Cupertino City Council
February 3, 2026

CC 2-03-2026
#8
Mary Ave Villas Project
Supplemental Report

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308
CUPERTINO.GOV

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

SUPPLEMENTAL
Meeting: February 3, 2026

Agenda Item #8

Subject
Consideration of (i) an Architectural and Site Approval permit, (ii) adoption of a Notice of Exempt Surplus Land Act Declaration, and (iii) a Disposition and Development Agreement by and between the City of Cupertino, a municipal corporation and Mary Avenue, L.P., a California limited partnership in connection with the development of a 40 -unit below market rate development (Mary Avenue Villas Project) on a Housing Element Site, of which 19 units are dedicated to the Intellectually Developmentally Disabled a nd 21 units reserved for extremely low, very low, and low income residents of the community, located on public property. (Application No(s): ASA-2025-006; Applicant(s): Charities Housing; Location: (APN: 326-27-053, Mary Avenue Right-of-Way).

Recommended Action

1. Find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

2. Adopt Resolution No. 26-___ approving Architectural & Site Approval Permit (ASA-2025- 006) (Attachment A);

3. Adopt Resolution No. 26-___ declaring the Property Exempt Surplus Land pursuant to the Surplus Land Act (Attachment B)

4. Adopt Resolution No. 26 -___ approving the Disposition and Development Agreement (Attachment C)

Staff’s responses to questions received from councilmember are shown in italics.

Q1: Mary Ave project would be below-market-rate for only 55 years. But the city donated the land and some funding. What happens after 55 years? Who profits from the full market value?

Staff response: The Mary Ave project will be restricted for a term of 99 years per the latest negotiations. A 99 year restriction is also known as “as good as forever” since this typically outlasts the lifetime of the building. After 99 years, the City would have the ability to either re-acquire the property at a significantly

discounted rate (for the current fair -market-value of the capital improvements, excluding the value of the land), negotiate the extension of affordability covenants with an additional contribution, typically to rehabilitate units, in order to ensure contin ued affordability of the project, or simply walk -away from the land and project.

Q2: What happens to the tenants in 55 years? Say, someone moved in when they are 20 years old now. In 55 years, when they are 75 years old, they would be kicked out since the units would become market rate?
Staff response: Upon affordability covenants nearing expiration after 99 years, the City would have the opportunity to either re-acquire the project or negotiate for extensions as mentioned above. Should the City not exercise either option, the developer w ould be required to do required noticing to the tenant in 3 year, 12 month, and 6 month notifications as deemed necessary by state law under Government Code Section 65863.10. At 12 months prior to restriction expiration, tenants would also be given the opt ion to reapply to the City of Cupertino BMR program to be rehoused with priority replacement due to the latest BMR Anti-Displacement policy passed by City Council (Resolution 25-0051). Should they remain in those units until final expiration, they would not be immediately evicted, but they would be presented with rental rates comparable to market-rate units. The City continues to explore more tenant protections policies and anti - displacement programs for low-income households through the Housing Commission to be brought to the City Council for consideration.

Q3 I heard that some cities have been able to have forever BMR housing. Why is it not possible for Mary Ave project?

Staff response: The City of Cupertino, and other cities, have been able to approve 99 year restrictions (also known as “as good as forever” BMR housing) through inclusionary units within market-rate developments as the rent collected on the market-rate units essentially subsidize the affordable units in the same project.

Furthermore, because they do not use public subsidies, they do not have to consider requirements regarding repayment of loans as part of being awarded tax credit financing. Thus, it is more challenging for the Mary Ave project, which is a 100% affordable project. However, the City was able to achieve restricting the units for a term of 99 years during the latest negotiations.

Q4: What exactly would be reconfiguration of the Mary Avenue? Please provide clear images for before and after.

Staff response: The Plan Set provided with the Staff Report (Attachemnt F) showed the existing conditions as well as the proposed layout of the Mary Avenue Right-of-Way. Supplemental Attachment G shows sheets C000.0 (Existing Conditions and Demolition Plan ), C001.0 (Preliminary Site Plan) , and C005.0 (Sections), which had been included in the Plan Set that had been provided with the Staff Report.

Q5: What exactly are the existing parking spots and what exactly are the new ones? Please provide clear images for before and after.

Staff response: Please refer to the answer for Q4.

Q6: What exactly would be vacated from the Public Right of Ways? There was no map included in this agenda and no map of the Public Right of Ways on to be vacated the 1/27 Planning Commission agenda. It's unclear what exactly is the dimension of the Public Right of Way to be vacated.

Staff response: Sheet C000.0 shows the property line of the parcel to be vacated (Supplemental Attachment G). Further, Supplemental Attachment H (Parcel Map) shows a clean dimensioned parcel without the proposed development and/or existing conditions overlaying onto the sheet.

Q7: Can the City approve this agenda item without vacating the Public Right of Ways first?

Staff response: Yes. The City may approve the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) before the public right-of-way is vacated. The public right -of-way must be vacated before the title to the property is actually transferred to the developer, but that transfer does n ot happen when the DDA is approved. The transfer occurs later, at the project’s “closing,” which takes place after the developer has secured financing and met other requirements. The DDA specifically requires that the right-of-way be vacated before closing can occur. Closing is currently estimated to occur around January 2027.

Q8: The agenda packet does not include the traffic analysis. Could you include those? Staff response: Please refer to Attachment I, Transportation Study for Proposed Affordable Housing Project on Mary Avenue in Cupertino, California, dated November 13, 2025.

Q9: The agenda packet does not include fiscal impact analysis. Could you include those? Staff response: A fiscal impact analysis is only required i f converting office and/or commercial uses to residential or residential mixed-use (General Plan Strategy LU-8.2.1.) As this is not currently an office or commercial development, a fiscal impact analysis was not required.

Q10: What's the criteria for applicants to get a unit in the BMR and the IDD units? Who decides them? Can we prioritize long-time Cupertino residents so that people who grew up in Cupertino get the priority, for example?

Staff response: The Distribution and Development Agreement requires that the City’s BMR waitlist for the BMR units be used, allowing the City to centralize the application process while also using the City’s current priorities for lease -up, including Cuper tino displaced rental tenants, Cupertino residents, and Cupertino workers getting higher priority for placement. In order to use this method however, the lease up priorities of Mary Ave must match the priorities of the City BMR waitlist to prevent the need to keep a waitlist just for the Mary Ave. project, so we will not be able to specifically prioritize “people who grew up in Cupertino”. For the IDD units, a special referral will be needed through non -profit organizations such as Housing Choices who work with individuals with disabilities. Once referred the City’s BMR administrator would conduct a separate lottery utilizing the City’s preference system of Cupertino displaced rental tenants, Cupertino residents, and Cupertino workers. In short, we can implement a Cupertino preference policy, and it would need to match the preference policy of the BMR waitlist.

Q11. How many IDD units at the Mary Avenue Project will be reserved for Intellectually or Developmentally Disabled (IDD) residents?

The Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) provides that 19 of the units will be reserved for IDD residents.

Q12. Can the City adopt the DDA before the Planning Commission finds that vacation of the right-of-way and the disposition of City property are consistent with the General Plan?

Yes, the City may adopt the DDA before the Planning Commission finds that the vacation of the right -of- way and the disposition of City property are consistent with the General Plan because the DDA is contingent upon the Planning Commission finding that bot h the vacation of the right -of-way and the disposition of City property are consistent with the General Plan. In other words, that determination is required to occur prior to the closing of the transaction. By adopting the DDA now, the City and the Developer are not closing the transaction. Rather the DDA provides a roadmap with numerous items that must occur before the deal is finalized. The actual closing, including recording the vacation of the right-of- way or transferring the City property, cannot occu r unless the Planning Commission finds that the vacation of the right-of-way and the disposition of the City property are consistent with the general plan .

We will bring those items to the Planning Commission later this month once the DDA is executed.

Q13. Shouldn’t the term of the affordability covenants be 99 years?

Yes. We will be recommending Council adopt the DDA with direction to extend the term of the affordability covenants to 99 years, and to extend the date when the City may re-acquire the project to 99 years to track the date the affordability covenants expire.

Attachments Provided with Original Staff Report:

A. Draft Resolution for ASA-2024-016
B. Draft Resolution Declaring Exempt Surplus Land
C. Draft Resolution Approving the Disposition and Development Agreement D. CEQA Exemption Memorandum
E. Public Comment
F. Project Plan Set
Attachments Provided with Supplemental 1:

G. Plan Sheets C000.0 (Existing Conditions and Demolition Plan), C001.0 (Preliminary Site Plan), and C005.0 (Sections).

H. Parcel Map
E
S
E
S
HIGHWAY 85

MARY AVEGLENBROOK APARTMENTS

MARY AVE DOG PARK
APN 326-27-037
APN 326-27-030APN 326-27-053

38.0'7.0'PSE TOREMAIN7.0'PSE TOREMAIN

56.0'
N73°14'26"E30.04'N73°14'26"E28.22'R=1014.00'∆=6°59'49"L=123.83' R=3000.00'∆=5°15'35"L=275.40'
N16°25'54"W647.26'
N16°25'54"W586.54'CALTRANS ROW

EXISTING STRIPINGTO BE SANDBLASTED

EXISTING CONCRETESIDEWALK TO BEDEMOLISHEDEXISTING CONCRETESIDEWALK TO BEDEMOLISHED SIDEWALK TO REMAINEXISTING CONCRETETO REMAINEXISTING CONCRETESIDEWALK TO REMAINEXISTING ASPHALTTO REMAIN EXISTING ASPHALTTO REMAINEXISTING CURB STOP TOBE DEMOLISHED (TYP.)EXISTING CURB STOP TOBE DEMOLISHED (TYP.)EXISTING CURB STOP TOBE DEMOLISHED (TYP.)EXISTING CURBAND GUTTER TOBE DEMOLISHEDEXISTING CURBAND GUTTER TOBE DEMOLISHEDEXISTING ASPHALTTO BE DEMOLISHEDEXISTING FIBER OPTICBOX TO REMAINEXISTING FENCETO REMAINEXISTING ELEC. LINESTO BE RELOCATEDEXISTING SOUNDWALLTO REMAINEXISTING ELEC.MANHOLE TO REMAIN APPROXIMATE LOCATION OFEXISTING 12" SAN JOSEWATER COMPANY WATER LINE

