Written Communications (updated 4-7-26) — Cupertino City Council, April 1, 2026 (part 5 of 5)

Figure S-9 Fire Hazard Severity Zones
Data Source: Health and Safety Element Background Report, July 23, 2025 Cupertino Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment | 11

3.2 Define the Evacuation Area
According to the Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 16.74.020, “Wildland‐Urban Interface (WUI) or Wildland‐Urban Interface Fire Area (WUIFA) mean a geographical area identified by the state as a Fire Hazard Severity Zone in accordance with the Public Resources Code Sections 4201 through 4204 and Government Code Sections 51175 through 51189, or other areas designated by the enforcing agency to be at a significant risk from wildfires”. The evacuation area is defined as the Genasys Protect8 zones within the WUI, or the moderate to very high FHSZ in Cupertino. Figure 1 illustrates the fire hazard severity zones included in the Health and Safety Element Background Report.

The safe area is established at SR-85 and I-280 and serves as the evacuation gateway, representing the boundary beyond which evacuees are considered to have exited the evacuation area, and are therefore no longer at immediate risk.

3.3 Define Evacuation Routes
This analysis uses the evacuation routes provided by the City of Cupertino in August 2025, developed as part of the City’s ongoing effort to update its Health and Safety Element. The evacuation routes for the City of Cupertino and surrounding unincorporated areas are used to transport evacuees using their own vehicle and transit dependent evacuees to temporary shelter. This analysis assumes that routes that provide the most direct path to evacuate the community with the least exposure to risk will be used by evacuees. The major evacuation routes consider the location of critical facilities (i.e., safety and security, health and medical, and communications) as well as residential, employment, school, and recreational uses. Figure 2 shows the evacuation routes provided by the City.

3.4 Estimate Vehicle Trips
The number of evacuation vehicle trips assigned to the roadway network are a combination of trips generated by residential households, employee trips, student trips, and visitor trips at the time of the evacuation. These trips include those generated by uses in the City as well as surrounding unincorporated areas including PG&E Trailhead, McClellan Ranch Preserve, Stevens Creek County Park, and Fremont Older Open Space Preserve.

Trips generated by residential households were informed by the most recent available data from the US Census Bureau and the California Department of Finance. This includes data on population, the number of households, persons per household, and vehicles per household. This data was crossreferenced with data in the Genasys Protect platform’s designated evacuation zones. The household data was then used to estimate evacuation vehicle trips based on the number of households, persons per household, auto-ownership information, population, and other factors that could affect the number of vehicles per household used during an evacuation event. 8 Genasys Protect is an evacuation management tool that helps communities and first responders plan, communicate, and conduct evacuations. It provides communications, situational awareness, and cross-agency coordination capabilities for emergency management. The platform delivers integrated hardware and software for proactive preparedness and multi-channel communication.

Cupertino Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment | 12
Table 2 describes data sources and equations used to estimate vehicle evacuation demand for residents, employees, students, and visitors. Data sources reviewed for this assessment include the 2023 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year Estimates, Genasys Protect, Santa Clara Countywide VMT Estimation Tool, and the adopted Housing Element. These sources provide population, household, and employment estimates that are within a similar range.

Evacuation Routes
FIGURE 2
280
280
280
85 85
yW ellivelleB
S Tantau Ave
evA thgirW
S Stelling Rd
Regnart Rd
evA hcniF
Prospect Rd
Saratoga Ave
dvlB aznA eD N
Doyle Rd
dR bbuB
S Blaney Ave
Moorpark Ave
Cox Ave
McClellan Rd
dR otiuQ
dvlB aznA eD S
S Mary Ave
evA relliM
N Tantau Ave
dvlB llihtooF S
Pruneridge Ave
W Homestead Rd E Homestead Rd
Johnson Ave
N Stelling Rd Hollenbeck Ave
dR efloW S
dR elavynnuS-agotaraS S
Vallco Pkwy
Rainbow Dr
Bollinger Rd
Stevens Creek Blvd
W Campbell Ave
dvlB llihtooF N
N Blaney Ave
dR efloW
Stevens Canyon Rd
Phil Ln
evA liauQ
Mount Eden Rd
Basemap
FIGURE 2
0 1 2
Miles
Cupertino City Boundary Evacuation Routes Cupertino City Boundary Evacuation Routes Evacuation Route (outside of City Boundary)
Evacuation Route (in Cupertino)
Fire H azard Severity Zones
FIGURE 1
Cupertino City Boundary Evacuation Routes
Evacuation Routes (in Cupertino)
Evacuation Routes (outside of City Boundary)
Data Source: Draft Health and Safety Element, 2025
Rodrigues Ave
Torre Ave
85 85
280
280
280
Cupertino Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment | 14
Table 2: Vehicle Demand Calculations in the Evacuation Area Evacuation Demand Variable Data Source Equation

1. Employment Santa Clara Countywide
VMT Estimation Tool Data source provided value.

2. Residential Population Genasys Protect* Data source provided value.

3. Household Genasys Protect* Population / Household size

4. Household Vehicle
Ownership Distribution Census Tract Number of households with 0, 1, 2, or 3+ vehicles / Total household

5. Household Vehicle
Ownership Steps 4 & 5 Household vehicle ownership distribution * Household

6. Student Education Data
Partnership Data source provided value1

7. Visitor Parking Spaces Available
from Google Maps Portion of parking spaces occupied2

8. Estimated Vehicle
Evacuation Demand Steps 1 & 6
Residents:
1 * zero-vehicle household +
1 * one-vehicle household +
2 * two-vehicle household +

2.5 * three-or-more vehicle household
Employees:

0.99 * employment
Students:
1 * drive-alone student +

0.5 * carpooling student +
1 * student picked up/dropped off
Visitors:

0.5 * visitor
Notes: Raw data is presented in Appendix A.

1. Educational Data Partnership shows school enrollment data for the following schools considered in the evacuation area: Abraham Lincoln Elementary School, Tessellations Elementary School, John F Kennedy Middle School, and Monta Vista High School.

2. Visitor presence considered at recreational attractions located within the evacuation area: PG&E Trailhead (50% of the Rancho San Antonio County Park parking spaces), Deep Cliff Golf Course (20% of the Linda Vista Park parking spaces), Rim Trail (45% of the Stevens Creek County Park Chestnut and Villa Maria parking lots), and Parker Ranch Trailhead (40% of the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve Prospect and Saratoga Country Club parking spaces).

Source: 2023 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year Estimates; Genasys Protect; Santa Clara Countywide VMT Estimation Tool; Educational Data Partnership; and Google Maps, Fehr & Peers, 2025.

3.5 Assign Vehicle Trips
The total resident, employee, student, and visitor evacuation trips are disaggregated into 14 different geographically designated evacuation zones in the Genasys Protect platform. Trips are routed from each zone to the nearest evacuation route. Once on a major evacuation route, trips are assigned to the most efficient path toward either SR-85 or I-280. The city limit is used as the evacuation Cupertino Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment | 15
gateways because it represents the boundary beyond which evacuees are considered to have exited the hazard area and the evacuation area, and are therefore no longer at immediate risk.

3.6 Evacuation Route Assessment
An evacuation route assessment can be completed in a variety of ways to determine the capacity and viability of key evacuation routes. An assessment, like this project, can use volume to capacity ratios under typical non-congested conditions. Under more constrained and congested conditions, higher effort studies may involve modeled analysis of evacuation scenarios using dynamic traffic assignment to simulate traffic flow and evacuation times when street and freeway networks are at capacity. This evacuation route capacity divides the vehicle demand volumes by the roadway evacuation capacity to estimate the volume to capacity ratio during an evacuation event. Furthermore, the evacuation route assessment measures the distance evacuees have to travel to reach evacuation gateways.

3.6.1 Assessing Evacuation Route Capacity
This analysis uses planning level roadway capacities based on the roadway cross section (e.g., two, four, or six travel lanes) with adjustments for the hilly nature of the evacuation routes in the evacuation area and anticipated lower visibility conditions present during an evacuation. These planning level roadway capacities are consistent with the level of planning for this AB 747/AB 1409 evacuation capacity analysis where the desired outcome is a list of policies and programs to integrate into the Health and Safety Element. Table 3 lists the peak one-hour planning capacity for each roadway type. These evacuation capacities do not incorporate contraflow, as the opposing direction is reserved for emergency responders.

Table 3: Planning Level Roadway Capacity per Hour per Lane Roadway Type Planning Capacity1
(Typical Day)
Planning Capacity
(Low Visibility)
Freeway 2,020 1,780
Divided Arterial 940 830
Undivided Arterial 890 780
Collector/Local 650 570
Notes:

1. Roadway planning capacity from Highway Capacity Manual (2000).

Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000; Fehr & Peers, 2025.

Additionally, during a fire or other emergency event, roadways typically operate at lower capacities due to changes in driver behavior and the presence of hazards such as low visibility due to smoke.

