
976
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
976 of 1082

$
977
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
977 of 1082
Memorandum
Date: November 13, 2025
To: Mr. Andy Lief, Charities Housing
From: Kai-Ling Kuo, Andrea Lin
Subject: Transportation Study for Proposed Affordable Housing Project on Mary Avenue in Cupertino, California
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has completed a transportation study for the proposed affordable housing project on Mary Avenue in Cupertino, California. The project proposes affordable housing between the SR 85 soundwall and Mary Avenue. The project proposes constructing 2 twostory buildings with a total of 40 dwelling units (19 affordable disabled housing units and 21 affordable housing units) and 20 on-site parking spaces (18 regular spaces and 2 accessible spaces) on a 0.8- acre site. Access to the buildings would be provided via 2 two-way driveways on Mary Avenue. The project site location and site plan are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2, respectively.

Scope of Study
This study was conducted for the purpose of identifying the potential transportation impacts and operational issues related to the proposed development. The transportation impacts of the project were evaluated following the standards and methodologies established in the City of Cupertino’s Transportation Study (TS) Guidelines (January 2025). This study consists of a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis and a transportation analysis per the TS Guidelines.

As discussed below, the project would result in an increase in net vehicle trip generation of 163 daily trips, which is within the definition of a Tier 2 project (projects with trip generation between 110 and 1,000 daily vehicle trips and less than 100 peak hour trips). Based on the City’s TS Guidelines, a Tier 2 transportation analysis requires an off-site intersection operations analysis, review of General Plan consistency, a parking supply evaluation, a site access and circulation assessment, and a safety assessment. The intersection operations analysis includes an analysis of weekday AM and PM peakhour traffic conditions at the intersection of Mary Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard.

VMT Analysis
Transportation impacts under CEQA are measured using VMT. The City of Cupertino TS Guidelines provide VMT exemption screening criteria for development projects. If a project meets the City’s screening criteria, the project is expected to result in a less-than-significant VMT impact and a detailed CEQA VMT analysis is not required.
978
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
978 of 1082
Cupertino
Sports Center
Cupertino
1 85
Morro Bay Ter Morro Bay Ter
Campus Dr
Lubec St
Anson Ave
Milford Dr
Castine Ave
S Stelling Rd
Imperial Ave
Bubb Rd
Greenleaf Dr
N Stelling Rd
Stevens Creek Blvd
Mary Ave
Glen Pl
Parkwood Dr
Parkwood Dr
Peninsula Blvd
Garden Gate
Elementary School
Cupertino
Memorial Park
De Anza
College
X = Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
Mary Ave
Dog Park
Mary Ave
Mary Avenue Aīordable Housing Project TA
Figure 1
Site Location and Study Intersection
979
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
979 of 1082
Mary Avenue Aīordable Housing Project TA
Figure 2
Site Circulation Plan
980
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
980 of 1082
Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA November 13, 2025 Page | 4
Per the TS Guidelines, a project may be screened out if it meets one or more of the following criteria:
(1) a project located within one-quarter mile of a High-Quality Transit Corridor or transit stop as defined by CEQA; (2) local-serving retail of 50,000 square feet or less; or (3) land-use projects consisting of 100% affordable housing. The project would provide 100% affordable housing; thus, it is expected to result in a less-than-significant VMT impact and would not require detailed VMT analysis.

Existing Transportation System
The existing transportation system in the project study area is described below. Included are descriptions of the existing roadway network, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and transit services.

Existing Roadway Network
Regional access to the project site is provided via SR 85. Local access to the site is provided via Stevens Creek Boulevard, Stelling Road, and Mary Avenue. These facilities are described below.

SR 85 is a six-lane freeway with two mixed-flow lanes and one high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction in the vicinity of the project site. SR 85 extends north through Mountain View, connecting with US 101, and south through San Jose, connecting again with US 101. Access to the project site is provided via its interchange with Stevens Creek Boulevard.

Stevens Creek Boulevard is an east-west roadway classified as a boulevard (arterial) in the City’s General Plan. It extends from Ridgeway Drive in the west to Bascom Avenue in the east. In the vicinity of the project site, Stevens Creek Boulevard has 6 lanes with left turn/U-turn pockets at intersections, a landscaped median, buffered bike lanes in each direction, and sidewalks along both sides of the roadway. On-street parking is prohibited on both sides of the roadway, and the posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph). Access to the project site is provided via its intersection with Mary Avenue/Campus Drive.

Stelling Road is a north-south roadway classified as an avenue (major collector) in the City’s General Plan. It extends past Homestead Road in the north and past Prospect Road to the south. In the vicinity of the project site, Stelling Road has 4 lanes with left turn/U-turn pockets at intersections, a landscaped median, sidewalks along both sides of the roadway, and striped bike lanes in each direction. On-street parking is prohibited on both sides of the street. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. Access to the project site is provided via its intersection with Stevens Creek Boulevard.

Mary Avenue is a two-lane north-south local street classified as a neighborhood connector in the City’s General Plan. It extends from Meteor Drive in the north to Campus Drive in the south. Mary Avenue has sidewalks on the east side of the street and on the west side of the street for the most part, except along the project frontage. It has buffered and protected (Class IV) bike lanes on both sides of the roadway. On-street parking is allowed on both sides of the street north of Morro Bay Terrace. The parking is diagonal on the west side and parallel on the east side. The project would remove parking on the east side and change the west side to parallel parking. The posted speed limit is 30 mph. Mary Avenue provides direct access to the project site.

Existing Transit Services
Existing transit service to the City of Cupertino is provided by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). The VTA bus routes in the project vicinity and the bus stops near the project site are summarized in Table 1 and shown in Figure 3.