EXISTING SLIDINGGATE TO REMAIN
EXISTING 10" VCPSANITARY SEWERLINE TO REMAIN
EXISTING 10" VCPSANITARY SEWERLINE TO REMAINEXISTING AT&T FIBEROPTIC LINES TO REMAIN(LOCATION APPROXIMATE)EXISTING CITY OFCUPERTINO FIBER OPTICLINES TO BE RELOCATED EXISTING STREET LIGHTTO REMAIN (TYP.)EXISTING SANITARYSEWER MANHOLETO REMAIN

EXISTING CURB ANDGUTTER TO REMAIN

EXISTING SANITARY SEWERLINE TO BE DEMOLISHED

EXISTING WATER LINETO BE DEMOLISHED
HIGHWAY 85
MARY AVEAPN 326-27-053ARROYO VILLAGEAPN 326-27-042

38.0'

56.0'
N73°34'06"E17.84'
N73°32'03"E28.37'R=514.00'∆=10°12'26"L=91.57'

CALTRANS ROW

EXISTING CURBTO REMAINEXISTING CURBSTOP TO REMAINEXISTING CONCRETETO REMAINEXISTING CONCRETESIDEWALK TO BEDEMOLISHEDEXISTING CONCRETESIDEWALK TO BEDEMOLISHED

EXISTING CONCRETESIDEWALK TO REMAINEXISTING CONCRETESIDEWALK TO REMAINEXISTING ASPHALTTO REMAINEXISTING ASPHALTTO REMAIN EXISTING CURB STOP TOBE DEMOLISHED (TYP.)EXISTING CURB STOP TOBE DEMOLISHED (TYP.)EXISTING CURB STOP TOBE DEMOLISHED (TYP.)EXISTING CURB STOP TOEXISTING CURBAND GUTTER TOBE DEMOLISHEDEXISTING CURB ANDGUTTER TO BE DEMOLISHEDEXISTING PARKING STALLTO BE DEMOLISHED (TYP.)EXISTING SIGN TOBE DEMOLISHEDEXISTING WALL TOBE DEMOLISHEDEXISTING UTILITY STRUCTURETO BE DEMOLISHED

EXISTING STRIPINGTO REMAIN

EXISTING MAINTENANCEBLDG TO REMAINEXISTING SLIDINGGATE TO REMAIN EXISTING STREET LIGHTTO REMAIN (TYP.)EXISTING FIREHYDRANT TOREMAIN N73°38'11"E14.23'
EXISTING STRIPINGTO BE SANDBLASTEDAPPROXIMATE LOCATION OFEXISTING 12" SAN JOSEWATER COMPANY WATER LINEEXISTING CURB ANDGUTTER TO REMAIN Ko Architects, Inc.900 High Street, Suite 1Palo Alto, CA 94301p: 650.853.1908

MARY AVENUEAFFORDABLEHOUSINGCITY OFCUPERTINOMARY AVENUECUPERTINO, CA

PRELIMINARY,NOT FORCONSTRUCTION
NORTHEXISTINGCONDITIONS &DEMO PLANC000.0

1.CONTRACTOR TO CLEAR THE SITE WITHIN THE DEMOLITION LIMITS, THE CONTRACTORSHALL DEMOLISH AND REMOVE FROM THE SITE ALL CURB, SIDEWALK, PAVEMENT,PLANTERS AND TREE ROOTS. CONTRACTOR TO REMOVE ALL UTILITIES ANDAPPURTENANCES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.2.ALL MATERIAL REMOVED FROM THIS SITE SHALL BE DISPOSED OF BY THE CONTRACTORIN A LEGAL MANNER.3.REMOVAL OF LANDSCAPING SHALL INCLUDE ROOTS AND ORGANIC MATERIAL.4.DUST CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE USED DURING DEMOLITION. CONTRACTOR SHALLPROVIDE A DUST CONTROL AND MITIGATION MEASURES PLAN.5.CONTRACTOR TO CAP ALL EXISTING WET UTILITIES AT LIMIT OF DEMOLITION UNLESSOTHERWISE NOTED. SEWER LATERALS SHALL BE CAPPED AT THE MAIN. WATERLATERALS SHALL BE REMOVED BACK TO EXISTING METER BOXES.6.CONTRACTOR SHALL ADJUST THE GRADE OF ANY EXISTING UTILITIES TO REMAIN.7.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO THE DEMOLITION PLAN, TREE PROTECTION PLANAND ARBORIST REPORT FOR THE DEMOLITION/PRESERVATION OF EXISTING TREES. ALLTREES NOT SPECIFICALLY SHOWN TO BE PRESERVED OR RELOCATED WITHIN THELIMITS OF DEMOLITION SHALL BE REMOVED AS PART OF THIS CONTRACT. TREEPROTECTION FENCING SHALL BE INSTALLED AS NECESSARY PRIOR TO ANYDEMOLITION.8.REFER TO THE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS OF EXISTINGSTRUCTURES, ETC., LOCATED WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED,ALL EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS MARKED AS "REMOVE" INCLUDING UTILITIES, BUILDINGS,STRUCTURES, SLABS, CONCRETE, ASPHALT, DEBRIS PILES, SIGNS, AND ALLAPPURTENANCES ARE TO BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE BY THE CONTRACTOR ANDPROPERLY DISPOSED OF IN A LEGAL MANNER AS PART OF THIS CONTRACT. SOMEITEMS TO BE REMOVED MAY NOT BE DEPICTED ON THE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY, SUCHAS UNDERGROUND UTILITIES THAT TIE ABOVEGROUND UTILITY STRUCTURES MARKEDAS "REMOVE". REFER TO THE DEMOLITION PLAN FOR THE LIMITS OF REMOVAL OF EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO VISIT THE SITEAND DETERMINE THE FULL EXTENT OF THE ITEMS TO BE REMOVED. CONTRACTORSHALL VERIFY THAT ALL IMPROVEMENTS BEING REMOVED ARE FULLY CONTAINEDWITHIN THE LIMITS OF DEMOLITION, AND THAT THEY DO NOT SERVE ANY FUNCTION FORIMPROVEMENTS BEYOND LIMITS OF DEMOLITION. IF ANY ITEMS ARE IN QUESTION, THECONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE OWNER PRIOR TO REMOVAL OF SAID ITEMS.9.THE LOCATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES IS APPROXIMATE AND MAY OR MAY NOT BEINCLUSIVE FOR THIS SITE. ANY UTILITIES ENCOUNTERED DURING DEMOLITION THATARE NOT DELINEATED HEREON SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THEOWNER AND PROJECT ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY.10.EXISTING FENCING MAY BE USED AS CONSTRUCTION FENCING ONLY IF APPROVED BYTHE ENGINEER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT A SPECIFIC LAYOUT FORCONSIDERATION BY THE ENGINEER. IF APPROVED, CONTRACTOR SHALL BERESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONDITION OF ANY SUCH FENCE SEGMENT POSTCONSTRUCTION.11.RELOCATION OR REMOVAL OF ELECTRICAL AND GAS UTILITIES SHALL BE COORDINATEDWITH PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY.12.DEMOLITION OF SITE ELEMENTS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, BUILDINGS, LIGHTPOLES, AND BOLLARDS SHALL INCLUDE THE REMOVAL, AND BACKFILL, OF ASSOCIATEDFOOTINGS AND FOUNDATIONS.13.LIMIT OF SITE DEMOLITION SHALL NOT EXTEND OUTSIDE THE EXISTING R/W ANDPROPERTY LIMITS.14.APPLICANT/CONTRACTOR SHALL APPLY FOR AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR STREETTREE REMOVAL. PRIOR TO REMOVAL, THE OWNER AND/OR THE CONTRACTOR SHALLPOST A TREE REMOVAL NOTICE FOR A MINIMUM TWO WEEKS PRIOR TO REMOVAL.DOCUMENT AND PROVIDE PROOF OF NOTICING TO THE CITY, SUCH AS TIME STAMPEDPHOTOS OF THE NOTICE POSTED TO THE TREES AT THE BEGINNING AND THE END OFTWO WEEK NOTICING PERIOD.

LEGENDPROPERTY LINE/ CALTRANS ROWCENTERLINEEASEMENTAPPROXIMATE CIVIL LIMIT OF WORKEXISTING ASPHALT TO REMAINEXISTING ASPHALT TO BE DEMOLISHED

SEE BELOW FOR CONTINUATION

SEE ABOVE FOR CONTINUATION
BASIS OF BEARING:THE BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED UPONTHE CENTERLINE OF MARY AVENUE, BEINGN89°11'55"W PER PARCEL MAP RECORDED IN BOOK838 OF MAPS, PAGES 24 & 25, IN THE OFFICE OF THECOUNTY RECORDER.BENCHMARK:NORTHING: 1943739EASTING: 6110141ELEVATION: 326.97BM1071 SCVWD BRASS DISK (R180); ON TOP OF THESOUTHERLY CURB OF STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARDAT APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET WESTERLY OFPENINSULA/BUBB ROAD AND NEAR RAILROADCROSSING POLE #22118. ALSO, 2.5 FEET NORTH OFTHE RAILROAD CROSSING LIGHTS, AND 20 FEET WESTFROM THE CENTER OF THE TRACKS. CITY OFCUPERTINO.SURVEY DATE: AUGUST 02, 2024 SURVEY NOTESDEMOLITION NOTES15. ANY INACTIVE SANITARY SEWER LINES DISCOVERED DURINGDEMOLITION OR CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE ABANDONED, AND IFNEEDED, REMOVED.

E
S
STOP

NOPARKING
ONLY
HIGHWAY 85

MARY AVE

GLENBROOK APARTMENTS

MARY AVE DOG PARK
APN 326-27-037
APN 326-27-030APN 326-27-053EX7.0'PUE

CALTRANS ROW
PLCL 56.0'38.1'

8.5'(TYP.)

18.0'(TYP.)3.0'

4.0'
ROW

8.1'SIDEWALK4.0'

4.0'SIDEWALKEX 7.0'PUE

7.1'10.3'

4.1'39.9'
BLDG 2 ELEVATOR

18.9'6.6'

4.5'

5.0'8.0'11.0'11.0'2.0'5.0'7.0'

24.0'

STORMWATERBIORETENTIONPLANTERABOVE GROUNDTRANSFORMER PAD

13.0'6.2'

END SIDEWALK
BUILDING 2BBUILDING 2A

7.4'

7.9'26.0'12.0'5.0'

12.0'8.0'

PROPOSED HEAVY DUTYCONCRETE TRASHENCLOSURE PADPROPOSED ASPHALTPAVEMENT FOR PARKINGSTALLS AND DRIVE AISLES

8.7'

TRANSITION ZONE TO EXISTING CONDITIONSEX STREET PARKING ZONE TOREMAIN TO THE NORTH

50.0'8.0'

8.0'50.0'50' x 8' SITE TRIANGLEPER CITY OF CUPERTINOSTANDARD DETAIL 7-650' x 8' SITE TRIANGLEPER CITY OF CUPERTINOSTANDARD DETAIL 7-6

LOADING ZONE

8.0'22.0'

STOPNOPARKING
ONLY
HIGHWAY 85

MARY AVE
ARROYO VILLAGEAPN 326-27-042

CALTRANS ROW
ROW

4.0' 8.1'

4.5'

4.0'

18.0'(TYP.)8.5'

4.0'

7.1'

7.1'

4.1'

38.1'

18.9'6.6'

18.9'6.5'

9.6'

9.0'8.0'

24.0'
BLDG 1 ELEVATOR

4.0'

13.0'6.2'

13.0'6.2' BUILDING 1ABUILDING 1B

7.9'26.0'56.0'

3.6'4.5' 7.7'8.0'12.0'PAVEMENT FOR PARKINGSTALLS AND DRIVE AISLESPROPOSED HEAVY DUTYCONCRETE TRASHENCLOSURE PADPROPOSED ASPHALTPAVEMENT FOR PARKINGSTALLS AND DRIVE AISLES

9.0'

TRANSITION ZONE TO EXISTING CONDITIONSEX STREET PARKINGZONE TO REMAIN

8.0'50.0' 50.0'

8.0'PER CITY OF CUPERTINO
50' x 8' SITE TRIANGLEPER CITY OF CUPERTINOSTANDARD DETAIL 7-6 50' x 8' SITE TRIANGLEPER CITY OF CUPERTINOSTANDARD DETAIL 7-6

LOADING ZONE
Ko Architects, Inc.900 High Street, Suite 1Palo Alto, CA 94301p: 650.853.1908

MARY AVENUEAFFORDABLEHOUSINGCITY OFCUPERTINO

MARY AVENUECUPERTINO, CA

PRELIMINARY,NOT FORCONSTRUCTION
PRELIMINARYSITE PLANC001.0NORTH
LEGEND

SEE BELOW FOR CONTINUATION

SEE ABOVE FOR CONTINUATION
PROPERTY LINE/ CALTRANS ROWCENTERLINEEASEMENTSAWCUT LINELADDER PAD LOCATIONS, TYP. SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS

2.0'11'MARY AVE.11'MARY AVE.5'BIKELANE5'BIKELANE
25'2 STORY BLDG7.1'PATHWAY7.5' BIKE BUFFER
1'EXISTINGSOUND WALL

LANDSCAPE BUFFER
4'
6'

5.0'EXBIKELANE3.0'8.0'EXSHOULDER11.5'EX MARY AVETURN LANE14.0'EX MARY AVELANE3.0'8.0'EX BIKELANE

RELOCATED CITY OFCUPERTINO FIBER OPTIC
PROPERTY LINE (TYP.)EX BIKE BUFFEREX BIKE BUFFER
8'PARKINGLANE2.5'

38.0' PROJECT PARCEL
CITY OF CUPERTINOFIBER OPTIC (TO BE RELOCATED)1'EXISTINGSOUND WALL PROPERTY LINE (TYP.)56.0' MARY AVE RIGHT-OF-WAY

4.5'SIDEWALK4'LANDSCAPEBUFFER

5.0'SIDEWALK2.0'LANDSCAPE

7.0'5'SIDEWALK
3'RELOCATED STREETLIGHTING CONDUIT
6'EXISTING AT&TFIBER OPTIC6'AT&T FIBER OPTICTO REMAIN

BIKE BUFFERCL
CL38.1' PROJECT PARCEL56.0' MARY AVE RIGHT-OF-WAY16.0'EX DIAGONALPARKING 5'

21.0'35.0'
HIGHWAY 85
HIGHWAY 85
5'TW VARIESMAX ELEV 318.87
EG 306.0±
TW VARIESMAX ELEV 318.87
EG 306.0±1'
5'

APPROXIMATE LOCATIONEXISTING WATER

APPROXIMATE LOCATIONOF WATER LINE TO REMAIN

2.5'
3'ELECTRICAL CONDUIT(TO BE RELOCATED)TC 301.1±FL 300.6± TC 303.16FL 302.66BLDG 2FF 304.74.0'RETAINING WALLHEIGHT VARIES,0.5' TO 1.8'

2.0'11'MARY AVE.11'MARY AVE.5'BIKELANE5'BIKELANE
25'2 STORY BLDG7.1'PATHWAY7.5' BIKE BUFFER
1'EXISTINGSOUND WALL

LANDSCAPE BUFFER
6'RELOCATED CITY OFCUPERTINO FIBER OPTIC
8'PARKINGLANE2.5'

38.0' PROJECT PARCELPROPERTY LINE (TYP.)56.0' MARY AVE RIGHT-OF-WAY

4.5'SIDEWALK4'LANDSCAPEBUFFER7.0'5'SIDEWALK
3'RELOCATED STREETLIGHTING CONDUIT
6'EXISTING AT&TFIBER OPTIC

BIKE BUFFERCL
5'

21.0'35.0'
HIGHWAY 85
TW VARIESMAX ELEV 318.87
EG 307.0±1'

APPROXIMATE LOCATIONEXISTING WATER

2.5' TC 305.43FL 304.93BLDG 1FF 306.04.0'SIDEWALKRETAINING WALLHEIGHT VARIES,1.0' TO 2.0' BLDG 1FF 306.0RETAINING WALLHEIGHT VARIES,1.0' TO 1.5'

7.0' (PSE)PATHWAY1.0'EXISTINGFENCEPROPERTY LINE (TYP.)
3'RELOCATEDELECTRICALLINES
DOG PARKEG 303.65BLDG 2FF 304.7FS 303.7
PROPERTY LINE4.0'
FS 306.0FG 305.0

SIDEWALK

PROPOSED SS

WESTPORT DEVELOPMENT
Ko Architects, Inc.900 High Street, Suite 1Palo Alto, CA 94301p: 650.853.1908

MARY AVENUEAFFORDABLEHOUSINGCITY OFCUPERTINOMARY AVENUECUPERTINO, CA

PRELIMINARY,NOT FORCONSTRUCTION
SECTIONSC005.0
EXISTING SECTION A1"=10'
PROPOSED SECTION A, BUILDING 21"=10'
PROPOSED SECTION B, BUILDING 11"=10'
PROPOSED SECTION C AT NORTH PROPERTY LINE1"=10'
PROPOSED SECTION D AT SOUTH PROPERTY LINE1"=10'
39FT FRONT-LOADER TRUCK TURNING RADIUSNOT TO SCALE

I. Transportation Study for Proposed Affordable Housing Project on Mary Avenue in Cupertino, California, dated November 13, 2025.

Memorandum

Date: November 13, 2025
To: Mr. Andy Lief, Charities Housing
From: Kai-Ling Kuo, Andrea Lin
Subject: Transportation Study for Proposed Affordable Housing Project on Mary Avenue in Cupertino, California

Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has completed a transportation study for the proposed affordable housing project on Mary Avenue in Cupertino, California. The project proposes affordable housing between the SR 85 soundwall and Mary Avenue. The project proposes constructing 2 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
M
orro Bay Ter
Morro Ba
y Ter
Morro Ba
y Ter
Campus DrCampus DrCampus Dr
Lubec St
Anson Ave
Milford Dr
Castine Ave
S Stelling
Rd
Imperial Ave
Bub
bR d
Greenleaf Dr
N Stelling Rd
Stevens Creek Blvd
Mary
Ave Glen Pl
Glen PlGlen Pl
ParkwoodD r
Parkwood Dr
Peninsula Blvd
Peninsula 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 Affordable Housing Project TA
Figure 1
Site Location and Study Intersection
Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA
Figure 2
Site Circulation Plan
Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA November 13, 2025 P a g e | 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 P a g e | 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 R
d
Greenleaf Dr
N Stelling Rd
Mary
Ave Glen Pl
Glen PlGlen Pl
ParkwoodD r
Parkwood Dr
Peninsula Blvd
Peninsula BlvdPeninsula Blvd
M
orro Bay Ter
Morro Ba
y Ter
Morro Ba
y 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 Affordable 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
Bub
bR d
Greenleaf Dr
N Stelling Rd
Mary Ave
Glen Pl
Glen PlGlen Pl
ParkwoodD r
Parkwood Dr
Peninsula Blvd
Peninsula BlvdPeninsula Blvd
M
orro Bay Ter
Morro Ba
y Ter
Morro Ba
y 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 Affordable Housing Project TA
Figure 4
Existing Bicycle Facilities
Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA November 13, 2025 P a g e | 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 R
d
Greenleaf Dr
N Stelling Rd
Mary
Ave Glen Pl
Glen PlGlen Pl
ParkwoodD r
Parkwood Dr
Peninsula Blvd
Peninsula BlvdPeninsula Blvd
M
orro Bay Ter
Morro Ba
y Ter
Morro Ba
y 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 Affordable 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 P a g e | 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:
• 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). • 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 intersections 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 unacceptable 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 P a g e | 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 percentile 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 R
d
N Stelling
Rd
Mary
Ave Glen Pl
Glen PlGlen Pl
ParkwoodD r
Parkwood Dr
Peninsula Blvd
Peninsula BlvdPeninsula Blvd
M
orro Bay Ter
Morro Ba
y Ter
Morro Ba
y 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 Affordable 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 P a g e | 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 P a g e | 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 P a g e | 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 P a g e | 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 Affordable Housing Project TA
Figure 7
Proposed Parking Lot Plan
Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA
Figure 8
Sight Distance
LEGEND
= Recommended Parallel Parking Spaces to be Removed

Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA November 13, 2025 P a g e | 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 P a g e | 20
Conclusions
The transportation analysis for the Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project resulted in the following conclusions:
• 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.
• 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. • 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 design 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) 216-2439www.alltrafficdata.netLocation:1 CAMPUS DRIVE & STEVENS CREEK BLVD AMTuesday, October 7, 2025Date:Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - PedestriansTraffic Counts - Motorized VehiclesNote: Total study counts contained in parentheses.Peak Hour:08:00 AM - 09:00 AMPeak 15-Minutes:08:15 AM - 08:30 AM 290 187904845522009379510.90NSEW0.840.870.840.85(436)(592)(2,234)(2,013)(2,268)(2,312)(163)(584)181099947228310773290581040390STEVENS CREEK BLVDSTEVENS CREEK BLVDCAMPUS DRIVEMARY AVE 5873NSEW35160521
2292913003011701NSEW201063010000LeftThruRightTotalEastboundIntervalStart TimeRollingHourWest East South NorthPedestrian CrossingsU-TurnWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeftThruRightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-Turn7:00 AM 0 3 0 0 3 01 13 67 0 5 88 218 0 1 2 11,09810 12 0 167:15 AM 0 1 0 0 5 11 15 66 1 3 115 234 0 3 0 01,4033 7 1 157:30 AM 0 4 0 0 30 00 10 82 2 4 130 296 0 0 1 11,7736 6 2 207:45 AM 0 3 0 0 22 14 24 94 1 7 129 350 0 2 0 11,97514 22 0 298:00 AM 0 10 0 0 27 21 17 129 1 16 208 523 0 0 1 12,18319 34 3 568:15 AM 0 14 2 0 27 40 25 202 1 28 196 604 2 5 3 02,09025 19 4 578:30 AM 0 7 1 0 34 34 28 155 2 17 167 498 0 0 3 22,03427 18 1 348:45 AM 0 9 0 0 11 13 20 246 1 22 151 558 1 3 0 22,06936 23 1 349:00 AM 0 12 1 0 9 30 13 142 1 44 116 430 0 5 0 12,02039 21 6 239:15 AM 0 17 1 0 8 10 10 190 0 46 160 548 2 5 0 158 20 7 309:30 AM 0 17 2 0 8 10 16 220 0 21 152 533 1 4 0 245 11 10 309:45 AM 0 18 1 0 18 30 20 167 1 24 157 509 0 3 0 345 24 5 26Count Total37040217327 5,301202020811501,769237111,76021114 15106 31Peak Hour8 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) 216-2439www.alltrafficdata.netLocation:1 CAMPUS DRIVE & STEVENS CREEK BLVD PMTuesday, October 7, 2025Date:Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - PedestriansTraffic Counts - Motorized VehiclesNote: Total study counts contained in parentheses.Peak Hour:05:00 PM - 06:00 PMPeak 15-Minutes:05:15 PM - 05:30 PM 148 2311,0071,478119841,5461,0270.97NSEW0.860.890.730.94(661)(422)(2,766)(4,055)(2,821)(4,241)(406)(298)6907110186343331,3771250118845300STEVENS CREEK BLVDSTEVENS CREEK BLVDCAMPUS DRIVEMARY AVE 72021NSEW182111601
0111463000000311NSEW000022010000LeftThruRightTotalEastboundIntervalStart TimeRollingHourWest East South NorthPedestrian CrossingsU-TurnWestboundNorthboundSouthboundLeftThruRightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-Turn4:00 PM 0 16 3 0 12 05 34 370 0 17 200 739 0 9 2 12,66618 20 21 234:15 PM 0 29 2 0 16 20 23 247 0 9 197 590 2 3 1 02,63716 22 11 164:30 PM 0 20 0 0 17 11 19 340 0 9 186 659 1 6 0 12,77318 17 14 174:45 PM 0 9 0 0 25 01 20 394 0 7 165 678 0 1 0 12,78116 16 12 135:00 PM 0 20 1 0 9 54 40 383 0 8 188 710 0 2 0 02,8204 28 6 145:15 PM 0 19 2 0 21 13 26 345 0 9 235 726 0 1 1 52,72814 26 6 195:30 PM 0 25 1 0 20 11 29 297 0 12 221 667 1 13 0 22,7577 17 12 245:45 PM 0 20 1 0 21 13 30 352 0 14 219 717 0 4 1 02,6678 30 6 126:00 PM 0 28 1 0 16 37 26 268 1 14 163 618 1 12 0 02,34916 42 17 166:15 PM 0 39 3 0 16 34 44 305 2 15 229 755 1 6 0 220 39 16 206:30 PM 0 18 2 0 18 14 31 248 2 6 183 577 1 5 1 014 29 9 126:45 PM 0 11 1 0 15 12 23 159 1 6 149 399 1 2 1 32 13 5 11Count Total197135299153 7,8351920601725402,33512663,70834535 1578 64Peak Hour11 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
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/ln1781 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/veh40.2 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/ln2.6 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 D C C D C C D B D B B
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 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s11.6 38.2 10.9 28.4 7.8 42.0 11.6 27.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s25.5 21.5 24.5 50.5 9.5 37.5 25.5 49.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s7.4 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
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/ln1781 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/veh42.0 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/ln3.9 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 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s10.0 32.0 8.1 45.9 9.1 33.0 14.6 39.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s17.5 22.5 13.5 68.5 11.5 28.5 27.5 54.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s6.2 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
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/ln1781 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/veh40.3 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/ln2.7 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 D C C D C C D B D B B
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 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s11.9 37.9 11.1 28.4 7.8 42.0 11.7 27.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s25.5 21.5 24.5 50.5 9.5 37.5 25.5 49.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s7.6 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
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/ln1781 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/veh41.8 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/ln4.0 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 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s10.2 31.9 8.1 45.9 9.1 33.0 15.0 39.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s17.5 22.5 13.5 68.5 11.5 28.5 27.5 54.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s6.3 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 Estimate 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.
• Saturday April 12, 2025, from 12:00-1:00 PM
• Tuesday April 15, 2025, from 12:00-1:00 AM, 2:00-3:00 PM, and 7:00-8:00 PM • 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

P a g e | 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. • 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. • 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: 5973 Larkstone Loop
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

CC 2-03-2026
#9
Business License
Amnesty Program
Supplemental Report
1 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT

CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3220
CUPERTINO.GOV

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
SUPPLEMENTAL 1
Meeting: February 3, 2026
Agenda Item #9
Subject
Transition of Business License Administration to HdL Companies and consideration of a Business License Amnesty Program
Recommended Action
Receive a report on the transition of phased business license administration to HdL Companies and provide direction on whether to adopt a business license amnesty program. If Council elects to proceed with amnesty, select one of the three options presented below. The details, benefits, and tradeoffs of each option are discussed below.

1. Adopt a 30-day citywide business license amnesty period prior to initiation of HdL’s compliance and discovery efforts;

2. Provide ongoing amnesty upon discovery for newly identified unlicensed businesses; or

3. Adopt a phased 60-day business license amnesty program (staff recommendation) consisting of 100% penalty forgiveness during the first 30 days and 50% forgiveness during the subsequent 30 days, followed by full enforcement.

Background:

Staff’s responses to questions received from councilmembers and those that staff would like to clarify are shown in italics.

Q1: The staff report mentions penalties for not having a business license. What is the penalty? Does the penalty apply to the current business year or all past years? I would recommend a fourth option for the Business License compliance project: This approach offers citywide penalty forgiveness to all previously unlicensed businesses: 100% forgiveness in the first 60 days. After the 60 -day period, HdL would begin full d iscovery enforcement and resume standard penalties after 30 days. Many small businesses in our city might not realize that they are subject to a business license tax, even if there is outreach

2 from the City. I think that there should be an amnesty provided for those businesses that are discovered by HdL. Separately, how would the City treat businesses that are dormant? Staff Response:

Penalties for business license noncompliance are assessed monthly at a rate of 20% of the base tax, up to a maximum of 100% (MC5.04.250). In addition to the penalty, the interest is assessed at 1% per month on the principle of unpaid tax. These penalties and interest apply only to the current and up to three prior years of unpaid license taxes.

If Council adopts an amnesty program, existing businesses that are out of compliance, whether they failed to apply or failed to renew, would be eligible to participate. As proposed, the City would waive all penalties and only seek recovery of up to three years of back taxes during the amnesty window.

This approach encourages voluntary compliance, particularly for small or home -based businesses that may have been unaware of the requirement BL Amnesty Program,

The treatment of dormant businesses would likely depend on whether the business has ceased operations entirely or is simply inactive. These situations would be reviewed individually through the compliance process and handled appropriately in coordination with HdL.

Council can, of course, choose any options being presented or suggest a new option that is not listed in the staff report.

Q2: What is a business? I went to the City website and could not easily find an answer. https://www.cupertino.gov/Business-and-Development/Business/Business-License-User- Guide Then I went to the new website and still could not find an answer. https://cupertino.hdlgov.com/. If someone sells $1000 in goods on eBay a business? What about $10,000 or more? If someone does pro-bono work, it is a business? What if someone is selling home -made crafts at the local farmers’ market and makes a $500 profit? This is one of the reasons that I think that we need a longer runway for compliance.

By the way, I had asked the previous City Attorney that when the City makes contracts with businesses that we should check for their business licenses. We check for other things, like insurance. He refused. Will the City start checking that businesses that it enters into contract with are paying a business license tax?
Staff Response:

The City defines a "business" broadly as any activity carried on for the purpose of earning income, whether for profit or not, and regardless of the size or formality of the operation (MC 5.04.030 B).

This includes home-based businesses, independent contractors, online sellers, gig workers, and those participating in temporary or seasonal sales.

Pro-bono work would generally not constitute a business, as it does not generate income. However, some activities that appear informal or part -time may still fall under the business license requirement. That said, it is not practical to expect all remote e mployees or hobbyists to register individually; current industry practice treats them as employees of the physical place of business. 3 Staff will provide clarification through municipal code update s later this year . Additionally, Staff created FAQ questions (available on the City’s Business License webpage, linked here :
https://www.cupertino.gov/Business-and-Development/Business/Business-License-User-Guide) to address ambiguity in the interim.

As for compliance runway, staff agrees with the need for fair and accessible outreach. The proposed amnesty program provides a time -limited opportunity for businesses to register without penalties and receive support from the City.