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.

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 low- and 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 moderate- income 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 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-land- act-guidelines-2024.pdf.
6 Gov. Code, § 52201, subd. (a)(1).

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-nov- 101823.pdf.
9 Gov. Code, § 54230.5, subd. (a)(1).

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
March 14, 2025
VIA U.S. MAIL, EMAIL & ONLINE PORTAL: https://calhcd.service- now.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 thatthe 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-and- community/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://legistarweb- production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/3096019/Ontario_Ranch_Hotels_LLC_52201_Sum mary_Report_ED_Opp_03.pdf.

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 Loca Ž 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/moreno- valley-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-Carousel- Mall-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-sla- 120423.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-act- nov-120821.pdf.
‡„”—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
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. I T 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‡™•‘ǡʹͲͳͻȐǡͳͶ ͺ͸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
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. T HE 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'n ȋͳͻͺ͸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͸Ͳ ȏšŠǤ ‘’‡‘ˆ‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–ȐǤ
ͳʹ
ǡ ’’Ǥ͵ʹǡͶͳǦͶ͵ǡͳͳͶǦͳͳ͹ȋ’”‘Œ‡
–
‘’‘‡–•ƒ†’Žƒ‹‰ƒ”‡ƒ•Ȍǡͳ͹͸Ǧͳ͹ͺȋŽ‹•–‹‰–Š‡’”‘Œ‡ –
ƒ’’”‘˜ƒŽ•ȌǢǡ ’Ǥ͹Ǥ
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. E XACERBATED 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 analys is of development projects can be done through emissions calculations to demonstr ate 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 emis sions greater than 8.84 MTCO2e/2,500 square feet of conditioned space.

4. For nonresidential developments of al l 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 assess ed 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
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, an d 4 shall prepare Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures analyzed under a VMT-reduction methodology consistent with the California Air Polluti on Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) Final Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Eq uity (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”†ȋDzdzȌȌǤ
ͳͺ ‘”‡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’†ˆ Ǣȋ—‰ǤʹͲͳͲȌ—ƒ–‹ˆ›‹‰

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

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
–•Ȍǡ Š––’•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
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. M ISSING 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Ȁ ǢŠ––’•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 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
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
Proj ect Background

Th e Co a lit io n
ᵧDrive n by a coalition of organizations :
-Rotary Club of Cupertino- Project lead
-Charities Housing- Project M anager and property manager -Housing Choices- A dvocate and future case management
-West V alley Communi ty Servi ces- O ther housi ng servi ces Today’ s Plan
ᵧ40 U nits of affordable housing
ᵧ19 Units targeted for A dults with I ntellectual and
De ve lopm e nta l Dis a bilitie s ( I/ DD)
ᵧUses “surplus land” to reduce costs
Communi ty Outreach
• First M eeting 7/3/24
• Second M eeting 1/28/25
• T hird M eeting 9/11/25
Response to Communi ty I ssues

Response to Communi ty I ssues

I ndependent Living

Housi ng El ement Si te

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]

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 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

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.

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
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]

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 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

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.

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
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 using this transmission. If you have received this message in error, please promptly notify the sender by e-mail and immediately delete this message. This email and its attachments are subject to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§2510-2521 . The
information herein is confidential, privileged & exempt from disclosure under applicable law.

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

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 prev ious 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 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 contamina tion with hazardous substances re nders 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 hazar dous 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 ofte n 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/
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 in fection 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 strain ing 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 imm unological and physiological vulnera bilities—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 sensitiv e residential use would be irresponsible, potentially condemning residents to avoidable health deterioratio n. 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, 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 fundame ntally 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— 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, wh ich 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. 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

"

Subsurface Investigation Report

Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development
Mary Avenue
Cupertino, California

Prepared for

Charities Housing
1400 Parkmoor Avenue, Suite 190
San Jose, California 95116

Prepared by

Professional Service Industries, Inc.
4703 Tidewater Avenue, Suite B
Oakland, California 94601

April 24, 2025

PSI Project Number: 0575-2869
0575-2869 – Subsurface Investigation
Charities Housing, Cupertino, California
April 24, 2025
June
www.intertek.com/building/environmental
JuJuJuneee

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 AN D BORING LOCATION MAP
FIGURE
TABLE 1: SOIL ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: CITY OF CUPERTINO ENCROACHMENT PERMIT
APPENDIX B: LABORATORY REPORT

0575-2869 – Subsurface Investigation
Charities Housing, Cupertino, California
April 24, 2025

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 stor ies 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) prep ared 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 s ubject property is adjacent to a freeway that may have impacted the subject property with ae rially 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 agricult ural use and the ADL as environmental concerns for possible redevelopment of the subject property. Based on the proposed redevelopment of the property, Charities Housing determined that a subsurface investigation was prudent and contracted PSI to complete this investigation.
0575-2869 – Subsurface Investigation
Charities Housing, Cupertino, California
April 24, 2025

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 accordan ce with the DTSC 2008 Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 RWQCB- ESL 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 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 abo ve the ESL-R (B2-2). The results from the soil samples collected from borings B7 and B8, which show background concentrations of lead, effectively bound the elevated detections at B2, indicating that the B2 result as a localized condition. If not below a proposed building, as the new building will create a cap to eliminate contact with lead impacted soil, the soil represented by this sample should be excavated and removed from the property. For the proposed redevelopment, a SMP and SSHSP should be prepared that have appropriate stipulations associated with the lead impacted soil.

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

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

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. www.intertek.com/building

FIGURES

www.intertek.com/building
TABLE
Boring
Number
Sample
Depth (feet) Arsenic Lead gamma Chlordane alpha Chlordane Dieldrin 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDT B1 0.5 7.25 10.4 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 2< 2 . 0 6.59 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 B2 0.5 3.93 31.0 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 2 3.51 680 (18) {1.1} <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 B3 0.5 <2.0 22.8 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.047 <0.005 0.0089 2< 2 . 0 10.3 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.061 <0.005 0.020
B4 0.5 <2.0 <3.0 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 2 <2.0 <3.0 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
B5 0.5 <4.0 <6.0 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
2 <4.0 <6.0 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
B6 0.5 <4.0 <6.0 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
2< 4 . 0 5.07 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
B7 0.5 NA 8.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA
2N A 5.4 NA NA NA NA NA NA
B8 0.5 NA 7.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA
2N A 5.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA
RWQCB ESLs

0.067 80 0.48 0.48 0.037 1.8 2.7 1.9

0.31 320 2.2 2.2 0.16 8.3 12 8.5

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

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

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

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

Boring Locations are presented in Figure 2.

Construction Worker
Commercial
TABLE 1

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

APPENDIX A

CITY OF CUPERTINO ENCROACHMENT PERMIT
PW-2025-0143
643.26 1,000
355581
3/14/25
9/10/25

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—¢ȱ ™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 ‘Žȱž‹•’Œ ˜›”œȱ
—œ™ŽŒ˜›ȱ˜ȱ‘Žȱ’¢ȱ˜ ž™Ž›’—˜ǰ ǻŚŖŞǼ ŘŖśȬŜřŘŜ ˜› ǻŚŖŞǼ ŝŝŝȬřřśŚǰ œ‘Š••ȱ‹Žȱ—˜’’ŽȱŠȱ•ŽŠœȱŚŞȱ‘˜ž›œ ™›’˜›ȱ˜ ‹Ž’——’—ȱ ˜›”™ ¢ ™ǰ ™  ’— ‘Ž ™ž‹•’Œȱ’‘Ȭ˜ȬŠ¢ ˜› ›ŽšžŽœ’— ’—œ™ŽŒ’˜— ˜ȱ ˜›”ǯȱȱȱŽ›ȱ‘Ž  ˜›” ’œȱŒ˜–™•ŽŽǰȱ—˜’¢ȱ‘Žȱž‹•’Œȱ˜›”œȱ —œ™ŽŒ˜›ȱ˜ œŒ‘Žž•ŽȱŠȱ’—Š•™
’—œ™ŽŒ’˜—ǯ
www.intertek.com/building

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY REPORT






 













 







!

 



 



!"
#$%
&


'
($
$

)*+
,

* 
 -
 .-/ *$
0. 0.

!12
123


4-.$

.5
*
*

, - -*
*/4

* .

 2
23






 
" #

$%

  


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

)  *
,

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






 













 







!
&# ' (


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

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


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

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

 . 3 $







 
" #

$%

  


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

)  *
,

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






 













 







!
/./.'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 $







 
" #

$%

  


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

)  *
,

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






 













 







!
(


)'%
+
)
" 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 $







 
" #

$%

  


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

)  *
,

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






 













 







!
(


)'%
+
)
" 2

1 
 *
$

$#.
.$"&$
,

" #


3 &# '%
1 


0
- 4
&.
1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

  3 $







 
" #

$%

  


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

)  *
,

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






 













 







!
8)
 9 1

 "+
8,


, 9: +
) 2


;
)
56


.


6 7&8
&2
&

(


 '

*
()/+

5 4
&.


 $#*
& 
-$-$# 
-$.-$#
- .+


$0
<

<< << < $
0
0 3



 

$ ()/+*
$4
4+

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

2 <<<< <<

"=* >1
? #0

2 <<<< <<
"=* #0

2 <<<< <<"=* #0

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

2 <<<< << 
 #0

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

2 <<<< <<

*+ #0

2 <<<< <<,+*+ #0

2 <<<< <<4)
3  #0

2 <<<< <</7224 #0

2 <<<< <<2

 #0

2 <<<< <<4
 #0

2 <<<< <</7222 #0

2 <<<< <<4)
3  #0

2 <<<< <</722
#0

2 <<<< <<4
 +9 #0

2 <<<< <<4)
3 )
3 #0

2 <<<< <<+69+ #0

2 <<<< <<4
  #0

2 <<<< <<
6,+ $
 

 !"
# $
 

 %

   "&'

!"
# $(





1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

 # 3 $







 
" #

$%

  


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

)  *
,

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






 













 







!
8)
 9 1

 "+
8,


, 9: +
) 2


;
)
56

.


6
7&8
&2
&

(


 '

*
()/+

5 2 4
&.

-$-$# 
-$.-$#
- $#*
&. )
 $0
<
 << << < $
0
0 3



 

$ ()/+*
$4
4+

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

2 <<<< <<

"=* >1
? #0

2 <<<< <<
"=* #0

2 <<<< <<"=* #0

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

2 <<<< << 
 #0

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

2 <<<< <<

*+ #0

2 <<<< <<,+*+ #0

2 <<<< <<4)
3  #0

2 <<<< <</7224 #0

2 <<<< <<2

 #0

2 <<<< <<4
 #0

2 <<<< <</7222 #0

2 <<<< <<4)
3  #0

2 <<<< <</722
#0

2 <<<< <<4
 +9 #0

2 <<<< <<4)
3 )
3 #0

2 <<<< <<+69+ #0

2 <<<< <<4
  #0

2 <<<< <<
6,+ $
 

 !"
# $
 

 %

   "&'

)!"
# $(





1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

 & 3 $







 
" #

$%

  


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

)  *
,

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






 













 







!
8)
 9 1

 "+
8,


, 9: +
) 2


;
)
5
6


.


6 7&8
&2
&

(


 '

*
()/+

5 4
&.

 $#*
& 
-$-$# 
-$.-$#
- .+


$0
<

<< << < $
0
0 3



 

$ ()/+*
$4
4+

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

2 <<<< <<

"=* >1
? #0

2 <<<< <<
"=* #0

2 <<<< <<"=* #0

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

2 <<<< << 
 #0

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

2 <<<< <<

*+ #0

2 <<<< <<,+*+ #0

2 <<<< <<4)
3  #0

2 <<<< <</7224 #0

2 <<<< <<2

 #0

2 <<<< <<4
 #0

2 <<<< <</7222 #0

2 <<<< <<4)
3  #0

2 <<<< <</722
#0

2 <<<< <<4
 +9 #0

2 <<<< <<4)
3 )
3 #0

2 <<<< <<+69+ #0

2 <<<< <<4
  #0

2 <<<< <<
6,+ $
 

*
!"
# $
 

 %

   "&'

*!"
# $(





1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

  3 $







 
" #

$%

  


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

)  *
,

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






 













 







!
8)
 9 1

 "+
8,


, 9: +
) 2


;
)
5
6

.


6 7&8
&2
&

(


 '

*
()/+

5 4
&.

 $#*
& 
-$-$# 
-$.-$#
- .+


$0
<4
<< << < $
0
.*
()

9

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

9

&
 *
$

1* 5)
46


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



 

$ ()/+*
$4
4+

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

2 <<<< <<

"=* >1
? # 8

2 <<<< <<
"=* # 8

2 <<<< <<"=* # 8

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

2 <<<< << 
 # 8

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

2 <<<< <<

*+ # 8

2 <<<< <<,+*+ # 8

2 <<<< <<4)
3  # 8

2 <<<< <</7224 # 8

2 <<<< <<2

 # 8

2 <<<< <<4
 # 8

2 <<<< <</7222 # 8

2 <<<< <<4)
3  # 8

2 <<<< <</722
# 8

2 <<<< <<4
 +9 # 8

2 <<<< <<4)
3 )
3 # 8

2 <<<< <<+69+ # 8

2 <<<< <<4
  # 8

2 <<<< <<
6,+ $ 8
   +
)

)
!"
# $
 

 %

1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

 % 3 $







 
" #

$%

  


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

)  *
,

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






 













 







!
8)
 9 1

 "+
8,


, 9: +
) 2


;
)
5
6

.


6 7&8
&2
&

(


 '

0 3



 

$ ()/+*
$4
4+
,-.

.'

//
/*/ +
)0"&'

1!"
# $(





1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

 ' 3 $







 
" #

$%

  


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

)  *
,

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






 













 







!
8)
 9 1

 "+
8,


, 9: +
) 2


;
)
56


.


6 7&8
&2
&

(


 '

*
()/+

5 2 4
&.

-$-$# 
-$.-$#
- $#*
&. )
 $0
<


4 << << < $
0
0 3



 

$ ()/+*
$4
4+

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

2 <<<< <<

"=* >1
? #0

2 <<<< <<
"=* #0

2 <<<< <<"=* #0

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

2 <<<< << 
 #0

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

2 <<<< <<

*+ #0

2 <<<< <<,+*+ #0

2 <<<< <<4)
3  #0
<
 << << <

:6/ #0

2 <<<< <<2

 #0

2 <<<< <<4
 #0

2 <<<< <</7222 #0

2 <<<< <<4)
3  #0
<4
 << << <

:6. #0

2 <<<< <<4
 +9 #0

2 <<<< <<4)
3 )
3 #0

2 <<<< <<+69+ #0

2 <<<< <<4
  #0

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



!"
# $
 

 %

   "


)

!"
# $(





1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

 . 3 $







 
" #

$%

  


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

)  *
,

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






 













 







!
8)
 9 1

 "+
8,


, 9: +
) 2


;
)
56

.


6 7&8
&2
&

(


 '

*
()/+

5 2 4
&.

-$-$# 
-$.-$#
- $#*
&. )
 $0
<

 << << < $
0
0 3



 

$ ()/+*
$4
4+

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

2 <<<< <<

"=* >1
? #0

2 <<<< <<
"=* #0

2 <<<< <<"=* #0

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

2 <<<< << 
 #0

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

2 <<<< <<

*+ #0

2 <<<< <<,+*+ #0

2 <<<< <<4)
3  #0
< << << <

:6/ #0

2 <<<< <<2

 #0

2 <<<< <<4
 #0

2 <<<< <</7222 #0

2 <<<< <<4)
3  #0
<

<< << <

:6. #0

2 <<<< <<4
 +9 #0

2 <<<< <<4)
3 )
3 #0

2 <<<< <<+69+ #0

2 <<<< <<4
  #0

2 <<<< <<
6,+ $
 

!"
# $
 

 %

   "&'

!"
# $(





1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

 .. 3 $







 
" #

$%

  


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

)  *
,

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






 













 







!
8)
 9 1

 "+
8,


, 9: +
) 2


;
)
5 6


.


6 7&8
&2
&

(


 '

*
()/+

5 2 4
&.

-$-$# 
-$.-$#
- $#*
&. )
 $0

2 <<<< <<1
0
0 3



 

$ ()/+*
$4
4+

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

2 <<<< <<

"=* >1
? #0

2 <<<< <<
"=* #0

2 <<<< <<"=* #0

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

2 <<<< << 
 #0

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

2 <<<< <<

*+ #0

2 <<<< <<,+*+ #0

2 <<<< <<4)
3  #0

2 <<<< <</7224 #0

2 <<<< <<2

 #0

2 <<<< <<4
 #0

2 <<<< <</7222 #0

2 <<<< <<4)
3  #0

2 <<<< <</722
#0

2 <<<< <<4
 +9 #0

2 <<<< <<4)
3 )
3 #0

2 <<<< <<+69+ #0

2 <<<< <<4
  #0

2 <<<< <<
6,+ $
 

*  !"
# $
 

 %

 

 !"
# $(





1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

 .$ 3 $







 
" #

$%

  


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

)  *
,

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






 













 







!
8)
 9 1

 "+
8,


, 9: +
) 2


;
)
5 6

.


6 47&8
&2
&

(


 '

*
()/+

5 2 4
&.

-$-$# 
-$.-$#
- $#*
&. )
 $0

2 <<<< <<1
0
0 3



 

$ ()/+*
$4
4+

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

2 <<<< <<

"=* >1
? #0

2 <<<< <<
"=* #0

2 <<<< <<"=* #0

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

2 <<<< << 
 #0

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

2 <<<< <<

*+ #0

2 <<<< <<,+*+ #0

2 <<<< <<4)
3  #0

2 <<<< <</7224 #0

2 <<<< <<2

 #0

2 <<<< <<4
 #0

2 <<<< <</7222 #0

2 <<<< <<4)
3  #0

2 <<<< <</722
#0

2 <<<< <<4
 +9 #0

2 <<<< <<4)
3 )
3 #0

2 <<<< <<+69+ #0

2 <<<< <<4
  #0

2 <<<< <<
6,+ $
 

)!"
# $
 

 %

   "&'

1!"
# $(





1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

 .
3 $







 
" #

$%

  


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

)  *
,

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






 













 







!
8)
 9 1

 "+
8,


, 9: +
) 2


;
)
56


.


6 7&8
&2
&

(


 '

*
()/+

5 2 4
&.

-$-$# 
-$.-$#
- $#*
&$ )
 0 8.

2 <<<< <<1 &0 8.
0 3



 

$ ()/+*
$4
4+

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

2 <<<< <<

"=* >1
? # 8

2 <<<< <<
"=* # 8

2 <<<< <<"=* # 8

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

2 <<<< << 
 # 8

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

2 <<<< <<

*+ # 8

2 <<<< <<,+*+ # 8

2 <<<< <<4)
3  # 8

2 <<<< <</7224 # 8

2 <<<< <<2

 # 8

2 <<<< <<4
 # 8

2 <<<< <</7222 # 8

2 <<<< <<4)
3  # 8

2 <<<< <</722
# 8

2 <<<< <<4
 +9 # 8

2 <<<< <<4)
3 )
3 # 8

2 <<<< <<+69+ # 8

2 <<<< <<4
  # 8

2 <<<< <<
6,+ $ 8
   +
)

))
!"
# $
 

 %

   +
)

*))!"
# $(





1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

 . 3 $







 
" #

$%

  


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

)  *
,

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






 













 







!
8)
 9 1

 "+
8,


, 9: +
) 2


;
)
56

.


6
7&8
&2
&

(


 '

*
()/+

5 2 4
&.

-$-$# 
-$.-$#
- $#*
&. )
 $0

2 <<<< <<1
0
0 3



 

$ ()/+*
$4
4+

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

2 <<<< <<

"=* >1
? # 8

2 <<<< <<
"=* # 8

2 <<<< <<"=* # 8

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

2 <<<< << 
 # 8

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

2 <<<< <<

*+ # 8

2 <<<< <<,+*+ # 8

2 <<<< <<4)
3  # 8

2 <<<< <</7224 # 8

2 <<<< <<2

 # 8

2 <<<< <<4
 # 8

2 <<<< <</7222 # 8

2 <<<< <<4)
3  # 8

2 <<<< <</722
# 8

2 <<<< <<4
 +9 # 8

2 <<<< <<4)
3 )
3 # 8

2 <<<< <<+69+ # 8

2 <<<< <<4
  # 8

2 <<<< <<
6,+ $ 8
   +
)

1 !"
# $
 

 %

   +
)

)!"
# $(





1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

 .# 3 $







 
" #

$%

  


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

)  *
,

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






 













 







!
8)
 9 1

 "+
8,


, 9: +
) 2


;
)
56


.


67&8
&2
&

(


 '

*
()/+

5 2 4
&.

-$-$# 
-$.-$#
- $#*
&$ )
 0 8.

2 <<<< <<1 &0 8.
0 3



 

$ ()/+*
$4
4+

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

2 <<<< <<

"=* >1
? # 8

2 <<<< <<
"=* # 8

2 <<<< <<"=* # 8

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

2 <<<< << 
 # 8

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

2 <<<< <<

*+ # 8

2 <<<< <<,+*+ # 8

2 <<<< <<4)
3  # 8

2 <<<< <</7224 # 8

2 <<<< <<2

 # 8

2 <<<< <<4
 # 8

2 <<<< <</7222 # 8

2 <<<< <<4)
3  # 8

2 <<<< <</722
# 8

2 <<<< <<4
 +9 # 8

2 <<<< <<4)
3 )
3 # 8

2 <<<< <<+69+ # 8

2 <<<< <<4
  # 8

2 <<<< <<
6,+ $ 8
   +
)

!"
# $
 

 %

   +
)

 
!"
# $(





1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

 .& 3 $







 
" #

$%

  


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

)  *
,

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






 













 







!
8)
 9 1

 "+
8,


, 9: +
) 2


;
)
56

.


6
7&8
&2
&

(


 '

*
()/+

5 2 4
&.

-$-$# 
-$.-$#
- $#*
&. )
 $0
<

 << << < $
0
0 3



 

$ ()/+*
$4
4+

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

2 <<<< <<

"=* >1
? #0

2 <<<< <<
"=* #0

2 <<<< <<"=* #0

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

2 <<<< << 
 #0

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

2 <<<< <<

*+ #0

2 <<<< <<,+*+ #0

2 <<<< <<4)
3  #0

2 <<<< <</7224 #0

2 <<<< <<2

 #0

2 <<<< <<4
 #0

2 <<<< <</7222 #0

2 <<<< <<4)
3  #0

2 <<<< <</722
#0

2 <<<< <<4
 +9 #0

2 <<<< <<4)
3 )
3 #0

2 <<<< <<+69+ #0

2 <<<< <<4
  #0

2 <<<< <<
6,+ $
 

) !"
# $
 

 %

 

1!"
# $(





1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

 . 3 $







 
" #

$%

  


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

)  *
,

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






 













 







!
8)
 1


8,

;
) 1!
,

8)



@84*
@84*
1 ) 8
2
8
2
1 
) 9
*
()/+

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
, 
-$-$# 9: 
-$.-$# &2

%.


6 
)

-#0 $0 . 0$# A #.$#&0
1 <0%
0 . .0 A #.$#&0
*
!&# 2#7


6*&8
, 
-$-$# 9: 
-$.-$# &2

%.


6 
)

-
0 $0 . 0$# $ A #.$#&&0 $0$
1 <0
0 . .0 $ A #.$#&
0& .0.#
1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

 .% 3 $







 
" #

$%

  


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

)  *
,

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






 













 







!
8)
 1


8,

;
) 1!
,

8)



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

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
, 
-$%-$# 9: 
-
.-$# &2

%.

46


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


6*&8
, 
-$%-$# 9: 
-
.-$# &2

%.

46


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

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

 .' 3 $







 
" #

$%

  


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

)  *
,

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






 













 







!
8)
 1


8,

;
) 1!
,

8)



@84*
@84*
1 ) 8
2
8
2
1 
) 9
&.*
()

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
, 
-$%-$# 9: 
-
.-$# &2

%.

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



6*&8
, 
-$%-$# 9: 
-
.-$# &2

%.

46
1
-
#0. 0$# 0 0$..
 #.$#%0
0$$
1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

 $ 3 $







 
" #

$%

  


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

)  *
,

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






 













 







!
8)
 1


8,

;
) 1!
,

8)



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







 
" #

$%

  


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

)  *
,

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






 













 







!
8)
 1


8,

;
) 1!
,

8)



@84*
@84*
1 ) 8
2
8
2
1 
) 9
0 3



 

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


&2
&

(


 '

5



46/+
5&
*
!&# 7

46*&8
, 
-$-$# 9: 
-$&-$# &2

%.


6 


"=* >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
, 
-$-$# 9: 
-$&-$# &2

%.


6 


"=* >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 $







 
" #

$%

  


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

)  *
,

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






 













 







!
,

$ 



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
338
2
9

 8,
8 9

24 4*
42   
! + ,
 


2 9 24
4*
4224

1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

 $
3 $











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


(


(
,
,



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

!
!(

 







 




!"
#$
%&&

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

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

( 


& &(


/0 !"
$
2 3
-4


- 5 

!**



)%1 &


(
# 





"






2
/
3
3
3
4
!"

" 3




6

2 7!8* 


,
#,

#( 9:.
#(

;'<'*
9=
>

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


# 


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




6
 7!8* 


,
#,

#(
9:.
#(

;'<'*
9=
>

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


# 


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





6 
2 7!8* 


,
#,

#(

9:.
#(

;'<'*
9=
>

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


# 


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




6  7!8* 


,
#,

#(
#9:.
#(

;'<'*
9=
>

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


# 


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




6

2 7!8* 


,
#,

%(
9:.
#(

;'<'*
9=
>

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


# 


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


& 2*











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


(


(
,
,



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


- 5 

!**





$6
 7!8* 


,
#,

%(

9:.
#(

;'<'*
9=
>

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


# 


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




"6
2 7!8* 


,
#,

%(#9:.
#(

;'<'*
9=
>

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


# 


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




#6 7!8* 


,
#,


(

9:.
#(

;'<'*
9=
>

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


# 


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




%6

2 7!8* 


,
#,


(
#9:.
#(

;'<'*
9=
>

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


# 


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





6
 7!8* 


,
#,


(

9:.
#(

;'<'*
9=
>

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


# 


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





6$
2 7!8* 


,
#,


("9:.
#(

;'<'*
9=
>

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


# 


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




6$ 7!8* 


,
#,

(

9:.
#(

;'<'*
9=
>

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


# 


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


&*2*!
# '











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


(


(
, #,

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

!
!(

 







 




!"
#$
%&&

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

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

( 


& &(


/0 !"
$
2 3
-4


- 5 

!**



)%1 &


(
# 





"






2
/
3
3
3
4
!"

" 3




6

2 7!8* 


,
#,

#( 9:.
#(

;'<'*
9=
>

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


# 


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




6
 7!8* 


,
#,

#(
9:.
#(

;'<'*
9=
>

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


# 


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





6 
2 7!8* 


,
#,

#(

9:.
#(

;'<'*
9=
>

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


# 


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




6  7!8* 


,
#,

#(
#9:.
#(

;'<'*
9=
>

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


# 


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


) )*+.$+.) )*+ +$ *%

1

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

"
(
5 

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

"
(
5 

) )*+.$+.) )*+ +$ *
%

1

& 2*











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


(


(
, #,

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


- 5 

!**





6

2 7!8* 


,
#,

%(
9:.
#(

;'<'*
9=
>

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


# 


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




$6
 7!8* 


,
#,

%(

9:.
#(

;'<'*
9=
>

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


# 


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




"6
2 7!8* 


,
#,

%(#9:.
#(

;'<'*
9=
>

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


# 


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




#6 7!8* 


,
#,


(

9:.
#(

;'<'*
9=
>

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


# 


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




%6

2 7!8* 


,
#,


(
#9:.
#(

;'<'*
9=
>

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


# 


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





6
 7!8* 


,
#,


(

9:.
#(

;'<'*
9=
>

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


# 


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





6$
2 7!8* 


,
#,


("9:.
#(

;'<'*
9=
>

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


# 


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




6$ 7!8* 


,
#,

(

9:.
#(

;'<'*
9=
>

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


# 


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


&*2*!
# '






 













 







!

 



 



!"
#$%
&


'
($
$

)*+
,

* 
 -
 .-/ *$
0. 0.


121324-.$

.5
*
*

, - -*
*/4

* .
6 3
32






 
" #

$%

  


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

)  *
,

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






 













 







!
&# ' (


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

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

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

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

 . 3 %







 
" #

$%

  


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

)  *
,

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






 













 







!
/./.'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 %







 
" #

$%

  


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

)  *
,

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






 













 







!
5)
 6 1

 "+
5,


, 67 +
) 2


8
)
56


.

6
7&8
&2
&

(


 '

*
()/+

5 4
&.
4 $#2$
& -.#-$# -.-$#
- . $
0
1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 


3 %







 
" #

$%

  


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

)  *
,

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






 













 







!
5)
 6 1

 "+
5,


, 67 +
) 2


8
)
56

.

6

7&8
&2
&

(


 '

*
()/+

5 4
&.


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

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

  3 %







 
" #

$%

  


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

)  *
,

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






 













 







!
5)
 6 1

 "+
5,


, 67 +
) 2


8
)
546


.

6
7&8
&2
&

(


 '

*
()/+

5 4
&.


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

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

 # 3 %







 
" #

$%

  


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

)  *
,

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






 













 







!
5)
 6 1

 "+
5,


, 67 +
) 2


8
)
546

.

6

7&8
&2
&

(


 '

*
()/+

5 4
&.

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

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

 & 3 %







 
" #

$%

  


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

)  *
,

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






 













 







!
5)
 1


5,

8
) 1!
,

5)



954*
954*
1 ) 5
2
5
2
1 
) 6
*
()/+

5692
)


&2
&

(


 '

5




6/+

5 5
7


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


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

0 . #.$# '.0

*
!&# 7


6*&8
, -.#-$# 67 -.-$# &2

%.

6

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


6*&8
, -.#-$# 67 -.-$# &2

%.

6

1
-0
0 . 0$ $ : #.$#&&0 0&#

1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

  3 %







 
" #

$%

  


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

)  *
,

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






 













 







!
,

$ 



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

) 3 +  - 20
+
+ ) ,
)  , 

1* !60

, )
) ,   6 
+
)
)
5
!
 2
335
2
6

 5,
5 6

24 4*
42   
! + ,
 


2 6 24
4*
4224

1 2!
!/
 

 1

)/ 0
 

 


 


 






 












  






 

 % 3 %











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

&

&*+

+

*&
&

,
 $
%,-
& .
/ /

 &

 







 




!"
#$
%&&

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

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

( 

 ./

0(
12 !"
$ *0 1
23



2 4

 ((



)%3 &


(
# 





"






4
1
5
5
5
5
!"

" 5




5

0 6 7(

*+

+


&

89,
!&

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



5
 6 7(

*+

+


&
89,
!&

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



>5!
0 6 7(

*+

+


&>*89,
!&

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



*5! 6 7(

*+

+


&* 89,
!&

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


5#
0 6 7(

*+

+


&**89,
!&

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


"5# 6 7(

*+

+


&

89,
!&

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



5


0 6 7(

*+

+

&
#89,
!&

:%;%(

8<=
788%59:

& 4*











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

&

&*+

+

*&
&

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

#



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: 16May2025 JobNo.:23308Ͳ04
To: GianMartire,SeniorPlanner,CityofCupertino
From: CemAtabek,BaselineEnvironmentalConsulting
Subject: PeerReviewofSubsurfaceInvestigationReports,UndevelopedLandWestofMary AvenueandParkwoodDrive,Cupertino,California
BaselineEnvironmentalConsulting(Baseline)hasperformedapeerreviewonbehalfoftheCity ofCupertino(City)fo
rtheDraftSubsurfaceInvestigationReportdated4April2025andthe SubsurfaceInvestigationReportdated24April2025,bothpreparedbyIntertekPSI,forthe undevelopedlandwestofMaryAvenueandParkwoodDriveidentifiedasSantaClaraCounty Assessor’sParcelNumber326Ͳ27Ͳ030inCupertino,Calif ornia(Site).Baseline’speerreview presentedbelowwasperformedtoevaluatetheadequacyoftheAdditionalPhaseIItoensure compliancewiththerequirementsofSection17.04.040(B)oftheCity’sMunicipalCode.The Siteiscurrentlydevelopedwithalandscapedareaandpavedparkingareaandisproposedto beredev
elopedforresidentiallanduse(theproject).
DRAFTSUBSURFACEINVESTIGATIONREPORT
TheDraftSubsurfaceInvestigationReportdescribessamplingandanalysisofsoilthatwas performedattheSitetoevaluatepotentialcontaminationfromaeriallydepositedlead(ADL) andpastagriculturaluseoftheSite.Soilsampleswerecollectedfromthreeborings(B1toB3) locatedwithinthelandscapedareaandthreeborings(B4toB6)locatedwithinthepaved parkingareaoftheSite.Soilsampleswerecollectedfromdepthsof0.5an d2feetbelowthe
groundsurface(bgs),andthesampleswereanalyzedfororganochlorinepesticides(OCPs), arsenic,andlead.Solubleleadwasalsoanalyzedinonesamplebasedontheelevat ed  concentrationoftotalleaddetectedinthesample,asdiscussedfurtherbelow.Basedonour reviewoftheDraftSubsurfaceInvestigationReport,itappearsthatappropriatesoilsampling andlaboratoryanalyticalmethodswereperformed.
ThesoilsampleresultswerecomparedtotheSanFranciscoBayRegionalWaterQualityBoard EnvironmentalScreenin
gLevels(ESLs)forResidentialExposure(ResidentialESLs)and ConstructionWorkersExposure(ConstructionWorkerESLs)andhazardouswastethresholds. BaselinenotesthattheConstructionWorkerESLforarsenicpresentedinTable1oftheDraft SubsurfaceInvestigationReportis2.0milligramsperkilogram(mg/kg);however,thisESLis basedonca ncer riskandthereisalowerConstructionWorkerESLforarsenic(0.98mg/kg) 


Memorandum
May16,2025
Page2
23308Ͳ04MaryAvePhaseIIPeerRev
whichisbasedonthenonͲcancerhazard.Typically,theloweroftheESLsforcancerriskand nonͲcancerhazardisreferencedastheappropriateESL. TheDraftSubsurfaceInvestigationReportindicatesthatarsenicconcentrationsdetectedatthe SitewerebelowestablishedbackgroundarsenicconcentrationsforSantaClaraValleyofupto 20mg/kgandreferencestheDecember2011ba
ckgroundarsenicstudytitledEstablishing
BackgroundArsenicinSoiloftheUrbanizedSanFranciscoBayRegionbyDylanDuverge. Baselinenotesthatthis2011backgroundarsenicstudylistsarangeofarsenicconcentrations detectedinthenorthernSantaClaraValleyasbeingupto20mg/kg;however,itconcludesthat 11mg/kgisanappropriateupperes
timate(99thpercentile)ofregionalbackground
concentrationsofarsenic,and11mg/kgistypicallyreferredtoasascreeninglevelfornaturally occurringbackgroundarsenicintheBayArea.TheconcentrationofarsenicdetectedattheSite rangefrom3.51to7.25mg/kg,andtheref
orethesearsenicconcentrationsappeartobe
naturallyoccurringbackgroundconcentrations.
TheDraftSubsurfaceInvestigationReportindicatesthatbasedontheconcentrationsdetected, arsenicandOCPsarenotcontaminantsofconcern,whileleadisconsideredtobea contaminantofconcern.Leadwasdetectedinsevenofthesoilsampleswithconcentrations thataretypicalofbackg
roundconditionswiththeexceptionofthesoilsamplecollectedfrom boringB2(nearthecenterofthelandscapedareaontheSite)at2feet(sampleIDB2Ͳ2),which wasreportedtocontain680mg/kgoflead,exceedingtheRes identialESL(80mg/kg)and ConstructionWorkerESL(160mg/kg).ToevaluatewhetherthesoilrepresentedbysampleB2Ͳ 2wouldbeahazardouswaste,whenexcavated,thesamplewasanalyzedforsolubleleadby theWasteExtractionTest(WET)andToxicityCharacteristicLeachingPotential(TCLP)methods. Solublele
adanalyzedbytheWETmethodwasdetectedataconcentrationof18milligramsper liter(mg/L),whichexceedstheSolubleThresholdLimitConcentration(STLC)of5mg/L.Soluble leadanalyzedbytheTCLPmethodwasdetectedataconcentrationof1.1mg/L,whichisbelow theTCLPthresholdof5mg/L.Basedonthetotalandsolubleleadresults ,thesoilrepresented bysampleB2Ͳ2wouldbeclassifiedasnonͲResourceConservationandRecoveryAct(nonͲRCRA) hazardouswaste(orCaliforniahazardouswaste)forwastedisposalpurposes. TheDraftSubsurfaceInvestigationReportrecommendedadditionalsoilsamplingintheareaof boringB2priortoSiteredevelopmenttofurtherdefinetheextentofleadimpactedsoiland minimizeth
evolumeofsoilbeingremovedfromthepropertyasaCaliforniahazardouswaste. TheDraftSubsurfaceInvestigationReportrecommendedthatifsoilrepresentedbysampleB2Ͳ 2wouldnotbebelowaproposedb uilding,asthenewbuildingwouldcreateacaptoeliminate contactwithleadimpactedsoil,thesoilrepresentedbythissampleshouldbeexcavatedand removedfromtheproperty.



Memorandum
May16,2025
Page3

Baselinenotesthatwhilecappingofleadimpactedsoilbeneathbuildingswouldreducethe likelihoodofexposureforfutureSiteoccupants,thisremedialapproachisnotadequate withoutappropriateengineeringcontrols,institutionalcontrols,andregulatoryoversightto ensurethattheleadimpactedsoilwouldnotcreateanexposureconcernforfutureSite occupantsorconstruction/maintenanceworkers.Forsituationswherecontaminatedsoilis capped,regulatoryagen
ciestypicallyrequiretheestablishmentofadeedrestrictionand implementationofoperationandmaintenanceactivitiestoensurethatfutureSiteoccupants andconstruction/maintenanceworkersareawareoftheremedialcapandcontaminatedsoil conditions,andtoensurethatthecontaminatedsoilwouldremaincappe dandnotbe disturbedwithoutappropriateprecautions.
TheDraftSubsurfaceInvestigationReportalsorecommendsthataSoilManagementPlan (SMP)andaSiteͲSpecificHealthandSafetyPlan(SSHSP)bepreparedpriortoconductingany soilexcavationaspartofredevelopmentofthesubjectpropertyduetothedetected concentrationsofarsen
icandlead.Baselinegenerallyagreeswiththeserecommendations; however,Baselinenotesthatresponseactionssuchaspreparationandimplementationofan SMParetypicallynotperformed(orrequiredbyregulatoryagencies)toaddressnaturally occurringbackgroundconcentrationsofmetals.Thehealthandsafetyofconstructionworkers isultimatelytherespons
ibilityofthecontractor.Theprojectapplicantshouldprovidethe projectcontractorwiththeresultsofallsoilsamplingperformedattheSite,andthecontractor mustprepareandimplementanappropriateSSHSPthataddressespotentialexposuretosoilas requiredbyCaliforniaCodeofRegulationsTitle8.
SubsurfaceInvestigationReport
TheSubsurfaceInvestigationReportdescribessamplingandanalysisofsoilthatwasperformed attheSiteincludingthesamplingandanalyticalresultsdiscussedintheDraftSubsurface InvestigationReport,andadditionalsamplingperformedtoevaluatetheextentoflead impactedsoilidentifiedbysampleB2Ͳ2.Twoborings,B7andB8,wereadvancedapproximately 10feetnorthandsouthofboringB2
,respectively.Soilsampleswerecollectedfromdepthsof

0.5and2feetbgs,andthesampleswereanalyzedforlead.Basedonourreviewofthe SubsurfaceInvestigationReport,itappearsthatappropriatesoilsamplingandlaboratory analyticalmethodswereperformed.
Theanal
yticalresultsfromthesoilsamplescollectedfromboringsB7andB8revealed backgroundconcentrationsoflead,indicatingthattheelevatedleadisalocalizedconditionin theareaofboringBͲ2.TheSubsurfaceInvestigationReportalsorecommendedthatifsoil representedbysampleB2Ͳ2wouldnotbebelowaproposedbuilding,th esoilrepresentedby thissampleshouldbeexcavatedandremovedfromtheproperty.TheSubsurfaceInvestigation ReportrecommendedthatanSMPandSSHSPshouldbepreparedfortheproposedprojectthat haveappropriatestipulationsassociatedwiththeleadimpactedsoil. 


Memorandum
May16,2025
Page4

Baselinenotesthatthelateralextentofleadimpactedsoilappearstohavebeendefinedtothe northandsouthofboringBͲ2,howevertheverticalextentofleadimpactedsoilintheareaof boringB2hasnotbeendefined.LeadcontaminationfromADListypicallyconfinedtotheupper fewfeetofsoil,andexca
vationofleadimpactedsoilattheMaryAvenueDogPark(located adjacenttothenorthoftheSite)extendedtoamaximumdepthofbelow2feetbgs,1which suggeststhattheimpactsfromleadattheSitemayalsobelimitedtotheupperfewfeetofsoil. ThelateralextentofleadimpactedsoilwasalsonotdefinedtotheeastorwestofboringBͲ2, howeverboringBͲ2waslocatedveryclosetothewesternSiteboundary,andtheea stͲwest dimensionoftheSiteisrelativelynarrow(approximately50to60feet). BaselineconsidersthedetectionofleadataconcentrationexceedingtheResidentialESLand ConstructionWorkerESLinsampleB2Ͳ2tobeapotentiallyunacceptablehealthriskfor constructionworkersan d futureresidentialoccupantsoftheSite.Section17.04.050(B)ofthe City’sMunicipalCodeindicates:
IfaFocusedorotherPhaseIIESA,asrequiredpursuanttoSection17.04.040(B)(1), identifiesanunacceptableorapotentiallyunacceptablehealthrisk,theprojectapplicant shall,dependingonthecontaminant,contacteithertheEnvironmentalProtectionAgency (EPA),DepartmentofToxicSubstancesControl(DTSC),Regi onalWaterQualityControl
Board(RWQCB)orlocalCertifiedUnifiedProgramAgency(CUPA).Theprojectapplicant shallenterintoaregulatoryagencyoversightprogramwithanappropriateregulatory agency,oranestablishedvoluntaryoversightprogramalternativewithanappropriate regulatoryagency,asdeterminedbytheCity,andfollowtheregulatoryagency’s recommendedresponseactionsuntiltheagencyreach
esanofurtheraction
determination,priortoissuanceofanypermitforaprojectthatallowsgrounddisturbing activity.
BasedontherequirementsoftheCity’sMunicipalCode,Baselinerecommendsthattheproject applicantenterintoaRemedialActionAgreem entwiththeSantaClaraCountyDepartmentof EnvironmentalHealthasanappropriateregulatoryagencytooverseesoilremediationatthe Site.
Baselinerecommendsapprovalofthepermitapplicationfortheprojectfromahazardous materialscontaminationstandpoint,withthefollowingconditions: RemediationofleadimpactedsoilattheSiteshouldbeperformedinaccordan cewithanSMP preparedandimplementedunderregulatoryagencyoversight.TheSMPshouldbeprepared andcertifiedbyaqualifiedEnvironmentalProfessional,andshouldbesubmittedtotheCity 
1TRC,2013.EnvironmentalServices,SoilRemovalCompletionReport,CupertinoDogPark,Cupertino,California, December18.



Memorandum
May16,2025
Page5

andtheregulatoryoversightagencyforreviewandapproval.TheSMPshouldincludethe following:
x Adescriptionofthepreciseextentofproposedcontaminatedsoilremoval,proposed remediationgoals,anddetailedproceduresforsoilhandling,soilcharacterizationfor offͲSitedisposaloronͲSitereͲuse,confirmationsamplingandanalysis,andimportingof cleanfillmaterial.
x Measurestopreventpotentialexp
osureofthesurroundingpublictocontaminantsthat
couldbereleasedinfugitivedust(e.g.,dustcontrolprocedures,airmonitoring protocols,andairmonitoringactionlevels)duringtheremovalofcontaminatedsoiland otherconstructionactivities,inadditiontopreventingpotentialexp osureoffutureSite occupantstocontaminatedsoil.
x Notificationproceduresandresponseactionsthatwouldbetakenifpreviously unidentifiedsoilcontaminationorundergroundfeaturesofenvironmentalconcern (e.g.,sumps,undergroundstoragetanks)areidentifiedduringprojectconstruction activities.
x Arequirementthatallremedialexcavationandcontaminatedsoilhandlinganddisposal activitiesbeoverseenbyaqualifiedEnvironmentalProfessional,andthatall confirmationandwastecharact
erizationsoilsamplingbeperformedbyaqualified
EnvironmentalProfessional.
TheexcavationandoffͲSitedisposalofcontaminatedsoilandconfirmationsamplingresults shouldbedocumentedinaCompletionReportpreparedandcertifiedbyaqualified EnvironmentalProfessionalwhichshouldbesubmittedtoth eregulatoryoversightagencyfor
reviewandapproval,andtheprojectapplicantshouldprovidetheCitywithwrittenevidence thattheregulatoryoversightagencyhasissuedanofurtheractiondeterminationfortheSite priortotheCityissuinganypermitsthatwouldallowoth ergrounddisturbingactivity(beyond soilremediation)attheSite.


$

Memorandum

Date: November 13, 2025
To: Mr. Andy Lief, Charities Housing
From: Kai-Ling Kuo, Andrea Lin
Subject: Transportation Study for Proposed Affordab le 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 two- story 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 peak- hour 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.

Cupertino
Sports Center
Cupertino
1 85
Morro Bay TerMorro Bay TerMorro Bay Ter
Campus DrCampus DrCampus 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 PlGlen PlGlen Pl
ParkwoodD r
Parkwood Dr
Peninsula BlvdPeninsula BlvdPeninsula Blvd
Garden Gate
Elementary School
Cupertino
Memorial Park
De Anza
College
X = Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
Mary Ave
Dog Park
Mary Ave
Dog Park
Mary Ave
Dog Park
Mary Avenue Aīordable Housing Project TA
Figure 1
Site Location and Study Intersection
Mary Avenue Aīordable Housing Project TA
Figure 2
Site Circulation Plan
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.

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.

Cupertino
Sports Center
Cupertino
23 23
523
51 55
25 523
23, 51,
523
23, 51
51 51
23 55
25 85
Campus DrCampus DrCampus Dr
Lubec St
Anson Ave
Milford Dr
Castine Ave
S Stelling Rd
Imperial Ave
Bubb Rd
Greenleaf Dr
N Stelling Rd
Mary
Ave Glen PlGlen PlGlen Pl
ParkwoodD r
Parkwood Dr
Peninsula BlvdPeninsula BlvdPeninsula Blvd
Morro Bay TerMorro Bay TerMorro 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
Dog Park
Mary Ave
Dog Park
Mary Avenue Aīordable Housing Project TA
Figure 3
Existing Transit Services
Cupertino
Sports Center
Cupertino
85 Campus DrCampus DrCampus Dr
Lubec St
Anson Ave
Milford Dr
Castine Ave
S Stelling Rd
Imperial Ave
Bubb Rd
Greenleaf Dr
N Stelling Rd
Mary Ave
Glen PlGlen PlGlen Pl
ParkwoodD r
Parkwood Dr
Peninsula BlvdPeninsula BlvdPeninsula Blvd
Morro Bay TerMorro Bay TerMorro 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 Ave
Dog Park
Mary Ave
Dog Park
Mary Avenue Aīordable Housing Project TA
Figure 4
Existing Bicycle Facilities
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:

Trip Generation
Through empirical research, data have been collected that show trip generation rates for many types of land uses. The data are published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition. ITE does not have a category for developmentally disabled housing. The closest category for estimating trips generated by this land use is “Senior Adult Housing” as most residents of the project would likely not own cars and care takers or assistants would generate most of the trips. Using this category to represent the developmentally disabled housing units is likely a slight over-estimate of generated traffic because residents would not have cars.

Thus, trips that would be generated by the project were estimated using the ITE average trip rates for “Senior Adult Housing - Multifamily” (ITE Land Use 252) for the developmentally disabled units and “Affordable Housing” (ITE Land Use 223) for the proposed affordable housing units.

The proposed project is estimated to generate 163 daily vehicle trips, with 12 trips (3 inbound and 9 outbound) during the AM peak hour and 15 trips (9 inbound and 6 outbound) during the PM peak hour (see Table 2).

Table 2
Project Trip Generation Estimates

Trip Distribution and Assignment
The trip distribution pattern for the project was estimated based on the existing travel patterns on the surrounding roadway network and the locations of complementary land uses. The peak-hour trips generated by the project were assigned to the roadway system based on the trip distribution pattern, directions of approach and departure, and the roadway network connections. Project trip distribution and trip assignment are shown in Figure 5. For a conservative analysis, it is assumed that all trips from the project site would pass through the study intersection at Mary Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard.

Land Use Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total
Proposed
Disabled Housing 1 19 d.u. 3.25 62 0.19 1 3 4 0.25 3 2 5 Affordable Housing 2 21 d.u. 4.81 101 0.36 2 6 8 0.46 6 4 10 Total Project Trips 163 3 9 12 9 6 15
Notes
d.u. = dwelling units
1 2 Trip generation rate for the proposed affordable are based on the ITE's Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition rates for Land Use Code 223 "Affordable Housing."
Trip generation rate for the proposed housing for the developmentally disabled is based on the ITE's Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition rates for Land Use Code 252 "Senior Adult Housing - Multifamily." Daily
Rate1
Daily
Trips
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Size
Cupertino
Sports Center
Cupertino
1 85
Campus DrCampus DrCampus Dr
Lubec St
Anson Ave
Milford Dr
Castine Ave
S Stelling Rd
Imperial Ave
Bubb Rd
Greenleaf Dr
N Stelling Rd
Mary
Ave Glen PlGlen PlGlen Pl
ParkwoodD r
Parkwood Dr
Peninsula BlvdPeninsula BlvdPeninsula Blvd
Morro Bay TerMorro Bay TerMorro Bay Ter
Stevens Creek Blvd
60% 40%
X
= Trip Distribution
= Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
XX%
= AM(PM) Peak-Hour TripsXX(XX)
Garden Gate
Elementary School
Cupertino
Memorial Park
De Anza
College
Mary Ave
Dog Park
Mary Ave
Dog Park
Mary Ave
Dog Park
Mary Avenue Aīordable Housing Project TA
Figure 5
Project Trip Distribution and Assignment
1 Dr
Campus
Ave
Mary
Blvd
Creek
Stevens
1(4)
5(4)
4(2)
2(5)
Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA November 13, 2025 Page | 10
Intersection Traffic Operations
This section presents the methods used to determine traffic conditions at the study intersection and the traffic effects of the project.

Scope of Analysis
This study analyzes the traffic effects of the project at the Mary Avenue/Campus Drive and Stevens Creek Boulevard intersection during the weekday AM and PM peak hours of commute traffic. Traffic conditions at the study location were analyzed for the weekday AM (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and PM (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) peak hours of commute traffic. These periods represent the most congested traffic conditions on the surrounding street network during a typical weekday.

Intersection traffic conditions were evaluated for the following scenarios:
x Existing Conditions. Existing AM and PM peak-hour traffic volumes were obtained from new turning movement counts conducted on a typical weekday, October 7, 2025 (see Appendix A). x Existing Plus Project Conditions. Existing plus project traffic volumes were estimated by adding to the existing traffic volumes the additional traffic generated by the project (see Figure 5). Existing plus project conditions were evaluated relative to existing conditions to determine potential project adverse effects.

Intersection Level of Service Analysis Methodology
Traffic conditions at the study intersection were evaluated using level of service (LOS). Level of service is a qualitative description of operating conditions ranging from LOS A, or free-flow conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, or jammed conditions with excessive delays.

The City of Cupertino evaluates level of service at signalized intersections based on the latest Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) level of service methodology. For the study, the intersection levels of service were analyzed using Synchro software in accordance with the HCM 7th Edition methodology. The HCM method evaluates signalized intersection operations based on average control delay time for all vehicles at an intersection. The correlation between average control delay and level of service is shown in Table 3.

Signalized study intersections are typically subject to the local municipalities’ level of service standards. The City’s TS Guidelines (2025) do not provide level of service standards for signalized intersections. For this study, an LOS D standard was applied to the study intersection based on the 2021 TS Guidelines.

Definition of Adverse Intersection Operational Effects
For most major intersections, a development is said to create an adverse effect on traffic conditions at a study intersection if for either hour, any of the following conditions occur:

1. The level of service at signalized intersecti ons degrades from an acceptable level (LOS D or better) under no-project conditions to an unacceptable LOS E or F under project conditions.

2. The project would deteriorate already unacceptab le operations at a signalized intersection by increasing the average critical delay by four or more seconds and increasing the critical volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio by 0.01 or more; or increase the v/c ratio by 0.01 or more at an intersection with unacceptable operations when the change in critical delay is negative (i.e. decreases). This can occur if the critical movements change.

Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA November 13, 2025 Page | 11
Table 3
Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Average Control Delay The 2025 TS Guidelines also provide a deficiency criterion for intersection vehicle queuing as part of evaluating the project’s effect on traffic operations. An adverse effect on signalized intersection operations would occur if for either peak hour:

1. The project traffic would cause 95th percen tile vehicle queues to exceed the existing or planned length of a turn pocket, or

2. Where a queue exceeds the available storage without the project, project traffic would increase the queue by more than 50 feet.

Lane Configurations and Traffic Volumes
The existing lane configurations at the study intersections are shown on Figure 6.

The traffic volumes for the existing conditions and existing plus project conditions are shown in Figure 6 and described above for the analysis scenarios.

Cupertino
Sports Center
Cupertino
1 85
Campus DrCampus DrCampus Dr
Lubec St
Anson Ave
Milford Dr
S Stelling Rd
Imperial Ave
Bubb Rd
N Stelling R
d
Mary
Ave Glen PlGlen PlGlen Pl
ParkwoodD r
Parkwood Dr
Peninsula BlvdPeninsula BlvdPeninsula Blvd
Morro Bay TerMorro Bay TerMorro Bay Ter
Stevens Creek Blvd
X = Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
= AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic VolumesXX(XX)
Cupertino
Memorial Park
De Anza
College
= Signalized Intersection
Mary Ave
Dog Park
Mary Ave
Dog Park
Mary Ave
Dog Park
Mary Avenue Aīordable Housing Project TA
Figure 6
Existing Lane Configuration and Study Traffic Volumes
1 Dr
Campus
Ave
Mary
Blvd
Creek
Stevens
11 Existing Volumes Existing + Project Volumes
Blvd
Creek
Dr
Campus
Stevens
Blvd
Creek
Dr
Campus
Stevens
Mary
Ave
Mary
Ave
40(84)
3(5)
9(30)
99(71)
10(8)
181(69)
88(43)
722(863)
94(101)
98(136)
732(1377)
107(33)
40(84)
3(5)
9(30)
103(73)
10(8)
186(73)
88(43)
722(863)
95(105)
100(141)
732(1377)
107(33)
Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA November 13, 2025 Page | 13
Intersection Levels of Service
The results of the intersection level of service analysis (see Table 4) show that the study intersection would operate at an acceptable level of service under existing and existing plus project conditions.

The intersection level of service calculation report is included in Appendix B.

Table 4
Intersection Level of Service Summary

Intersection Queuing Analysis
Typically, vehicle queuing analysis is done for high-demand movements at intersections where the project would add a substantial number of trips to the left-turn movements (10 or more peak hour vehicle trips per lane). The project would not be adding 10 or more peak hour vehicle trips per lane to any turning movement (see Figure 5). Thus, it is not expected that the addition of the project would negatively affect the existing queuing conditions.

General Plan Consistency
The project is located on Mary Avenue, which is a local street. This street is not identified on the City’s High Injury Network. The project would not conflict with the General Plan policies because the project would not affect access to roadways, transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities.

Pedestrian Facilities
The existing pedestrian facilities in the project vicinity provide good connectivity with continuous sidewalks from the project site to nearby points of interest, including bus stops, schools, and parks.

High-visibility crosswalks across Mary Avenue are provided at the unsignalized intersections at Lubec Street to the north and at Cupertino Memorial Park driveway to the south.

There is currently no sidewalk along the project frontage. The project would construct a new 4.5-foot- wide sidewalk along its frontage on Mary Avenue to connect to the existing sidewalk to the south and the dog park to the north. The new sidewalk is consistent with the existing sidewalk configuration within the adjacent neighborhood. The sidewalk would be buffered from traffic by a 5-foot-wide bike lane, 2.5-foot buffer, and parallel street parking. Walkways from the street frontage would provide direct access to the buildings.

The project would not affect the existing pedestrian access in the area. The project would provide adequate pedestrian facilities on site connecting pedestrians to the rest of the City’s pedestrian facilities.

Bicycle Facilities
The project proposes re-aligning the existing bike lane along the project frontage and converting the angled street-parking spaces to parallel street-parking spaces. The proposed bike lane would be 5 feet wide, which meets the minimum recommendation of 5 feet for lateral clearance of bike lanes listed in the VTA bicycle technical guidelines. The bike lane would be protected from vehicular traffic by 8-foot-wide parallel parking spaces and a 2.5 foot striped buffer between the bike lane and the LOS Peak Delay1 Delay1 Change in
# Intersection Standard Control Hour (sec) LOS (sec) LOS Delay AM 31.6 C 31.6 C 0.0
PM 27.0 C 27.2 C 0.2
Notes:

1. Average delay (seconds per vehicle) is reported for signalized intersections. 1 Mary Ave/Campus Dr & Stevens Creek Blvd D Signal
Existing Existing plus Project
Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA November 13, 2025 Page | 14
parking spaces. The project would introduce two driveways along the west side of Mary Avenue that would cross the bike lane. The project proposes using a different paving material to signal to drivers to slow down and look out for cyclists and pedestrians. The landscaping planters and curb islands next to the driveways would also provide adequate line of sights for cyclists and pedestrians.

The project proposes two pairs of reverse curves to create a lateral shift of the bike lane at the north and south ends of the project site to connect the proposed bike lane to the existing bike lane. The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) design guidelines for Bike Transitions, which are adapted from the Urban Bikeway Design Guide, Third Edition, was used to evaluate the proposed reverse curves. For an urban street, a design speed of 10 mph could be assumed for protected bike lanes. For an approach speed of 10 mph, NACTO recommends a minimum edge radius of 18 feet. At the north end of the site, the curve radii are less than 18 feet, which cannot accommodate a travel speed of 10 mph. At the south end of the site, the curve radii are greater than 18 feet.

Recommendation: To accommodate a design speed of 10 mph for the bike lane per NACTO’s guidelines, the turn radii of the reserve curves on the north end of the project site should be a minimum of 18 feet and signage should be added ahead of the curves to inform cyclists to slow down to 10 mph.

The proposed bicycle lane would connect to the existing bicycle lane on Mary Avenue; thus the proposed project would not conflict with any planned facilities identified in the City of Cupertino 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan.

Transit Services
As previously stated, the closest bus stop serves Local Route 51 and is located about 2,100 feet away at the intersection of Mary Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard. The nearby bus stop for Frequent Route 23 is located at De Anza College and is about 2,600 feet from the project site. The bus stops in both directions can be accessed via the existing pedestrian network. Any small increase in transit trips is expected to be accommodated by the existing transit capacity.

Parking
Vehicle Parking
The City of Cupertino minimum parking requirement for medium density multi-family housing per the City’s Zoning Code (Table 19.124.040(A)) is two parking spaces per dwelling unit. Because the project would provide 100% affordable housing, the project can qualify for the State Density Bonus Law. Per public Resources Code Section 65915(p)(2), the City may not impose minimum vehicular parking ratios for developments that include at least 20% low-income units that exceed 0.5 spaces per unit.

Therefore, for the proposed 40 dwelling units, the project would be required to provide 20 parking spaces per the State Density Bonus Law. Additionally, approximately half of the dwelling units provided by the project would be for developmentally disabled residents that would not own cars or drive. The project proposes a total of 20 parking spaces in an on-site parking lot. Thus, the project meets the State Density Bonus Law parking requirements.

Bicycle Parking
The City’s zoning code requires medium density multi-family developments to provide one long-term (Class I Facility) bicycle parking space per 2 residential units and one short-term (Class II Facility) bicycle parking space per 10 residential units. For the proposed 40 units, the project would be required to provide 20 long-term and 4 short-term bicycle parking spaces. The project proposes 16 inverted-U bike racks (which provide 2 bicycle parking spaces per inverted-U bike rack): 4 bike racks Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA November 13, 2025 Page | 15
in front of Building 1 near the community room, 3 bike racks north of Building 1, 1 rack in front of Building 2 near the manager’s office, 4 bike racks behind Building 1 near the elevators, and 4 bike racks behind Building 2 near the elevators. The 8 proposed bike racks in front of buildings would provide 16 short-term parking spaces for public use, which would meet the short-term bicycle parking requirement. The 8 bike racks behind the buildings near the elevators could provide 16 parking spaces for residents. However, these spaces are not protected. Thus, the project does not meet the minimum requirements for long-term bicycle parking spaces.

Recommendation: To meet the city’s requirements, the project should provide 20 long-term bicycle parking spaces. These long-term bicycle parking spaces should be provided in bicycle lockers (fully enclosed space accessible only by the owner of the bicycle), restricted access rooms (locked room or enclosure accessible only to the owners), or enclosed cages (chain link enclosures with a lock).

Removal of On-Street Parking
The project would convert the angled street-parking spaces to parallel street-parking spaces on its frontage along Mary Avenue and remove the parallel street-parking spaces on the east side of the street across from the project frontage. This would remove 84 angled street-parking spaces on the west side and 38 parallel street-parking spaces on the east side (approximately 950 feet) and add 33 parallel parking spaces to the west side of Mary Avenue, which would result in a net loss of 89 street- parking spaces.

Hexagon previously conducted a parking study (see Appendix C) to identify the current parking supply and demand of the on-street parking on Mary Avenue between Lubec Street and Stevens Creek Boulevard. There are currently 171 diagonal parking spaces provided along the west side and 70 parallel parking spaces provided on the east side, for a total of 241 on-street parking spaces. The parking study found the existing peak parking demand was 37 parking spaces (26 spaces on the west side of Mary Avenue and 11 spaces on the east side of Mary Avenue) with 7 occupied spaces along the project frontage.

As stated previously, the project meets the vehicular parking requirements per the State Density Bonus Law with the proposed parking on site. Additionally, approximately half of the dwelling units provided by the project would be for developmentally disabled residents that would not own cars or drive. Therefore, the project is not expected to increase parking demand for on street parking.

With the project, there would be 152 on-street parking spaces (with 33 parallel parking spaces along the project frontage), which would still provide enough spaces to meet the anticipated parking demand (37 total spaces and 7 spaces along the project frontage).

Site Access and Circulation
A review of the project site plan was performed to identify the adequacy of site access and on-site circulation. This review is based on the site plan dated May 9, 2025 (see Figure 2 and Figure 7).

Vehicle access to the site would be provided via two driveways along Mary Avenue.

Driveway Design and Operations
The project proposes two driveways on Mary Avenue: one located opposite Parkwood Drive and the other about 180 feet south of that driveway. Two driveways are necessary because the project proposes angled on-site parking. The site is not wide enough to provide 90-degree parking.

Per the City’s Standard Details 1-20, driveway width for commercial/high density residential should be between 24 and 32 feet. The driveway to the north (near Building 2) would be 24 feet wide and the driveway to the south (near Building 1) would be 26 feet wide, which meets the City’s requirements for driveway width.

Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA November 13, 2025 Page | 16
The project-generated trips that are estimated to access both driveways are 12 trips during the AM peak hour (3 inbound and 9 outbound) and 15 trips during the PM peak hour (9 inbound and 6 outbound). Due to the low number of AM and PM peak hour project-generated trips, operational issues related to vehicle queuing or delays, or with potential pedestrian or bicycle traffic would be minimal at the project driveways.

The distance between the first 90-degree parking stall and the street edge for both of the driveways is 24 feet. Thus, there is enough room for one inbound vehicle to queue in the driveway without blocking the traffic on Mary Avenue. The maximum number of vehicles that would enter a driveway is 9 inbound vehicles during the PM peak hour, which is equivalent to approximately one vehicle every 6 minutes. Thus, no inbound queuing issues are expected at the project driveways.

Driveway Sight Distance
The project driveways should be free and clear of any obstructions to provide adequate sight distance, thereby ensuring that exiting vehicles can see pedestrians on the sidewalk and vehicles and bicycles traveling along Mary Avenue. Any landscaping and signage should be located in such a way to ensure an unobstructed view for drivers exiting the site and turning onto Mary Avenue. Providing the appropriate sight distance reduces the likelihood of a collision at a driveway and provides drivers with the ability to locate sufficient gaps in traffic.

The project proposes trees that would be planted along the Mary Avenue frontage near the driveways. Per the City’s Standard Details 7-2, the canopies of the trees should be at least 8.5 feet in height so that they do not impede the view of exiting drivers. If additional frontage improvements, such as signage or additional landscaping, are proposed, they should be located so that the view of exiting drivers is not impeded or not exceed 3.5 feet in height, per the City’s Standard Details 7-2.

The minimum acceptable sight distance is considered the Caltrans stopping sight distance. Sight distance requirements vary depending on roadway speeds. Mary Avenue has a speed limit of 30 mph, so the Caltrans stopping sight distance is 250 feet (based on a design speed of 35 mph).

Accordingly, a driver must be able to see 250 feet along Mary Avenue to stop and avoid a collision.

Based on the site plan and narrow travel lanes on Mary Avenue, on-street parking next to the project driveways would potentially block the line of sight of exiting drivers (see Figure 8).

Recommendation: To ensure drivers exiting the project driveways have adequate lines of sight, it is recommended that two parallel parking spaces on the north side of each driveway and one parking space on the south side of the project driveways be removed. If the driveways are changed to one- way as recommended below, only the parking spaces next to the outbound driveway (south driveway) need to be removed. The on-street parking supply would still be adequate with the reduction of these six parallel parking spaces.

Mary Avenue Aīordable Housing Project TA
Figure 7
Proposed Parking Lot Plan
Mary Avenue Aīordable Housing Project TA
Figure 8
Sight Distance
LEGEND
= Recommended Parallel Parking Spaces to be Removed

Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA November 13, 2025 Page | 19
On-Site Circulation and Stall Dimensions
On-site vehicular circulation was reviewed in accordance with generally accepted traffic engineering standards. The project would provide an on-site surface parking lot (20 parking spaces) with a one- way aisle. In the parking lot, there would be two 90-degree parking spaces on the north end, two 90- degree parking spaces on the south end, and 16 angled parking spaces (60 degrees) along the west side of the parking lot (see Figure 7).

The driveways to access the parking lot would be two-way driveways that are 24 feet wide and 26 feet wide with a 26-foot-wide drive aisle to access the 90-degree parking spaces. The drive aisle to access the 60-degree angled parking spaces would be a one-way aisle that is 14 feet wide.

Recommendation: For improved circulation, it is recommended that the driveways are one-way, with the north driveway for inbound only and the south driveway for outbound only.

Per the City of Cupertino’s Zoning Code Table 19.124.040(B), the minimum parking stall dimensions should be 8.5 feet wide and 18 feet long. Two-way drive aisles to access 90-degree parking spaces should be a minimum of 22 feet wide. The 90-degree parking spaces on the north and south ends of the parking lot would be a minimum of 8.5 feet wide and 16 feet long and would be accessed by a drive aisle that is 26 feet wide. The parking spaces include a 2-foot overhang into the walkway in front of the spaces, which effectively would provide a 6-foot walkway (sufficient for pedestrians to travel through). Based on the site plan, the proposed 90-degree parking spaces would meet the City’s minimum stall dimensions.

Per Table 19.124.040(B), a one-way aisle to access 60-degree angle parking spaces should be a minimum of 13 feet wide. Based on the proposed parking lot plan, the 60-degree angle parking spaces would be 8.5 feet wide, 18 feet long, and have a one-way aisle that is 14 feet wide. Thus, the project’s angled parking spaces would meet the City’s minimum requirements.

Emergency Vehicle Access and Circulation
The City of Cupertino Fire Department requires a minimum driveway width of 20 feet, requires turnarounds for driveways more than 150 feet in length, and requires a minimum of 13.5 feet of vertical clearance. The project site has a maximum depth of 42 feet from Mary Avenue. Therefore, Mary Avenue would serve as the project’s fire access road.

Garbage Truck Access and Circulation
Concrete trash pads/enclosures are shown in the parking lot. All garbage collection activities would occur on-site. Garbage trucks would need to pull into one of the driveways, perform garbage collection activities, back out onto Mary Avenue, and pull into the other driveway to perform the rest of the garbage collection activities. The truck would encroach onto the opposite travel lane when turning into and out of the driveways. However, because of the relatively low volumes on Mary Avenue, it is not expected that this would cause any operational issues. Figure 7 shows site access and circulation for garbage trucks.

Safety Assessment
The project would not alter any streets in the area. The project driveways and the internal aisles on site are designed in accordance with city standards. The project would generate mostly passenger vehicles, and the surrounding roadway system is designed to accommodate these vehicles.

Therefore, the project would not worsen existing geometric hazards or create new geometric hazards.

Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA November 13, 2025 Page | 20
Conclusions
The transportation analysis for the Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project resulted in the following conclusions:
x Trip Generation. The proposed project is estimated to generate 163 new daily vehicle trips, with 12 trips (3 inbound and 9 outbound) during the AM peak hour and 15 trips (9 inbound and 6 outbound) during the PM peak hour.
x Intersection Operation. The Mary Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard intersection would operate at an acceptable level of service under existing and existing plus project conditions. x Site Access and Circulation. The site access and circulation review resulted in the following recommendations:
o Long-term Bicycle Parking. To meet the city’s requirements, the project should provide 20 long-term bicycle parking spaces. These long-term bicycle parking spaces should be provided in bicycle lockers (fully enclosed space accessible only by the owner of the bicycle), restricted access rooms (locked room or enclosure accessible only to the owners, or enclosed cages (chain link enclosures with a lock).
o Sight Distance. To ensure drivers exiting the project driveways have adequate lines of sight, it is recommended that two parallel parking spaces on the north side of each driveway and one parking space on the south side of the project driveways be removed. If the driveways are changed to one-way as recommended below, only parking spaces next to the outbound driveway need to be removed.
o Site Circulation. It is recommended that the driveways be one-way access, with the north driveway for inbound only and the south driveway for outbound only. o Bike Lane. To accommodate a de sign speed of 10 mph for the bike lane, the turn radii of the reserve curves on the north end of the project site should be a minimum of 18 feet and signage should be added ahead of the curves to inform cyclists to slow down to 10 mph.

ATTACHMENTS
Appendix A – Traffic Counts
Appendix B – Intersection Level of Service Calculations Appendix C – Parking Study

Appendix A
Traffic Counts

CAMPUS DRIVE MARY AVESTEVENS CREEK BLVDSTEVENS CREEK BLVD (303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
LLocation: 1 CAMPUS DRIVE & STEVENS CREEK BLVD AM
Tuesday, October 7, 2025Date:

Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour: 08:00 AM - 09:00 AM
Peak 15-Minutes: 08:15 AM - 08:30 AM
290 187
904
845
52200
937
951

0.90 N
S
E W

0.84 0.87

0.84 0.85
(436)(592)
(2,234)
(2,013)
(2,268)
(2,312)
(163)(584)
181
0 99
94 722
83 107
732
90 5
8 1040
3 9
0 STEVENS CREEK BLVD

STEVENS CREEK BLVD

CAMPUS DRIVE

MARY AVE
5 8
7 3
N
S
E W
35 16
0 5
2 1
2 2
9 2
9 1
3 0
0 3
0 1
1 7
0 1
N
S
EW
2 0
1 0
6 3
0 1
0 0
0 0
Left Thru Right Total
EastboundInterval
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn 7:00 AM 0 3 0 0 3 011 3 6 7 0 58 8 2 1 8 01 2 11,09810 12 0 16 7:15 AM 0 1 0 0 5 11 15 66 1 3 115 234 0 3 0 01,403371 1 5 7:30 AM 0 4 0 0 30 00 10 82 2 4 130 296 0 0 1 11,773662 2 0 7:45 AM 0 3 0 0 22 14 24 94 1 7 129 350 0 2 0 11,97514 22 0 29 8:00 AM 0 10 0 0 27 21 17 129 1 16 208 523 0 0 1 12,18319 34 3 56 8:15 AM 0 14 2 0 27 40 25 202 1 28 196 604 2 5 3 02,09025 19 4 57 8:30 AM 0 7 1 0 34 34 28 155 2 17 167 498 0 0 3 22,03427 18 1 34 8:45 AM 0 9 0 0 11 13 20 246 1 22 151 558 1 3 0 22,06936 23 1 34 9:00 AM 0 12 1 0 9 30 13 142 1 44 116 430 0 5 0 12,02039 21 6 23 9:15 AM 0 17 1 0 8 10 10 190 0 46 160 548 2 5 0 158 20 7 30 9:30 AM 0 17 2 0 8 10 16 220 0 21 152 533 1 4 0 245 11 10 30 9:45 AM 0 18 1 0 18 30 20 167 1 24 157 509 0 3 0 345 24 5 26 Count Total 37040217327 5,301202020811501,769 237 111,760 211 14 151063 1 Peak Hour 8 90 732 5 83 722 0 40 3 0 99 10 2,183107 94 9 181 3 8 7 5

CAMPUS DRIVE MARY AVESTEVENS CREEK BLVDSTEVENS CREEK BLVD (303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
LLocation: 1 CAMPUS DRIVE & STEVENS CREEK BLVD PM
Tuesday, October 7, 2025Date:

Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles
Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses.

Peak Hour: 05:00 PM - 06:00 PM
Peak 15-Minutes: 05:15 PM - 05:30 PM
148 231
1,007
1,478
11984
1,546
1,027

0.97 N
S
E W

0.86 0.89

0.73 0.94
(661)(422)
(2,766)
(4,055)
(2,821)
(4,241)
(406)(298)
69 0
71 101
863
43 33
1,377
125
0 11
884
5 30
0 STEVENS CREEK BLVD

STEVENS CREEK BLVD

CAMPUS DRIVE

MARY AVE
7 20
2 1
N
S
E W
182
11 1 6
0 1
0 1
1 1
4 6
3 0
0 0
0 0
0 3
1 1
N
S
EW
0 0
0 0
2 2
0 1
0 0
0 0
Left Thru Right Total
EastboundInterval
Start Time
Rolling
Hour West East South North
Pedestrian Crossings
U-Turn
Westbound Northbound Southbound
Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn 4:00 PM 0 16 3 0 12 05 34 370 0 17 200 739 0 9 2 12,66618 20 21 23 4:15 PM 0 29 2 0 16 20 23 247 0 9 197 590 2 3 1 02,63716 22 11 16 4:30 PM 0 20 0 0 17 11 19 340 0 9 186 659 1 6 0 12,77318 17 14 17 4:45 PM 0 9 0 0 25 01 20 394 0 7 165 678 0 1 0 12,78116 16 12 13 5:00 PM 0 20 1 0 9 54 40 383 0 8 188 710 0 2 0 02,82042 8 61 4 5:15 PM 0 19 2 0 21 13 26 345 0 9 235 726 0 1 1 52,72814 26 6 19 5:30 PM 0 25 1 0 20 11 29 297 0 12 221 667 1 13 0 22,75771 71 22 4 5:45 PM 0 20 1 0 21 13 30 352 0 14 219 717 0 4 1 02,66783 0 61 2 6:00 PM 0 28 1 0 16 37 26 268 1 14 163 618 1 12 0 02,34916 42 17 16 6:15 PM 0 39 3 0 16 34 44 305 2 15 229 755 1 6 0 220 39 16 20 6:30 PM 0 18 2 0 18 14 31 248 2 6 183 577 1 5 1 014 29 9 12 6:45 PM 0 11 1 0 15 12 23 159 1 6 149 399 1 2 1 321 3 51 1 Count Total 197135299153 7,83519206017 25402,335 12663,708 345 35 15786 4 Peak Hour 11 125 1,377 0 43 863 0 84 5 0 71 8 2,82033 101 30 69 1 20 2 7