The closest bus stop is located about 2,100 feet away near the intersection of Mary Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard. The nearby bus stop located at De Anza College is about 2,600 feet from the project site. The bus stops on Stevens Creek Boulevard at Stelling Road are more than a half mile from the project site.
981
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
981 of 1082
Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA November 13, 2025 Page | 5
Table 1
Existing Transit Services
Existing Bicycle Facilities
The bicycle facilities that exist in the project vicinity (see Figure 4) include bike lanes and bike routes.

Bike lanes are lanes on roadways designated for use by bicycles with special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Bike routes are signed bike routes where bicyclists share a travel lane with motorists.

Bike lanes are present on Mary Avenue (Class IV parking-protected on a portion of the west side between Lubec Street and Morro Bay Terrace and on a portion of the east side between the north end of Mary Avenue Dog Park and the Cupertino Memorial Park parking lot entrance, and Class IIB buffered lanes on the rest of the street), Stevens Creek Boulevard (Class II), Bubb Road (Class IV), and Stelling Road (Class II). A bike route in the area connects the project to local schools like Garden Gate Elementary school. In the project vicinity, the route is present along Lubec Street (east of Mary Avenue), Anson Avenue (north of Lubec Street) Milford Drive, Castine Avenue (north of Milford Drive) and Greenleaf Drive.

Existing Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities consist of sidewalks, ADA compliant curb ramps, and crosswalks at many of the nearby intersections. In the vicinity of the project site, continuous sidewalks exist along the east side of Mary Avenue and both sides of Stevens Creek Boulevard, Campus Drive, and Stelling Road.

There is no sidewalk on the west side of Mary Avenue along the project frontage and the Dog Park.

There are two high-visibility crosswalks across Mary Avenue at unsignalized intersections along the street: one at Lubec Street north of the site and the other at the driveway for the Cupertino Memorial Park parking lot, south of the site, with rapid rectangular flashing beacons (RRFB). At the signalized intersection of Mary Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard, high-visibility crosswalks are provided across the north, south, east and west legs of the intersection.

Headways1
Route Route Description (minutes)
Local Routes
Route 51 Moffett Field/Ames Research Center -
West Valley College 5:50 AM to 8:00 PM 30 Mary Ave at Stevens Creek Boulevard 2,100
Route 55 Old Ironsides Station - De Anza College 5:20 AM to 10:50 PM 30 Stelling Road at Stevens Creek Boulevard 3,600
Route 252 De Anza College - Alum Rock via Valley
Medical Center 5:45 AM to 10:30 PM 30 Stelling Road at Stevens Creek Boulevard 3,700 Frequent Routes
Route 23 De Anza College - Alum Rock via
Stevens Creek Boulevard 4:50 AM to 1:30 AM 15 De Anza College (Campus Road) 2,600 Rapid 523 San Jose State University - Lockheed
Martin via De Anza Boulevard 5:20 AM to 11:30 PM 20 Stelling Road at Stevens Creek Boulevard 3,700
Notes:

2. Route 25 provides frequent service between Alum Rock Station and Santa Clara Valley Medical Center and less frequent service between Alum Rock Station and De Anza College.

Weekday Hours
of Operation Nearby Bus Stops
Walking Distance
from Nearest Stop to
Project Site (feet)

1. Headways during weekday peak periods as of October 2025. 982
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
982 of 1082
Cupertino
Sports Center
Cupertino
23 23
523
51 55
25 523
23, 51,
523
51 23, 51
51 23 55
25 85
Campus Dr
Lubec St
Anson Ave
Milford Dr
Castine Ave
S Stelling Rd
Imperial Ave
Bubb Rd
Greenleaf Dr
N Stelling Rd
Mary Ave
Glen Pl
Parkwood Dr
Parkwood Dr
Peninsula Blvd
Morro Bay Ter Morro Bay Ter
Stevens Creek Blvd
Garden Gate
Elementary School
Cupertino
Memorial Park
De Anza
College
= Site Location
LEGEND
XXX
523
XX = Local Bus Route
= Frequent Bus Route
= Rapid Bus 523
= Nearby Bus Route XX
Mary Ave
Dog Park
Mary Ave
Mary Avenue Aīordable Housing Project TA
Figure 3
Existing Transit Services
983
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
983 of 1082
Cupertino
Sports Center
Cupertino
85 Campus Dr
Lubec St
Anson Ave
Milford Dr
Castine Ave
S Stelling Rd
Imperial Ave
Bubb Rd
Greenleaf Dr
N Stelling Rd
Mary Ave
Glen Pl
Parkwood Dr
Parkwood Dr
Peninsula Blvd
Morro Bay Ter Morro Bay Ter
Stevens Creek Blvd
Garden Gate
Elementary School
Cupertino
Memorial Park
De Anza
College
= Existing Bike Routes (Class III Bikeway)
= Existing Bike Lanes (Class II Bikeway)
= Existing Buffered Bike Lanes (Class IIB Bikeway)
= Existing Protected Bike Lanes (Class IV Bikeway)
LEGEND
= Site Location
Mary Ave
Dog Park
Mary Avenue Aīordable Housing Project TA
Figure 4
Existing Bicycle Facilities
984
CC 02-03-2026 Searchable Packet
984 of 1082
Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA November 13, 2025 Page | 8
Project Trip Estimates
The magnitude of traffic produced by a new development and the locations where that traffic would appear were estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. In determining project trip generation, the magnitude of traffic traveling to and from the proposed residential development was estimated for the AM and PM peak hours. As part of the project trip distribution and assignment, directions to and from which the project trips would travel were estimated and project trips generated were assigned to specific streets and intersections. These procedures are described below: