E - Public Comment — Cupertino City Council, February 3, 2026 (part 1 of 2)

Problems with narrowing traffic, buffer, bike, and pedes,triian lanes in an area with diverse users Sarfetly risks,:·

1. Increased risk of roadway accidents!

2. Less buffer between bike and traffic lane. Unsafe for families and especially kids

3. Parked car doors swing into narrow traffic lanes- not safe to exit vehicle

4. No bypass lane or space- stopped cars can clog traffic a Especially when trucks and vehicles are double parked or loading

5. Does it work for City public works trucks (~10 ft wide) and emergency vehicles? Even if the fire marshal 'signed off'?
Qua:llily of llife· iim act:

1. Narrower pedestrian areas make it difficult and congested for families and Homestead High School cross country runners that use this space daily

2. Narrower bike lanes increases the risk to cyclist

3. Worsened access to/from our homes
Please remember the uniqueness of Mary Ave and its diverse users.

This area co'fline·cts famHiies, bikers, school kids, com1murtte,rs be'tween :
• Memorial Park
• Senior Center
• Garden Gate Elementary School
• Don Burnett Bridge
• Dog Park
• Cupertino Public Works Service Center
• De Anza College
As our representative of the Cupertino City Council, we ask that you do the proper thing by us.

Protect Our Safety and Quality of Life! VOTE NO on this location. It isn't the right place! Sincerely ,
Print Name Print Name
Dear Cupertino City Council, City Manager and PublicComments:

Subject: Concerns of Mary Ave Villas housing project
The project is estimated to remove 19.5 feet, or 26% of its current width/public-right-of way.

No community hearing was held for residents to voice their concerns about vacating public right of wav to create the P-arcel from the road.

This is in the context of increased traffic and parking usage by adding 40 housing units+ their cars, visitors, service providers, deliveries , etc. AND 5 future adjacent developments.

Mary Ave Villas Project:

Net loss 19.5 ft (26%)
of public right-of-way
There will be a net removal of 89 parking spots on Both Sides of Mary Avenue .

Current
street
width
As it is, current parking spots fill up with Memorial Park Activities, Westport Development, DeAnza College Students. The loss of 89 parking spaces will create enormous hazards to the public.

As a community, we are requesting that this project be abandoned at this location.

This narrow strip of land is illogical for high density housing, and there are FIVE future developments that will force more cars looking for parking on Mary Ave:
(1) The remaining 55% of the big Westport high rise development at Mary Ave & Stevens Creek soon to be built.
(2) $85 million approved to add amenities (8 pickleball courts, all abilities playground) to Memorial Park without significant increase in parking capacity
(3) De Anza College's new Cultural Arts Building
( 4) De Anza's new EVENT CENTER
(5) De Anza's new Student Services Center.

Problems with na"owing trafti1c, buffer, bike, and pedestrian lanes in aIn area with diverse users Safety risks:

1. Increased risk of roadway accidents!

2. Less buffer between bike and traffic lane. Unsafe for families and especially kids

3. Parked car doors swing into narrow traffic lanes- not safe to exit vehicle

4. No bypass lane or space- stopped cars can clog traffic o Especially when trucks and vehicles are double parked or loading

5. Does it work for City public works trucks (~10 ft wide) and emergency vehicles? Even if the fire marshal 'signed off'?
Quality of life imipactt:

1. Narrower pedestrian areas make it difficult and congested for families and Homestead High School cross country runners that use this space daily

2. Narrower bike lanes increases the risk to cyclist

3. Worsened access to/from our homes
Please remember the uniqueness of Mary Ave and its diverse users.

This area coirmects 1ia111111Hie
1 s,, b:iike
1 rss school kids, commuters between:
• Memorial Park
• Senior Center
• Garden Gate Elementary School
• Don Burnett Bridge
• Dog Park
• Cupertino Public Works Service Center
• De Anza College
As our representative of the Cupertino City Council, we ask that you do the proper thing by us.

Protect Our Safety and Quality of Life! VOT E NO on thi s locat ion. It isn't the right place! Sincerely,
~~ lo\ 1~i2D 1-S
Sign Date Sign Date
Print Name Print Name
Dear Cupertino City Council, City Manager and PublicComments:

Subject: Concerns of Mary Ave Villas housing project
The project is estimated to remove 19.5 feet, or 26% of its current width/public-right-of way.

No community hearing was held for residents to voice their concerns about vacating public right of way to create the parcel from the road.

This is in the context of increased traffic and parking usage by adding 40 housing units + their cars, visitors, service providers, deliveries , etc. AND 5 future adjacent developments.

Mary Ave Villas Project:

Net loss 19.5 ft (26%)
of public right-of-way
There will be a net removal of 89 parking spots on Both Sides of Mary Avenue .

As a community, we are requesting that this project be abandoned at this location.

This narrow strip of land is illogical for high density housing, and there are FIVE future developments that will force more cars looking for parking on Mary Ave:
(1) The remaining 55% of the big Westport high rise development at Mary Ave & Stevens Creek soon to be built.
(2) $85 million approved to add amenities (8 pickleball courts, all abilities playground) to Memorial Park without significant increase in parking capacity
(3) De Anza College's new Cultural Arts Building
(4) De Anza's new EVENT CENTER
(5) De Anza's new Student Services Center.

Problems wiffl narrowing traffic, buffer, bike, and pedestrian la1nes in an area with diverse users Safety risks:

1. Increased risk of roadway accidents!

2. Less buffer between bike and traffic lane. Unsafe for families and especially kids

3. Parked car doors swing into narrow traffic lanes- not safe to exit vehicle

4. No bypass lane or space- stopped cars can clog traffic o Especially when trucks and vehicles are double parked or loading

5. Does it work for City public works trucks (~10 ft wide) and emergency vehicles? Even if the fire marshal 'signed off'?
Quality of llffe i,m~ct:

1. Narrower pedestrian areas make it difficult and congested for families and Homestead High School cross country runners that use this space daily

2. Narrower bike lanes increases the risk to cyclist

3. Worsened access to/from our homes
Please remember the uniqueness of Mary Ave and its diverse users.

This area connedts 1familliie1s,, bikers, school kids, commuters b-emeen:
• Memorial Park
• Senior Center
• Garden Gate Elementary School
• Don Burnett Bridge
• Dog Park
• Cupertino Public Works Service Center
• De Anza College
As our representative of the Cupertino City Council, we ask that you do the proper thing by us.

Protect Our Safety and Quality of Life! VOTE NO on this location. It isn't the right place! Sincerely,
0-- -
Date Sign
Print Name Print Name
Dear Cupertino City Council, City Manager and PublicComments:

Subject: Concerns of Mary Ave Villas housing project
The project is estimated to remove 19.5 feet, or 26% of its current width/public-right-of way.

No community hearing was held for residents to voice their concerns about vacating public right of way to create the arcel from the road.

This is in the context of increased traffic and parking usage by adding 40 housing units+ their cars, visitors, service providers, deliveries, etc. AND 5 future adjacent developments .

Mary Ave Villas Project :

Net Loss 19.5 ft (26%)
of public right-of-way
There will be a net removal of 89 parking spots on Both Sides of Mary Avenue.

As a community, we are requesting that this project be abandoned at this location.

Problems with narrowi1ng traffic, buffer, bike, and pedestrian llanes in a1n are,a with diverse users Safe risks:

1. Increased risk of roadway accidents!

2. Less buffer between bike and traffic lane. Unsafe for families and especially kids

3. Parked car doors swing into narrow traffic lanes- not safe to exit vehicle

4. No bypass lane or space- stopped cars can clog traffic oEspecially when trucks and vehicles are double parked or loading

5. Does it work for City public works trucks ( ~10 ft wide) and emergency vehicles? Even if the fire marshal 'signed off'?
Quality of life imi1.:tt:.

1. Narrower pedestrian areas make it difficult and congested for families and Homestead High School cross country runners that use this space daily

2. Narrower bike lanes increases the risk to cyclist

3. Worsened access to/from our homes
Please remember the uniqueness of Mary Ave and its diverse users.

This area oonoods tiamiillie,s,J bikers, school kids, commute,rs, betwe-e·n:
• Memorial Park
• Senior Center
• Garden Gate Elementary School
• Don Burnett Bridge
• Dog Park
• Cupertino Public Works Service Center
• De Anza College
As our representative of the Cupertino City Council, we ask that you do the proper thing by us.

Protect Our Safety and Quality of Life! VOTE NO on this location. It isn't the right place! Sincerely,
Sign
Print Name
Date
Print NameRanjanDesai
10335 Mary Ave
Cupertino CA 95014-1339
,Santa Cruz SPCA
Dear Cupertino City Council, City Manager and PublicComments:

Subject: Concerns of Mary Ave Villas housing project
The project is estimated to remove 19.5 feet, or 26% of its current width/public-right-of way.

No community hearing was held for residents to voice their concerns abo1Jt vacating public right of way to create the arcel from the road.

This is in the context of increased traffic and parking usage by adding 40 housing units + their cars, visitors, service providers, deliveries, etc. AND 5 future adjacent developments.

Mary Ave Villas Project:

Net loss 19.5 ft (26%)
of public right-of -way
There will be a net removal of 89 parking spots on Both Sides of Mary Avenue.

Current
As it is, current parking spots fill up with Memorial Park Activities, Westport Development, DeAnza College Students. The loss of 89 parking spaces will create enormous hazards to the public.

As a community, we are requesting that this project be abandoned at this location.

Problems widl narrowing traffic, buffer, bike,. and 'edestrian lanes in an area with diverse users Safety risks:

1. Increased risk of roadway accidents!

2. Less buffer between bike and traffic lane. Unsafe for families and especially kids

3. Parked car doors swing into narrow traffic lanes- not safe to exit vehicle

4. No bypass lane or space- stopped cars can clog traffic a Especially when trucks and vehicles are double parked or loading

5. Does it work for City public works trucks ( ~10 ft wide) and emergency vehicles? Even if the fire marshal 'signed off'?
Q'llJallity of life imP-act:

1. Narrower pedestrian areas make it difficult and congested for families and Homestead High School cross country runners that use this space daily

2. Narrower bike lanes increases the risk to cyclist

3. Worsened access to/from our homes
Please remember the uniqueness of Mary Ave and its diverse users.

Tlhii1s, aliea oonrneds families bikers, sch"Ooi kids, co111i11mu1ters between:
• Memorial Park
• Senior Center
• Garden Gate Elementary School
• Don Burnett Bridge
• Dog Park
• Cupertino Public Works Service Center
• De Anza College
As our representative of the Cupertino City Council, we ask that you do the proper thing by us.

Protect Our Safety and Quality of Life! VOTE NO on th is location . It isn't the right place! Sincerely ,
~--_--- -
Date Sign Date
Print Name Print Name
Dear Cupertino City Council, City Manager and PublicComments:

Subject: Concerns of Mary Ave Villas housing project
The project is estimated to remove 19.5 feet, or 26% of its current width/public-right-of way.

No community hearing was held for residents to voice their concerns about vacating ublic right of way to create the parcel from the road.

This is in the context of increased traffic and parking usage by adding 40 housing units+ their cars, visitors, service providers, deliveries, etc. AND 5 future adjacent developments .

Mary Ave Villas Project:

Net loss 19.5 ft (26%)
of public right-of-way
-
There will be a net removal of 89 parking spots on Both Sides of Mary Avenue .

As a community, we are requesting that this project be abandoned at this location.

This narrow strip of land is illogical for high density housing, and there are FIVE future developments that will force more cars looking for parking on Mary Ave:
(1) The remaining 55% of the big Westport high rise development at Mary Ave & Stevens Creek soon to be built.
(2) $85 million approved to add amenities (8 pickleball courts, all abilities playground) to Memorial Park without significant increase in parking capacity
(3) De Anza College's new Cultural Arts Building
(4) De Anza's new EVENT CENTER
(5) De Anza's new Student Services Center.

Problems with na1rrowing ttraffic, buffer, bike, and pedestrian l!anes in aIn area with diverse users Safety risks:

1. Increased risk of roadway accidents!

2. Less buffer between bike and traffic lane. Unsafe for families and especially kids

3. Parked car doors swing into narrow traffic lanes- not safe to exit vehicle

4. No bypass lane or space- stopped cars can clog traffic o Especially when trucks and vehicles are double parked or loading

5. Does it work for City public works trucks (~10 ft wide) and emergency vehicles? Even if the fire marshal 'signed off'?
QuaHtt of llirffe, i1m1pa:t:

1. Narrower pedestrian areas make it difficult and congested for families and Homestead High School cross country runners that use this space daily

2. Narrower bike lanes increases the risk to cyclist

3. Worsened access to/from our homes
Please remember the uniqueness of Mary Ave and its diverse users.

This airea conrrnects families, bikers, school kids, comm111itle'li'S lbetwee,ni:
• Memorial Park
• Senior Center
• Garden Gate Elementary School
• Don Burnett Bridge
• Dog Park
• Cupertino Public Works Service Center
• De Anza College
As our representative of the Cupertino City Council, we ask that you do the proper thing by us.

Protect Our Safety and Quality of Life! VOTE NO on this location. It isn't the right place! p L- f,~ 5 t., l) D /'I O ·, Ft 11 p R b Ct t 1-it I 5 * 1 , l,J I LL r--t D -r llJ () R I< ' C>
Sincerely,
Sign Date Sign Date
Print Name Print Name
Dear Cupertino City Council, City Manager and PublicComments:

Subject: Concerns of Mary Ave Villas housing project
The project is estimated to remove 19.5 feet, or 26% of its current width/public-right-of way.

No community hearing was held for residents to voice their concems about vacating ublic right of way to create the parcel from the road.

This is in the context of increased traffic and parking usage by adding 40 housing units + their cars, visitors , service providers, deliveries, etc. AND 5 future adjacent developments.

Mary Ave Villas Project:

Net loss 19.5 ft (26%)
of public right-of-way
There will be a net removal of 89 parking spots on Both Sides of Mary Avenue .

As a community, we are requesting that this project be abandoned at this location.

This narrow strip of land is illogical for high density housing, and there are FIVE future developments that will force more cars looking for parking on Mary Ave:
(1) The remaining 55% of the big Westport high rise development at Mary Ave & Stevens Creek soon to be built.
(2) $85 million approved to add amenities (8 pickleball courts, all abilities playground) to Memorial Park without significant increase in parking capacity
(3) De Anza College's new Cultural Arts Building
(4) De Anza's new EVENT CENTER
(5) De Anza's new Student Services Center.

Problems wi,th narrowing traffic, buffer, bike, and pedestrian lanes, in an area with diverse users Safety risks:

1. Increased risk of roadway accidents!

2. Less buffer between bike and traffic lane. Unsafe for families and especially kids

3. Parked car doors swing into narrow traffic lanes- not safe to exit vehicle

4. No bypass lane or space- stopped cars can clog traffic a Especially when trucks and vehicles are double parked or loading

5. Does it work for City public works trucks (~10 ft wide) and emergency vehicles? Even if the fire marshal 'signed off'?
Quality of lirlfe iim

1. Narrower pedestrian areas make it difficult and congested for families and Homestead High School cross country runners that use this space daily

2. Narrower bike lanes increases the risk to cyclist

3. Worsened access to/from our homes
Please remember the uniqueness of Mary Ave and its diverse users.

This area conrneds familiesf bikers, school kids, commuters betwee'fil1:
• Memorial Park
• Senior Center
• Garden Gate Elementary School
• Don Burnett Bridge
• Dog Park
• Cupertino Public Works Service Center
• De Anza College
As our representative of the Cupertino City Council , we ask that you do the proper thing by us.

Protect Our Safety and Quality of Life! VOTE NO on this location. It isn't the right place! Sincerely,
Tc,;V Gh 11. YD
Print Name Print Name
Dear Cupertino City Council, City Manager and PublicComments:

Subject: Concerns of Mary Ave Villas housing project
The project is estimated to remove 19.5 feet, or 26% of its current width/public-right -of way.

No community hearing was held for residents to voice their concerns about vacating public right of way to create the parcel from the road.

This is in the context of increased traffic and parking usage by adding 40 housing units + their cars, visitors, service providers, deliveries , etc. AND 5 future adjacent developments.

Mary Ave Villas Project:

Net loss 19.5 ft (26%)
of public right-of-way
There will be a net removal of 89 parking spots on Both Sides of Mary Avenue.

As a community, we are requesting that this project be abandoned at this location.

Probl'e,ms. with narrowing traffic, buffer, bike, and pedestrian lanes in an area with diverse users Safety risks:

1. Increased risk of roadway accidents!

2. Less buffer between bike and traffic lane. Unsafe for families and especially kids

3. Parked car doors swing into narrow traffic lanes- not safe to exit vehicle

4. No bypass lane or space- stopped cars can clog traffic o Especially when trucks and vehicles are double parked or loading

5. Does it work for City public works trucks (~10 ft wide) and emergency vehicles? Even if the fire marshal 'signed off'?
Q11Jallity of life impact:

1. Narrower pedestrian areas make it difficult and congested for families and Homestead High School cross country runners that use this space daily

2. Narrower bike lanes increases the risk to cyclist

3. Worsened access to/from our homes
Please remember the uniqueness of Mary Ave and its diverse users.

This arrea co,nnects families, bikers, school kids,, com1mute,rrs betwe-en:
• Memorial Park
• Senior Center
• Garden Gate Elementary School
• Don Burnett Bridge
• Dog Park
• Cupertino Public Works Service Center
• De Anza College
As our representative of the Cupertino City Council, we ask that you do the proper thing by us.

Protect Our Safety and Quality of Life! VOTE NO on this location. It isn't the right place! Sincerely,
/ -~10/20/~
Sign Date Sign Date
Li[)_
Print Name Print Name
1 Dear Cupertino City Council, City Manager and PublicComments:

Subject: Concerns of Mary Ave Villas housing project
The project is estimated to remove 19.5 feet, or 26% of its current width/public-right-of way.

No community hearing was held for residents to voice their concerns about vacating public right of way to create the parce l from the road .

This is in the context of increased traffic and parking usage by adding 40 housing units + their cars, visitors, service providers , deliveries, etc. AND 5 future adjacent developments .

Mary Ave Villas Project:

Net loss 19.5 ft (26%)
of public right-of-way
There will be a net removal of 89 parking spots on Both Sides of Mary Avenue.

Current
street
width
As it is, current parking spots fill up with Memorial Park Activities, Westport Development , DeAnza College Students. The loss of 89 parking spaces will create enormous hazards to the public.

As a community, we are requesting that this project be abandoned at this location.

Problems with narrowing traffi1c, buffer, bike, and pedestrian lanes in an area wi1th diverse users Safety risks:
1 . Increased risk of roadway accidents!

2. Less buffer between bike and traffic lane. Unsafe for families and especially kids

3. Parked car doors swing into narrow traffic lanes- not safe to exit vehicle

4. No bypass lane or space- stopped cars can clog traffic oEspecially when trucks and vehicles are double parked or loading

5. Does it work for City public works trucks (~10 ft wide) and emergency vehicles? Even if the fire marshal 'signed off'?
Quality of life impact:

1. Narrower pedestrian areas make it difficult and congested for families and Homestead High School cross country runners that use this space daily

2. Narrower bike lanes increases the risk to cyclist

3. Worsened access to/from our homes
Please remember the uniqueness of Mary Ave and its diverse users. ifhis area connects famiillfe,s,,. bik-e,rs. school kids, commuters between:
• Memorial Park
• Senior Center
• Garden Gate Elementary School
• Don Burnett Bridge
• Dog Park
• Cupertino Public Works Service Center
• De Anza College
As our representative of the Cupertino City Council, we ask that you do the proper thing by us.

Protect Our Safety and Quality of Life! VOTE NO on this location. It isn't the right place! Sincerely,
Signal Date
Print Name Print Name
Dear Cupertino City Council, City Manager and PublicComments:

Subject: Concerns of Mary Ave Villas housing project
The project is estimated to remove 19.5 feet, or 26% of its current width/public-right-of way.

No community hearing was held for residents to voice their concerns about vacating public right of way to create the parcel from the road.

This is in the context of increased traffic and parking usage by adding 40 housing units + their cars, visitors, service providers, deliveries , etc. AND 5 future adjacent developments.

Mary Ave Villas Project:

Net loss 19.5 ft (26%)
of public right-of-way
There will be a net removal of 89 parking spots on Both Sides of Mary Avenue.

Current
street
width
As it is, current parking spots fill up with Memorial Park Activities , Westport Development, DeAnza College Students. The loss of 89 parking spaces will create enormous hazards to the public.

As a community, we are requesting that this project be abandoned at this location.

From: Peggy Griffin
To: Public Comments
Cc: Gian Martire
Subject: 2025-07-15 City Council Meeting-ITEM11 Mary Ave ELI Housing Study Session Date: Sunday, July 13, 2025 5:10:13 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

PLEASE INCLUDE THIS EMAIL AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATION FOR THE ABOVE MEETING AGENDA ITEM.

Dear City Council and Staff,
Following questions/requests/comments regarding the Staff Report and Plan Set:

IMPORTANT – Power outages
Disabled people often have medical equipment that needs power either to run or to charge. I see solar panels but no reference to batteries for power outages. CPAP machines, hospital beds, elevators for wheelchair bound residents, charging for electric wheelchairs, lifts, etc.

These are essential for everyday living. Loss of power can be very serious.

Q1: Can/will this project provide battery backup so at minimum, the elevators work? Q2: Will the windows open in case power goes out on a very hot day? DOG PARK AREA – parking across from it
Currently, there are parking spaces on the east side of Mary Ave directly across from the dog park.

Q3: Why are these being removed?
The bike lane could continue along the edge of the sidewalk as it does right now. Please preserve what few spaces that can be preserved on Mary Ave.

CONFUSION
There is a major confusion on the Plan Set regarding Mary Ave street parking Q4: Are all the parking spaces on the east side of Mary Ave that are directly across from the ELI project being removed?

Page 3 of 16 ends

from this ELI project BUT…

Page 11 of 16 ends

remaining on the east side of Mary Ave.

Page 11 of 16 ends

remaining on the east side of Mary Ave.

Page 12 of 16 ends

Disappointment with the Staff Report
Key facts are left out regarding this project. Minor details/numbers don’t match the plan set.

It refers to a non-existent Figure 1. Not to mention the following:

The Staff Report just mentions diagonal parking spaces being removed and replaced with parallel parking. It does not mention that all the parallel street parking spaces will be dedicated to the project to provide a total of 55 spaces.

There is no discussion or even a mention that Mary Ave will be re-configured in a major way as a result of this project.

Since this is a BMR funded project, the units are typically available for 55 or 99 years but this is on public land, using public funds. I’ve heard these are “forever units” but I have not seen it in writing. This is a VERY important reason to support this project. Why is this not mentioned?

REQUEST1: For this Study Session, can staff provide “before” and “after” diagrams of Mary Ave showing all the changes they are proposing for this street?

REQUEST2: Please make sure as part of the lease agreement that the units are “forever units” and that the land will always remain publicly owned (not turned over to someone after so many years in exchange for developing this project)?

Thank you,
Peggy Griffin

Just for reference…
COMMENT #1 – Staff Report and Plan Set differ
Staff Report says 20 units per building
Plan Set says Building #1 has 19 units and Building #2 has 21 units COMMENT #2 – Staff Report and Plan Set differ
Staff Report says 18 units for disabled
Plan Set says 19 units for disabled
COMMENT #3 – Missing “Figure 1”
Staff Report says “..a Vicinity Map is provided as Figure 1” but there is no Figure 1 Plan Set has a Vicinity Map on Page 1 of 16 (lower left corner)

From: Mahesh Gurikar
To: City Council; Tina Kapoor; City Clerk; Benjamin Fu; Luke Connolly Subject: No new buildings on Mary Ave
Date: Thursday, July 10, 2025 2:40:55 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Council Members
I am a long time resident of Cupertino and I live just off Mary Ave.

The city should not permit any new construction on west side of Mary Ave which will encroach on the current Mary Ave and parking slots. Memorial park hosts many events throughout the year which attracts lot of local and out of town visitors. Reducing the parking will make the situation worse for visitors.

Please do not permit any new construction on Mary Ave.

Thank you,
Mahesh Gurikar
Cupertino resident
From: Trevor Lang
To: City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Public Comments Subject: Public Comments on Application No.: ASA-2025-006 (Mary Avenue Housing Proposal) Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 3:40:55 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Per "Notice of Public Hearing," regarding ASA-2025-006, please include my comments:

To Mr. Benjamin Fu, Director of Community Development, and to the Cupertino City Council:

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed development of 40 extremely low-income and below-market-rate housing units for developmentally delayed individuals on city-owned property along Mary Avenue. As a father of two young children and a resident living near the proposed site, I am deeply concerned about the severe negative impacts this project would have on our neighborhood, particularly regarding environmental health and safety for our community's most vulnerable residents.

Mary Avenue is already a heavily burdened street, struggling to accommodate a significant volume of traffic and activity. We currently contend with a busy city service center on Mary Ave that generates constant truck and large service vehicle traffic carrying construction and landscaping equipment throughout the day. This existing congestion is further exacerbated by the newly-built townhomes and condominiums across from the heavily trafficked Memorial Park. This summer alone, Memorial Park has hosted weekly large city-sponsored events drawing hundreds of people, further straining the street's capacity. Beyond vehicular traffic, Mary Avenue serves as a crucial bicycle thoroughfare, connecting communities north and south of Highway 280 via the Mary Avenue bridge. Additionally, the popularity of the dog park next to the proposed development site brings many pet owners and their animals to the area, adding to the pedestrian activity.

Adding another 40 housing units, regardless of their specific purpose, will undeniably further congest Mary Avenue, a small, two-lane residential street that is already acting as a funnel for a large and diverse volume. This increase in traffic poses significant safety risks for pedestrians, cyclists, and especially for the young children and developmentally delayed individuals who would reside at the proposed site and who may have unique vulnerabilities regarding street safety, spatial awareness, and response to traffic hazards.

Beyond traffic, my opposition is rooted in serious environmental and public health concerns directly related to the site's proximity to Highway 280:

Air Quality and Elevated Health Risks for Vulnerable Populations: The proposed site's adjacency to a major freeway (Highway 280) presents significant air quality concerns. California Air Resources Board (CARB) and California Department of Public Health (DPH) advisories strongly recommend a 500-foot buffer between freeways and sensitive land uses like residential housing due to elevated levels of particulate matter and other air pollutants. Exposure to these pollutants is associated with increased rates of asthma, respiratory issues, cardiovascular disease, and impaired lung development in children. For developmentally delayed individuals, who may already have compromised health or specific sensitivities, these risks are amplified. While certain CEQA exemptions aim to expedite affordable housing, these exemptions are not intended to bypass critical health and safety assessments, especially when the proposed residents are among the community's most vulnerable. The city has a moral and legal obligation to ensure the proposed housing provides a healthy living environment. I urge the city to provide a comprehensive Health Risk Assessment demonstrating how these significant health impacts will be mitigated to acceptable levels for all residents, and particularly for those with developmental disabilities who may experience heightened susceptibility.

Noise Pollution and Impact on Well-being: The constant, high-level noise from Highway 280 would significantly impact the quality of life for residents of this proposed development and surrounding neighbors. The California Building Code (Title 24, Section 1207) establishes an interior noise standard of 45 dBA Ldn/CNEL for habitable rooms in multi-unit residential structures. For developments in noise- critical areas like this one, an acoustical analysis is required to demonstrate compliance. For individuals with developmental delays, excessive noise can be particularly disruptive, affecting sleep, concentration, and potentially leading to sensory overload and behavioral challenges. The city must ensure that the proposed building design incorporates robust noise attenuation measures to meet, and ideally exceed, these standards, recognizing the specific needs of the future occupants.

Cumulative Environmental Impacts and the Spirit of CEQA: While the project may claim a CEQA exemption due to its unit count, the spirit of CEQA is to identify and mitigate significant environmental impacts. The cumulative effect of this new development, combined with the existing city service center, dense housing, heavily trafficked park, and the proximity to a major freeway, will create unacceptable burdens on Mary Avenue's environment. Exemptions are not meant to allow projects that create significant health and safety hazards, especially for populations requiring specialized care and consideration. The city has a responsibility to conduct a thorough review that goes beyond a mere checklist, focusing on the real-world impacts on this specific, vulnerable population and the already strained local infrastructure.

I urge the city to reconsider this proposal. The existing environmental burdens and safety concerns on Mary Avenue make it an unsuitable location for a high-density residential development, particularly one intended for a vulnerable population. The city has a responsibility to ensure public safety and to prioritize the well-being of its most vulnerable citizens. I request that the city explore alternative locations that can more appropriately accommodate such a development without compromising the safety, health, and quality of life for our community.

Sincerely,
Trevor
Cupertino Resident and Property Owner
From: Connie Cunningham
To: City Clerk; City Council
Cc: Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: 2025-07-15 CC Agenda Item 11, Mary Avenue project Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 5:07:45 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
2025-07-15 CC Agenda Item 11, Study Session, Mary Avenue project Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Councilmembers and City Manager:

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

I am pleased to support the application to develop new ELI (Extremely Low Income ) and BMR housing units for Developmentally Disabled Individuals (IDD) on City-owned property along Mary Avenue.
7KLVLVPXFKQHHGHGKRXVLQJWKDWKDVEHHQRQWKH&RXQFLO·V:RUN3URJUDPIRU many years. I remember 2019 when former Mayor Scharf made it a priority and I was new to the Housing Commission. I have attended the Housing Commission and City Council meetings for this project.

Many families and individuals will be helped with this housing. It will also facilitate our goal to keep individuals from falling into homelessness. Many IDD individuals live with aging parents, therefore, these apartments will help them and will, also, help our community.

It is good to see that the issue of parking is discussed and can be resolved with careful thought.

I urge you to give comments to staff that will move this project forward.

Sincerely,
Connie L Cunningham
From: Santosh Rao
To: City Council; City Attorney"s Office; Tina Kapoor; Benjamin Fu; Luke Connolly; Chad Mosley; Gian Martire; City Clerk
Subject: Request to Review Mary Ave Villas in Light of Article 34 Applicability Due to City Financial Participation Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 12:17:16 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below in written communications for the 07/15/25 city council meeting agenda item on Mary Ave Villas.
[Writing on behalf of myself only, as a Cupertino resident] To:

Mayor Liang Chao
Cupertino City Council
CC:

City Clerk
City Attorney
Interim City Manager Tina Kapoor
Director Fu, Community Development
Director Mosley, Public Works
Deputy Director Connolly, Planning
City Planner Martiere
Subject: Request to Review Mary Ave Villas in Light of Article 34 Applicability Due to City Financial Participation
Date: July 16, 2025
Dear Mayor Chao and Honorable Councilmembers,
I am writing to respectfully but urgently request that the City Council reconsider its recent vote approving the proposed Mary Ave Villas low-income housing project, and to place this item back on the agenda at the next regular City Council meeting.

I believe there are serious legal and constitutional issues that deserve fuller consideration before this project proceeds further — in particular, compliance with Article 34 of the California Constitution, which requires voter approval for certain types of publicly supported and funded low-income housing.

Article 34 Requirements
To ensure transparency and shared understanding, here is the verbatim text of Article XXXIV, Section 1:
"No low rent housing project shall hereafter be developed, constructed, or acquired in any manner by any state public body, as defined by law, whether for itself or for another, until a majority of the qualified electors of the city, town or county, as the case may be, in which it is proposed to be developed, constructed, or acquired, voting upon such issue, approve such project by majority vote."
This language makes clear that if the City is involved in the development “in any manner”—whether through financing, leasing
, or other material participation—then voter
approval is constitutionally required.

Case Law That Guides This Interpretation
The California courts have consistently affirmed that public financing or subsidy—even where the City does not directly own or construct the housing—can still qualify as “development” under Article 34. Relevant cases include:

Anderson v. City of Santa Barbara (1974): City’s financial involvement in a nonprofit-led project triggered Article 34.

City of Santa Clara v. Perry (1971): Land leases and financial support by the city constituted development requiring a vote.

Griffin v. County of Marin (1984): Below-market public financing qualified as “development.”
San Mateo County v. Boss (1971): Differentiated projects with minimal city involvement, clarifying that passive land leasing without public financing does not trigger Article 34.

Given this precedent, it would be prudent for the City to conduct a detailed review of whether Mary Ave Villas involves public financial support, land arrangements, or other forms of development activity that would fall under the scope of Article 34.

I urge the Mayor and council to:

1. Agendaize a reconsideration of the Mary Ave Villas approval at your next council meeting.

2. Review and evaluate whether the City’s involvement in the project rises to the level of “development” under Article 34 given the funding by the city to the project.

3. If so, consider placing the matter on the November 2026 ballot so that Cupertino voters have the opportunity to weigh in. Alternatively rescind all funding offered to Mary Ave Villas and any other similar project that would similarly trigger Article 34.

4. In the meantime, pause further steps that would advance the project until this constitutional question is properly addressed.

This is not about opposing affordable housing, but rather ensuring that constitutional due process is followed and that the community is involved, as Article 34 intends.

Thank you for your continued service to our community. I trust that the City Council will give this matter the thoughtful but urgent and careful consideration it deserves.

I also urge the city attorney to carefully review the above case law precedent and give your legal recommendation to council so as to not put the city in a place where it is exposed to risk of non-compliance to Article 34 of the California constitution.

Sincerely,
San Rao (Writing on behalf of myself only, as a Cupertino resident) From: Lina Meng
To: City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Public Comments Subject: Public Comments on Application No.: ASA-2025-006 (Mary Avenue Housing Proposal) Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 9:43:07 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
My name is Lina, a concerned resident of Cupertino. I attended the council meeting in person tonight but had to rush home to relieve my babysitter and did not have a chance to speak during special study Item 11 tonight regarding the proposed Mary Ave Villas project.

As a mother of two young children, our lives are deeply intertwined with Mary Avenue. We frequent the bike lanes, spend countless hours at Memorial Park—our city's main park for city-wide events—and our dog loves the dog park, all accessible via this very street. I write today, pleading for the safety and well-being of our community. I respectfully urge you to reconsider and vote against the proposed affordable housing development on Mary Avenue.

While I wholeheartedly support our city's need for more housing, the chosen location for this project presents critical challenges that cannot be overlooked.

First, the sheer density and its impact on traffic and community flow are alarming. Mary Avenue is already a heavily trafficked artery, burdened by 269 new residential units from Westport and Arroyo Village, with 40 more units from Mary Avenue Villas and another Westport facility in the pipeline. This street is at its absolute capacity, especially during school hours for Garden Gate Elementary. The project plans themselves confirm this, showing the complex will cut into Mary Avenue, impacting existing bike lanes and removing street parking to accommodate the new buildings and their on-site parking. Adding more units here, coupled with the parking lot's entrance directly across from Glenbrook Apartments, will create an unbearable parking nightmare and gridlock, pushing our community past its breaking point.

The recent July 4th celebration, with cars parked all the way down Mary Avenue to this proposed site, clearly illustrates how quickly our existing capacity is overwhelmed. This increases the risk of motor vehicle collisions with pedestrians.

Second, this project directly compromises the safety of our children and residents. The plans indicate building into our precious bike lanes and existing parking spots. I often hold my breath as my kids navigate these lanes. What was once a relatively safe passage for them to get to school or Memorial Park, where hundreds gather for city events, will become a gauntlet of increased traffic and reduced safe space, directly jeopardizing our most vulnerable.

We need housing, yes, but not at the expense of our community's safety, health, and quality of life. I urge the City Council to explore alternative uses for this city-owned land, or to consider other, more suitable locations within Cupertino that do not compromise the well-being of our existing neighborhoods.

Thank you for listening to my concerns, and the concerns of many other families in Cupertino.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liability attaches upon action, not approval.

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

This has already happened.

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

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

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

The parcel has not been vacated.

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

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

Processing an application on an active ROW parcel is unlawful.

Again: liability attaches upon action, not approval.

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

This action is tainted by Brown Act violations.

It must be reversed and reset.

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

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

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

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

4. Then submission to HCD for review.

5. Then NOA issuance.

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

This order is not optional.

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

Once again: liability attaches upon action, not approval.

5. Reset Now
The violations cannot be patched over.

They cannot be band-aided.

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

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

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

Respectfully,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino taxpayer, voter, resident) CC -0-202
#
6WXG\6HVVLRQRQWKH
0DU\$YHQXH
3URMHFW
Written Communications

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you,
Mahesh Gurikar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your leadership and consideration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Building affording housing is extremely difficult and
needed.

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

Please approve and authorize the Mary Avenue Villas
immediately to facilitate construction beginning as soon as possible. This will help keep our affordable compliant with the requirement by HCD.

We don’t want a Builder’s
Remedy because of this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Lina
Garden Gate Resident

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please finalize the city approvals today.

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

Support housing elements,
Agenda item 12

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

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

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

Please finalize the city approvals today.

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

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

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

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

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

1. Exempt Surplus Resolution:

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

2. Written Findings and Supporting Evidence:

Any written findings prepared to support the exempt surplus designation.

Staff analysis or supporting documentation referenced in those findings.

3. Public Notice and HCD Notification:

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

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

4. Timeline and Record of Actions:

Dates of adoption, public notice, and HCD notification.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Cease all work on Mary Ave Villas immediately.

2. Nullify all community hearings conducted to date.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proceeding without this step invalidates all subsequent actions.

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

Cupertino did it in reverse:

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

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

3. CITY BYPASSED THE SURPLUS

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

This was not done.

Required SLA steps (state law):

1. Declare property surplus or exempt with written findings

2. Notify HCD within 30 days of such action

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

4. Provide a 60-day response window

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

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

All of these steps were skipped.

Instead, the City moved directly to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore:

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

6. COMMUNITY HEARINGS HELD TO

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

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

All meetings conducted thus far must be nullified.

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

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

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

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

1. Halt all work on Mary Ave Villas immediately.

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

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

1. Hold hearing to vacate public land

2. Form parcel legally

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

4. Notify HCD under GC §54222.5

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

6. Allow the full 60-day response window

7. Enter the mandatory 90-day negotiation period

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

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

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

Conclusion
The Mary Ave Villas process is legally defective.

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

The project is invalid as currently presented.

The community hearings are invalid.

The City must restart the process from the beginning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards, Kirsten

Kirsten Squarcia
Interim Deputy City Manager/City Clerk
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408) 777-3225

From: Ed Agrawal <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 10:27 PM
To: Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Cupertino City Council Teleconference Meeting - November 18, 2025 (Meeting Begins at 6:45 p.m.) Confirmation

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

Thank you for the update

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

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

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

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

Hello

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

Are rest of agenda
<Screenshot 2025-11-18 at 8.44.00ௗPM.png>

items still going to be discussed today or meeting will be adjourned?

Thanks
Aditya Agrawal

On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 6:33ௗPM City Clerks Office <[email protected] >
wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Add to:

Google Calendar

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

Join by SIP
Webinar ID: 852 1800 8557
H.323: 144.195.19.161 (US West)
206.247.11.121 (US East)
115.114.131.7 (India Mumbai)
115.114.115.7 (India Hyderabad)
159.124.15.191 (Amsterdam Netherlands)
159.124.47.249 (Germany)
159.124.104.213 (Australia Sydney)
159.124.74.212 (Australia Melbourne)
159.124.168.213 (Canada Toronto)
159.124.196.25 (Canada Vancouver)
Webinar ID: 852 1800 8557
[email protected]
Or, join by H.323

Zoom.com
55 Almaden Blvd
San Jose, CA 95113
+1.888.799.9666
©2025 Zoom Communications, Inc.

To unsubscribe, [Click here]

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

Dear Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, and Councilmembers:

Please see the attached as well as the statement below.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Council member should vote No on this Project

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

b. conduct a further traffic assessment to determine the impact to traffic and parking on this street due to incoming parking changes at De Anza College

c. engage the fire department to assess the impact of fire safety services as a result of the site restrictions, the narrower road, and increased traffic/parking on this street

Additionally, in the interim, the City must initiate the procedural requirements for vacationing the right of way and public land, and disposition of public land so that these requirements are met and open for public comment before the Project is approved.

Sincerely,
Jordan C. Behmke, Esq.

Attorney at Law
Mosaic Law
6203 San Ignacio Avenue
Suite 110
San Jose, CA 95119
Phone and Text: (408) 987-6399
Fax: 408-987-6397
email: [email protected]
website: www.mosaiclawusa.com

Se Habla Español
Nous Parlons Français

Please follow up all voicemails with an email or text message.

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

General Disclaimer:

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

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

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

Page 1 of 4 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 2 of 4 ends

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

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

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

Page 3 of 4 ends

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

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

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

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

Finally, out of an abundance of caution and to avoid the appearance of impropriety and self-dealing, council members who are part of the Rotary Association, 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.

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

Page 4 of 4 ends

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

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

Sincerely,
Jordan Behmke, Esq.

Principal Attorney
Enc.

Exhibit A Subsurface Investigation Report
Exhibit B- Memorandum
Exhibit C- Transportation Assessment
cc. Clients
"

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

Page 1 ends

www.intertek.com/building/environmental

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

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

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

1.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Redevelopment of the subject property will include grading of the berm in front of the Caltrans Highway 85 soundwall along with removal of trees and vegetation. The subject property will include two buildings, each consisting of two 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

Page 2 ends

www.intertek.com/building/environmental

2.0 SOIL INVESTIGATION

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

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

All field work was performed under the supervision of a State of California Professional Geologist. A detailed description of the scope of work and methodology used is presented in the sections below. The scope of work, including the number and location of samples and the analyses performed, was in general 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

Page 3 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 4 ends

www.intertek.com/building/environmental

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

3.1 SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The soil samples collected from each boring (a total of 12 soil samples) were submitted for analyses for the following:
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

Page 5 ends

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

Based on this information, Arsenic is not considered a contaminant of concern at the subject property. The detected arsenic concentrations were above the ESL-CW, so a Soil Management Plan (SMP) and a Site Specific Health and Safety Plan (SSHSP) should be prepared prior to conducting any soil excavation as part of redevelopment of the subject property.
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

Page 6 ends

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
܆ȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȮȱ¢ǱȱտȱŝǱŖŖȱǯǯȱȱտ ŞǱŖŖȱǯǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱտ ŚǱřŖȱǯǯȱȱȱȱȱտȱŜǱŖŖȱǯǯ ܆ȱȱȱȱȱǱ տ ŞǱŖŖȱǯǯȱȱտ şǱřŖȱǯǯȱȱȱȱտȱřǱřŖȱǯǯȱȱտȱŚǱřŖȱǯǯ ܆¢ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȃȱ Ȅȱ
܆ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
܆ȱȱȱȱȱ

ȱśȱ

ȱ ȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱśȱ¢ȱ ȱǯ
܆ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ܆ȱȱȱȱ¡
܆ȱȱȱȱǻȱŗŚǯŖŞǯŖŚŖǼ
܆¢ȱȱȱȱȱ܆ȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱ܆ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ܆Slurry seal entire excavation and 2ft beyond on all sides of ȱ¡ȱȱǯ ܆ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱşśƖȱȱ ܆ȱȱȱȱȱ ¢ȱȱȱȱǰȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱǯ ȱȬ ȱ ȱǯ
܆ȱȱȱřȂȱȱȱȱȱȱ ǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ǯ ܆ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱŚŞȱȱȱǯȱȱ¢ȱȱ ȱȱ¢ȱȱ¢ǯ Ȭȱȱ¢ȱȱ ȱȱȱśȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱ ǰȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ ȱ ¢ǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱǰȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱřȱ ǯȱȬȱȱȱȱȱȇȱȱǰȱȱǰȱȱǰȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ¢ǯ
܆ȱȱ
܆
܆
ȱ

Ǳ
ϭͿ ȱȱȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱǰȱǻŚŖŞǼȱŘŖśȬŜřŘŜȱȱǻŚŖŞǼȱŝŝŝȬřřśŚǰȱȱȱȱȱȱŚŞȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȬȬ¢ȱȱȱȱȱ ǯȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱǰȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱ
ǯ
ϮͿ ȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱǯ
ϯͿ ȱȱȱ¢ȱ¢ȱǰȱǻŚŖŞǼȱŘşşȬŘśŖŗǰȱ ȱŘŚȱȱȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱȱ ¢ȱȱ ȱǯ ϰͿ ȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱǰȱǰȱȱǰȱȱ ȱȱ Ȭȱȱȱȱǯȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱ ǰȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ¢ȱǻŚŖŞȬŝŝŝȬřřśŚǼǯȱȱȱȱȱȱǯ ϱͿ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱǰȱǰ ǰȱ ǰȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱǰȱ ¢ǰȱ ¢ǰȱ ǰȱǰȱǰȱȱȬȬ¢ǰȱȱȱȱ ǰȱȱ ȱŗŚȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱǰȱȱȱ ȱ¡ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱǯȱ¢ȱȱ ¢ ȱ¢ȱ ȱȱ ǯ
ϲͿ ȱȱȱ¡ȱ ȱ¢ȱ ǰȱ
ȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
ǰȱȱ¢ȱǰȱȱ
ǰȱǰȱǰȱǰȱ¢ǰȱǰȱȱȱȱǻǰȱȃ ȄǼȱȱȱȱ¢
¢ǰ ǰȱǰȱ¡ǰȱȱȱǻȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱǼǰȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱ ¢ ǰȱȱȱ¢ǰȱȱ¢ȱȱȱǰȱȱǰȱǰȱȱȱȱȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ ¢ ȱȂȱȱȱȱȱȦȱȱȱȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱǰȱȱǰȱ¢ǰȱȱ ǯȱȱǰȱȱȦȱ ȱȱȱ¡ǰȱȱ¢ȱȱȱǰ ǰȱ ȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱ¢ȱȱȱ ȱǻ ȱȱȱȱ¢Ǽȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȂȱȱȱȱȱȦȱȱȱȱǰȱ¡ȱȱȱ¡ ¢ȱȱ ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱ
Ȃȱǰȱ¢ȱȱȱǯ
ϳͿ ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ¢Ȃȱȱǰȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ¢ȱȱ¢ȱ ǯ
ϴͿ ȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ¢ȱȱřŖȱ¢ȱ ȱȱ ȱǯ ϵͿ ȱȂȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱǞŘǯŖȱȱ ǲǞŚǯŖȱȱǲȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱ ǯȱ
ȱ
ȱ ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȂȱ ȱȱȱǰȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱȱ ¢ǯ

ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȬ¢ǯ
ϭϬͿ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ¢ȱȱȱȱǯ
ϭϭͿ ȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ ȱȱŗŗǯřŘȱȱȱȱȱȱȈȱȱȈȱǻȱȱȱ Ǽǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱ¡ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱŝǱŖŖȱǯǯȱ şǱřŖ ȱȱŘǱŖŖȱǯǯȱȱŚǱŖŖȱǯǯȱȱȱ ȱ ¢ȱǱ ǯ ¢ȱ ¢ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱśŖŖ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱȱǻ¡ȱ ȱ ȱȱǼ
ǯ ȱǰȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ ǯ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ¢ǯȱȈȱȈȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱǯ Ǳ
ϭͿ ȱ ȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱ ǰ ǻŚŖŞǼ ŘŖśȬŜřŘŜ ǻŚŖŞǼ ŝŝŝȬřřśŚǰ ȱȱȱȱȱŚŞȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ ǰ ȱȬȬ¢ ȱ ǯȱȱȱȱ ȱǰȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ ȱ ȱȱ
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

;
)
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 4 &.

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

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

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

&
*
$

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

;
)
56
.

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
.

67&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 ) 82
82
1
) 9
*
()/+

56;2
)

&2
&

(

'

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 ) 82
82
1
) 9
.*
()

&
*
$6;2
)

&2
&

(

'

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 ) 82
82
1
) 9
&.*
()

&
*
$6;2
)

&2
&

(

'

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 ) 82
82
1
) 9
0 3

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

&2
&

(

'

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 ) 82
82
1
) 9
0 3

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

&2
&

(

'

46/+
5&
*
!&# 7
46*&8 ,
-$-$# 9:
-$&-$# &2

"=* >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

"=* >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 - 82 )
)
,

) 3 + - 20
+
+ ) ,
) ,

1* !90
A".
+
+

) 9

! + 81C +!/

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

+

0

, )
) , 9
+
)
)
8
! 2
3382
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 ) 52
52
1
) 6
*
()/+

5692
)

&2
&

(

'

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 - 52 )
)
,

) 3 + - 20
+
+ ) ,
) ,

1* !60

, )
) , 6
+
)
)
5
! 2
3352
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:
?

0 6 7(

*+

+

&
#89,
!&

:%;%(

8<=
788%59:
& 4*

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

&

&*+

*&
&

,
$
%,-
& .
/ /
23

2 4

((

6 7(

*+

+

&
89,
!&

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

0 6 7(

*+

89,
!&

:%;%(

8<=
788%59:
?

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

Appendix B
Intersection Level of Service Calculations

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing AM
1: Campus Dr/Mary Ave & Stevens Creek Blvd 1 - Ex AM
10/15/2025 Synchro 12 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 98 732 107 88 722 94 40 3 9 99 10 181 Future Volume (veh/h) 98 732 107 88 722 94 40 3 9 99 10 181 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 109 813 119 98 802 104 44 3 10 110 11 201 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 141 1207 176 128 1193 154 129 143 478 143 787 793 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.27 0.27 0.07 0.26 0.26 0.04 0.38 0.38 0.08 0.42 0.42 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 4502 655 1781 4578 590 3456 379 1264 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 109 614 318 98 595 311 44 0 13 110 11 201 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1752 1781 1702 1764 1728 0 1643 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.3 14.3 14.5 4.8 14.0 14.1 1.1 0.0 0.4 5.4 0.3 6.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.3 14.3 14.5 4.8 14.0 14.1 1.1 0.0 0.4 5.4 0.3 6.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.37 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.77 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 141 913 470 128 887 460 129 0 621 143 787 793 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.67 0.68 0.77 0.67 0.68 0.34 0.00 0.02 0.77 0.01 0.25 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 510 1929 993 490 1891 980 368 0 621 510 787 793 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 40.2 29.1 29.2 40.6 29.5 29.6 41.8 0.0 17.4 40.2 15.0 12.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.6 0.9 1.7 9.2 0.9 1.7 1.6 0.0 0.1 8.5 0.0 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.6 5.8 6.2 2.4 5.7 6.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 2.7 0.1 2.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 48.8 30.0 30.9 49.8 30.4 31.3 43.4 0.0 17.4 48.7 15.1 13.5 LnGrp LOS DCCDCCD BDBB
Approach Vol, veh/h 1041 1004 57 322
Approach Delay, s/veh 32.2 32.6 37.5 25.6
Approach LOS C C D C
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.6 38.2 10.9 28.4 7.8 42.0 11.6 27.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.5 21.5 24.5 50.5 9.5 37.5 25.5 49.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.4 2.4 6.8 16.5 3.1 8.5 7.3 16.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 0.0 0.2 7.4 0.0 0.7 0.2 7.1 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 31.6
HCM 7th LOS C
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing PM
1: Campus Dr/Mary Ave & Stevens Creek Blvd 2 - Ex PM
10/15/2025 Synchro 12 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 136 1377 33 43 863 101 84 5 30 71 8 69 Future Volume (veh/h) 136 1377 33 43 863 101 84 5 30 71 8 69 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 151 1530 37 48 959 112 93 6 33 79 9 77 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 188 2210 53 67 1684 196 165 72 393 103 555 637 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.43 0.43 0.04 0.36 0.36 0.05 0.29 0.29 0.06 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5128 124 1781 4637 540 3456 250 1373 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 151 1016 551 48 703 368 93 0 39 79 9 77 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1848 1781 1702 1773 1728 0 1623 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.0 23.3 23.3 2.6 15.9 16.0 2.5 0.0 1.7 4.2 0.3 2.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.0 23.3 23.3 2.6 15.9 16.0 2.5 0.0 1.7 4.2 0.3 2.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.30 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 188 1467 797 67 1236 644 165 0 465 103 555 637 V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.69 0.69 0.72 0.57 0.57 0.56 0.00 0.08 0.77 0.02 0.12 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 510 2426 1317 250 1930 1005 413 0 465 324 555 637 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 42.0 22.2 22.2 45.8 24.6 24.6 44.8 0.0 25.1 44.7 23.9 18.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 7.8 0.6 1.1 13.3 0.4 0.8 3.0 0.0 0.4 11.3 0.1 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.9 9.0 9.9 1.4 6.3 6.7 1.1 0.0 0.7 2.2 0.2 1.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 49.8 22.8 23.3 59.1 25.0 25.4 47.8 0.0 25.4 56.0 24.0 18.5 LnGrp LOS D C C E C C D C E C B
Approach Vol, veh/h 1718 1119 132 165
Approach Delay, s/veh 25.3 26.6 41.2 36.7
Approach LOS C C D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 32.0 8.1 45.9 9.1 33.0 14.6 39.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 17.5 22.5 13.5 68.5 11.5 28.5 27.5 54.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.2 3.7 4.6 25.3 4.5 4.9 10.0 18.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 0.1 0.0 16.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 9.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 27.0
HCM 7th LOS C
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing+Project AM 1: Campus Dr/Mary Ave & Stevens Creek Blvd 3 - Ex+P AM
10/15/2025 Synchro 12 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 100 732 107 88 722 95 40 3 9 103 10 186 Future Volume (veh/h) 100 732 107 88 722 95 40 3 9 103 10 186 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 111 813 119 98 802 106 44 3 10 114 11 207 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 144 1206 175 131 1191 156 129 142 473 147 785 793 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.27 0.27 0.07 0.26 0.26 0.04 0.37 0.37 0.08 0.42 0.42 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 4502 655 1781 4567 600 3456 379 1264 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 111 614 318 98 597 311 44 0 13 114 11 207 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1752 1781 1702 1762 1728 0 1643 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.5 14.4 14.5 4.8 14.0 14.2 1.1 0.0 0.4 5.6 0.3 6.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.5 14.4 14.5 4.8 14.0 14.2 1.1 0.0 0.4 5.6 0.3 6.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.37 1.00 0.34 1.00 0.77 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 144 912 469 131 888 460 129 0 615 147 785 793 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.67 0.68 0.75 0.67 0.68 0.34 0.00 0.02 0.77 0.01 0.26 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 509 1925 991 489 1886 977 368 0 615 509 785 793 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 40.3 29.2 29.3 40.6 29.6 29.6 41.9 0.0 17.6 40.2 15.1 12.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.5 0.9 1.7 8.2 0.9 1.8 1.6 0.0 0.1 8.4 0.0 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.7 5.8 6.2 2.4 5.7 6.1 0.5 0.0 0.2 2.8 0.1 2.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 48.7 30.1 31.0 48.8 30.5 31.4 43.5 0.0 17.7 48.5 15.2 13.6 LnGrp LOS DCCDCCD BDBB
Approach Vol, veh/h 1043 1006 57 332
Approach Delay, s/veh 32.3 32.5 37.6 25.6
Approach LOS C C D C
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.9 37.9 11.1 28.4 7.8 42.0 11.7 27.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.5 21.5 24.5 50.5 9.5 37.5 25.5 49.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.6 2.4 6.8 16.5 3.1 8.7 7.5 16.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 0.0 0.2 7.4 0.0 0.7 0.2 7.1 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 31.6
HCM 7th LOS C
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing PM
1: Campus Dr/Mary Ave & Stevens Creek Blvd 4 - Ex+P PM
10/15/2025 Synchro 12 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 141 1377 33 43 863 105 84 5 30 73 8 73 Future Volume (veh/h) 141 1377 33 43 863 105 84 5 30 73 8 73 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 157 1530 37 48 959 117 93 6 33 81 9 81 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 194 2210 53 67 1658 202 165 71 391 105 555 643 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.43 0.43 0.04 0.36 0.36 0.05 0.29 0.29 0.06 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5128 124 1781 4612 561 3456 250 1373 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 157 1016 551 48 707 369 93 0 39 81 9 81 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1848 1781 1702 1769 1728 0 1623 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.3 23.3 23.3 2.6 16.1 16.2 2.5 0.0 1.7 4.3 0.3 3.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.3 23.3 23.3 2.6 16.1 16.2 2.5 0.0 1.7 4.3 0.3 3.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.32 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 194 1467 797 67 1224 636 165 0 463 105 555 643 V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.69 0.69 0.72 0.58 0.58 0.56 0.00 0.08 0.77 0.02 0.13 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 510 2426 1317 250 1930 1003 413 0 463 324 555 643 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 41.8 22.2 22.2 45.8 24.9 24.9 44.8 0.0 25.2 44.6 23.9 17.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 7.7 0.6 1.1 13.3 0.4 0.8 3.0 0.0 0.4 11.1 0.1 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.0 9.0 9.9 1.4 6.4 6.8 1.1 0.0 0.7 2.2 0.2 1.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 49.6 22.8 23.3 59.1 25.3 25.7 47.8 0.0 25.5 55.7 24.0 18.3 LnGrp LOS D C C E C C D C E C B
Approach Vol, veh/h 1724 1124 132 171
Approach Delay, s/veh 25.4 26.9 41.2 36.3
Approach LOS C C D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.2 31.9 8.1 45.9 9.1 33.0 15.0 39.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 17.5 22.5 13.5 68.5 11.5 28.5 27.5 54.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.3 3.7 4.6 25.3 4.5 5.1 10.3 18.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 0.1 0.0 16.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 9.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 27.2
HCM 7th LOS C

Appendix C
Parking Study

Memorandum

Date: September 8, 2025

To: Mr. Andy Lief, Charities Housing

From: Gary K. Black
Nivedha Baskarapandian

Subject: Parking Study and Trip Generation Estima te for the Proposed Affordable Housing Project on Mary Avenue in Cupertino, California

Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has completed a parking study and trip generation estimate for the proposed affordable housing project on Mary Avenue in Cupertino, California. The project proposes affordable housing between the CA-85 soundwall and Mary Avenue and would provide 19 units for the developmentally disabled and 21 affordable units. Between Lubec Street and Stevens Creek Boulevard, 171 diagonal parking spaces are provided along the west side, and 70 parallel parking spaces are provided on the east side of Mary Avenue.

First Parking Counts
Parking counts were completed to determine the current maximum occupied parking spaces on Mary Avenue between Lubec Street and Stevens Creek Boulevard Vehicle parking counts were conducted along Mary Avenue on the following dates and times to determine the parking demand of the existing parking spaces (see Attachment 1). These times were chosen based on predicted usage of the existing parking spaces from the neighboring park and other surrounding uses.
x Saturday April 12, 2025, from 12:00-1:00 PM
x Tuesday April 15, 2025, from 12:00-1: 00 AM, 2:00-3:00 PM, and 7:00-8:00 PM x Thursday April 17, 2025, from 12:00-1: 00 AM, 2:00-3:00 PM, and 7:00-8:00 PM The peak parking demand was found to be 24 spaces on the west side of Mary Avenue and six spaces on the east side of Mary Avenue between 2:00-3:00 PM on Thursday April 17, for a total of 30 occupied spaces.

Additional Parking Counts
The first set of parking counts did not denote where the cars were parked along the street.

Therefore, additional counts were conducted. Counts were counted along Mary Avenue from Lubec Street and Stevens Creek Boulevard on Thursday April 24, 2025, from 2:00-3:00 PM which was determined to be the time most parking spaces were occupied (see Attachment 1). Figure 1 shows the summary of the additional parking counts.

Lubec St Lubec St
55 22
22 33
1717
85 Mary AveMary Ave
Mary AveMary Ave
Stevens Creek BlvdStevens Creek Blvd
Parkwood DrParkwood Dr
Glen PlGlen Pl
Parkwood DrParkwood Dr
88 LEGEND
= Additional Observed Area
= Occupied Parking
= Number of Occupied Parking SpacesXXXX
Figure 1
Mary Avenue Parking Summary
Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Parking Study and Trip Generation Estimate September 8, 2025

Page | 3
The peak parking demand based on the additional count was found to be 26 spaces on the west side of Mary Avenue and 11 spaces on the east side of Mary Avenue, for a total of 37 spaces occupied on Mary Avenue between Lubec Street and Stevens Creek Boulevard.

Trip Generation Estimates
Hexagon prepared trip estimates for the proposed project using trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition, 2025 (see Table 1), Senior Adult Housing - Multifamily (Land Use 252) and Affordable Housing (Land Use 223).

Developmentally disabled housing is not a category in the ITE manual. Senior Housing will perhaps over-estimate the number of trips, but best represents housing for people that are not going to work or school on a daily basis. Affordable Housing includes multifamily housing that is rented at below market rate. Eligibility to live in affordable housing can be a function of limited household income, resident age, or special needs. These ITE land use categories best represent the units proposed.

The developmentally disabled units would be for residents who are unable to operate vehicles, and the affordable housing units would be for low-income residents.

Based on the trip generation rates, the project would generate 164 new daily trips, with 12 new trips (three inbound and nine outbound) during both the AM peak hour and 15 new trips (nine inbound and six outbound) during the PM peak hour. This small number of trips would not cause any noticeable change to traffic operations on Mary Avenue or other streets in the area.

Table 1 Trip Generation Estimates

Conclusion
The results of the parking study and trip generation estimates are summarized below. x On Mary Avenue between Lubec Street and Stevens Creek Boulevard, at most 37 vehicles were parked which occurred during a weekday from 2:00 -3:00 PM. x The project would generate 164 new daily trips with 12 new trips during the AM peak hour and 15 new trips during the PM peak hour. This small number of trips would not cause any noticeable change to traffic operations on Mary Avenue or other streets in the area.

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. 4.87 102 0.36 2 6 8 0.46 6 4 10 Total Project Trips 164 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
Attachment 1
Parking Counts

AUTO CENSUS
Date: Traffic Monitoring and Analysis
Counters:

Location:

Weather: Fair
Date Time West East Total
12-Apr 12-1pm 8 0 8
15-Apr 12-1am 1 0 1
15-Apr 2-3pm 21 8 29
15-Apr 7-8pm 1 0 1
0 17-Apr 12-1am 1 0 1
17-Apr 2-3pm 24 6 30
17-Apr 7-8pm 3 1 4
Mary Avenue
Parking Count- 25NB03(Cupertino)
4/12-4/17/25
Jo
445 Lily Ann Way
Mary Ave. San Jose, CA 95123

From: Wangchen Long
To: Public Comments
Subject: Mary Avenue Villas
Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 4:34:25 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Cupertino City Council,
We are long time Cupertino residents, since 2001 to be exact.

I moved to the bay area in 1993, and have worked and
raised my kids here in Cupertino.

Currently we heard there's discussion on the Mary
Avenue Villas, and we are quite concern whether there will be enough considerations for all sectors of the community, specifically for the special needs community.

Cupertino's school district accommodates for the special needs children. Do we accommodate this population when they grow up?
We strongly feel that a complete society would need to be inclusive, and thus we would like to ask you for your support to ensure there are housing options and possibilities for this population with special needs.

Best Regards,
Wangchen Long
From: Neil Park-McClintick
To: City Council
Cc: Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk
Subject: Support for Item 12
Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 4:11:36 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Cupertino City Council and Staff,
Please support the Mary avenue project without further delay by providing positive direction forward in today's study session.

This project represents the culmination of more than 15 years of housing advocacy in Cupertino for those with intellectual or developmental disabilities, including those diagnosed with autism, Down Syndrome, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, intellectual disability, and other conditions. This has been part of the city's work program now for 5 years.

The current financial climate for building homes is exceptionally challenging and unpredictable—never mind the additional challenges associated with building affordable homes for those with specific needs. The City should not introduce any additional process that could jeopardize this projects' viability.

In terms of process, there has already been three public outreach and engagement opportunities starting in July of last year, and two years of ongoing public engagement through the housing element process, for which Mary Avenue was included as a site.

From: Kirsten Squarcia
To: City Clerk
Subject: FW: Slides for Dec 2,2025 City Council - Agenda Item 12 Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 10:47:03 PM
Attachments: City Council meeting Dec 2 2025.pptx
Kirsten Squarcia
Interim Deputy City Manager/City Clerk
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408) 777-3225
From: Lina <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 4:03 PM
To: Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]>
Cc: Roberta Murai <[email protected]>; Jordan Clancy Behmke <[email protected]> Subject: Slides for Dec 2,2025 City Council - Agenda Item 12 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.

Hi Kirsten,
Please see the following public comments for Agenda Item #12 tonight that I'd like to present.

Can you also pair me with Roberta Murai for public comments on agenda item #12? We will make a note on the blue cards too to speak sequentially.

Our neighborhood attorney, Jordan Behmke will be speaking remotely. Is there any way to group together with him as well? Or will we get separated because of the difference in attendance format?
Lastly, would neighbors be able to transfer their in-person speaking time to Mr. Behmke, should time run short and comments shrink to 2 or 1 min? Thank you,
Mary Avenue Villas Housing
Project:

Don’t take away our public space
City Council Meeting Study Session (Item 12)
Cupertino residents and citizens
Garden Gate Coalition
Arroyo Village / Westport
(APN: 326-27-053)

1. This Project Will Guarantee Accidents
• This project doesn’t fit safely
• It ignores setback requirements Æ unsafe!
Fire hazards!
• Builds into the road
• Will narrow traffic and bike lanes
• Creates safety issues
• Removes 89 parking spots in a bustling
area that is still growing
• Lacks short term parking spaces
• Cars may stall or double park

2. Stop the Process, Be Transparent: The
City Didn't Ask Us First.
•Skipped steps in the process: missed vacation,
SLA steps
•Parcel is not suitable to be transferred or sold.
• Its validity is questionable.
•Community was never given a chance to weigh in
on the decision to give away a piece of our public
land before you started designing a building on it.

3. Ethical Concerns & Need for Impartiality:

Request Immediate Investigation of Conflicts of
Interest.
• Rotary Club affiliates within City leadership
• Pressured and rushed direction to City staff
• Compromised public trust
• Take a step back, follow the state laws,
and bring this decision back to the public in
an honest, upfront way.

Give us a voice before you give away our
streets.

From: Santosh Rao
To: City Council; City Clerk; Tina Kapoor; Benjamin Fu; Chad Mosley; Luke Connolly; Gian Martire Subject: Request to Halt Negotiations or Disposition until SLA Process Is Completed in Accordance with 2025 HCD Precedent
Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 11:47:17 PM
Attachments: ontario-sla-nov-061825.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.
[Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident, taxpayer, voter] Dear City Clerk,
Please include this letter in written communications for agenda item 12 for 12/2/25 council meeting and for the next upcoming council meeting.

Subject: Request to Halt Negotiations or Disposition until SLA Process Is Completed in Accordance with 2025 HCD Precedent
Dear Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, Council Members, Attorney Andrews, CAO, CM Kapoor,
Please note the precedent in the below and attached HCD notice of violation to the city of Ontario dated June 18 2025. The precedent directly applies to the actions in progress currently in the city of Cupertino attempting to move forward with appointing a negotiator. take steps towards disposition and engaging in exclusive negotiations with a pre-determined buyer without first completing the SLA process and required notices and noticing period.

I write to respectfully urge the Council to pause any efforts to approve a negotiator, enter into negotiation, or take any steps toward disposition or sale of public land until the city has fully satisfied the notice, findings, and waitingဩperiod requirements of the Surplus Land Act (SLA), including providing required documentation to HCD and observing the legally mandated notice/negotiation windows.

Background — Relevant Legal Obligation
Under the SLA (Gov. Code §§ௗ54220–54234), a local agency must first declare property “surplus” (not needed for public use), adopt a resolution to that effect, and then issue a formal Notice of Availability (NOA) to: (1) HCD; (2) any local public entities within the jurisdiction; and (3) developers on HCD’s list of those interested in surplus public land for affordable housing. California Housing Dept.
+2Banning, CA+2 After that NOA is issued, the city must allow a minimum statutory waiting period (60 days for responses) and, if any eligible entities respond, a mandated 90ဩday goodဩfaith negotiation period before disposing of the land. Banning, CA
+2California Housing Dept.+2
Furthermore, under recent amendments to the SLA (2024), if a local agency receives a Notice of Violation (NOV) from HCD for noncompliance, the agency is required to hold an open public meeting to evaluate the NOV — and the agency may not proceed with any disposal until that process is complete. Allen Matkins - Allen Matkins+2California Housing Dept.+2 Precedent — HCD’s 2025 Finding Against City of Ontario
In a September 22, 2025 Follow-Up Notice of Violation addressed to Ontario’s City Manager, HCD found that Ontario had violated the SLA by disposing of a 2.368ဩacre parcel (APNௗ0218ဩ111ဩ12ဩ0000) without first declaring the land surplus and without issuing the required notices. California Housing Dept.
+1
HCD concluded that the disposition and the fact that the City had “exclusively negotiated with the Developer” prior to complying with SLA requirements—constituted a clear SLA violation. California Housing Dept.+1 HCD also invoked applicable statutory penalties under Gov. Code §ௗ54230.5 for the firstဨtime violation (30ௗ% of the disposition value) and warned that future violations would trigger even higher penalties (50ௗ% of the disposition value). California Housing Dept.+1
The Ontario case demonstrates that HCD is actively enforcing SLA compliance including penalizing cities that attempt to circumvent the required surplusဩland process by negotiating in advance with a favored developer, or disposing of land without the required surplus declaration and notice.

Risk of Noncompliance and Fiscal/Legal Consequences
Given the recent Ontario finding:

Proceeding with negotiations, designating a "negotiator," or otherwise taking substantive steps toward disposition before completing the full SLA process would risk very likely violation of state law.

Noncompliance may expose the City to substantial financial penalties (per SLA enforcement provisions) and reputational risk.

Such action may also frustrate the primary public-purpose objective of the SLA: to give first priority to affordable-housing proponents or other public entities, rather than to private developers selected in advance.

Pause and Complete SLA Process Before Any Further Action In light of the above, I respectfully request that the Council adopt a temporary moratorium on any of the following steps until the SLAဩrequired process has been fully observed and documented, and until any required findings and waiting periods have been completed:

Appointment of a negotiator or negotiation team
Entering into or approving formal negotiations with any private developer Any pre-disposition activity regarding sale or lease of the land (including drafting term sheets, letters of intent, exclusivity agreements, or similar) Any vote toward approval of disposition, transfer, or sale of the land At minimum, the city should first:

1. Declare the parcel “surplus” or exempt surplus after written findings with evidence via a formal Council resolution;

2. Issue a NOA to HCD, local public entities, and certified developers per SLA requirements;

3. Observe the 60ဩday notice period, await any responses, and if responses are received allow full 90ဩday good-faith negotiations;

4. Submit documentation of the notice and negotiation process, and any recorded restrictions or covenants, to HCD for review per SLA guidelines. California Housing Dept.+2Banning, CA+2
Conclusion
The state’s recent 2025 decision in the Ontario case makes clear that SLA compliance is no longer optional, and that state enforcement can and will penalize cities that attempt to circumvent the process.

Given the potential legal and financial risks, and the public’s interest in transparent, fair, and affordableဩhousing–oriented land disposition, I strongly urge the Council to suspend any further steps toward negotiation or sale until full compliance with SLA has been completed and documented.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Respectfully,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident, taxpayer, voter) SLA0001613
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
651 Bannon Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
June 18, 2025
Scott Ochoa, City Manager
City of Ontario
303 E. B Street
Ontario, CA 91764
SENT VIA EMAIL TO: [email protected]
Dear Scott Ochoa:

RE: City of Ontario’s Surplus Land Disp osition of a 2.368-Acre Portion of the Property Located at the Southeast Corner of East Riverside Drive and Ontario Avenue (APN 0218-111-12-0000) – Notice of Violation The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) hereby issues this Notice of Violation, pursuant to Government Code sections 54230.5, 65585, and 65585.1, to the City of Ontario (City) regarding the City’s disposition of a 2.368-acre portion of the property located at the southeast corner of East Riverside Drive and Ontario Avenue in the City of Ontario, with Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 0218-111- 12-0000 (Property).

Pursuant to Government Code section 65585.1, subdivision (a), HCD must notify a local agency if it finds that the local agency is in violation of the Surplus Land Act (SLA), and HCD may notify the California Office of the Attorney General that a local agency is in violation of the SLA.

The City has 60 days from receipt of this letter to cure or correct the violations noted herein.
1 If the City does not cure or correct all such violations by August 18, 2025, a penalty will be assessed to the City equal to 30 percent of the disposition value.2 In the event of a sale, the disposition value is the greater of the final sale price of the land or the fair market value of the surplus land at the time of the sale. 3 HCD may also pursue
additional remedies authorized under Government Code sections 65585 and 65585.1.

1 Gov. Code, § 54230.5, subd. (a)(1).
2 Ibid.
3 Gov. Code, § 54230.5, subd. (a)(2).

Scott Ochoa, City Manager

Page 2 ends

Cupertino City CouncilFebruary 3, 2026

Cupertino City Council
February 3, 2026