Baseline capacities for all evacuation roadways were reduced by 12 percent to account for these hazards, based on recommended capacity reductions due to low visibility (due to weather) provided by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Road Weather Management Program.9 9 How weather events impact roadways?
https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/weather/q1_roadimpact.htm#:~:text=Speed%20variance%20can%20fall%20by,12 %20percent%20in%20low%20visibility, accessed April 2025.

Cupertino Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment | 16
Table 4 presents the roadway types and total evacuation route capacity at designated screenlines and a few additional roadway segments. A screenline is an imaginary line on a map to evaluate the evacuation route capacity (see Figure 3 and Figure 4). This analysis uses a screenline east of the evacuation area, and another at SR-85 and I-280, which represent the defined evacuation gateways.

Table 4: Evacuation Route Capacity
Roadway Name Roadway
Type1
Outbound
Lanes
Evacuation
Route
Capacity
Adjusted
Evacuation
Route
Capacity2

1. East of the Evacuation Area Screenline
Cristo Rey Drive
west of Foothills Boulevard Collector 1 650 570
Foothill Boulevard
north of Alpine Drive Local 1 650 570
Stevens Creek Boulevard
east of Cupertino Road Collector 1 650 570
McClellan Road
east of Imperial Avenue Collector 1 650 570
Bubb Road
north of Hyannisport Drive Local 1 650 570
Rainbow Drive
west of Seven Springs Lane
Local 1 650 570
Prospect Road
east of Parker Ranch Trailhead Local 1 650 570

2. West of SR 85 Screenline
Foothill Boulevard
south of I-280
Undivided
Arterial 2 1,780 1,560
Stevens Creek Boulevard
west of SR-85
Undivided
Arterial 2 1,780 1,560
Bubb Road
south of Stevens Creek Boulevard Collector 1 650 570
McClellan Road
east of Bubb Road Collector 1 650 570
Stelling Road
north of Orion Lane Collector 1 650 570
South De Anza Boulevard
north of SR-85
Divided
Arterial 3 2,820 2,490
Prospect Road
east of S De Anza Boulevard Collector 2 1,300 1,140
Notes:

1. Roadway type determined by City of Cupertino Circulation Element (2025).

2. Vehicles per hour. Rounded to nearest 10.

Source: Circulation Element, 2025; Fehr & Peers, 2025.

Cupertino Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment | 17

3.6.2 Distance to Evacuation Gateway
For this analysis, evacuation population groups are considered to be evacuated when they have either accessed gateways to the east of SR-85 or north of I-280. To assist with identifying potentially vulnerable communities during an evacuation event it is also helpful to identify City neighborhoods that need to travel the furthest and thus are potentially the most exposed in an evacuation event. This analysis measures the distances from each point along the roadway network to designated evacuation gateways. Up to two best routes from each point to the gateways are included in this assessment.

Cupertino Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment | 18

4. Evacuation Route Assessment
This chapter evaluates the evacuation route capacity during a wildfire evacuation event for the evacuation area and routes identified in Chapter 3. This section also analyzes the distances from each point along the roadway network to designated evacuation gateways to help identify City neighborhoods that need to travel the furthest and thus are potentially the most exposed in an evacuation event.

4.1 Estimate Evacuation Vehicle Trips
Based on the identified scenarios, the areas requiring evacuation include the FHSZ since these areas are most vulnerable to wildfire hazards. The trips assigned to the transportation system are estimated based on household and employer demographics along with student and visitor population and assist with estimating evacuation demand during an evacuation event.

Table 5 lists the composition of evacuees for each quantitative scenario. Note that Scenario C is a qualitative assessment, which builds on Scenario A and, therefore, has the same evacuation demand as Scenario A.

Table 5: Composition of Evacuees by Scenario
Type of Evacuees Scenario A
(Quantitative)
Scenario B
(Quantitative)
Scenario C
(Qualitative)
Residents 46% 100% 46%
Employees 100% 2% 100%
Students 100% 0% 100%
Visitors 100% 0% 100%
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2025.

4.1.1 Resident and Employee Population
A worst-case condition was estimated where all residents, and retail and restaurant (estimated to be half of all employees in the area) in the evacuation area would need to be evacuated. The number of residents, anticipated vehicle ownership per household, employees, students in schools, and visitors in the evacuation area were used to estimate the number of evacuee vehicles. Because the raw data for households, population, and employment cover geographic areas that differ from the evacuation area, the data were adjusted to estimate land use and evacuation demand. Table A-1 to Table A-3 provide raw socioeconomic data.

Table 6 to Table 10 present the resident, employee, student, and visitor land uses and estimated evacuation demand in the evacuation area. As shown in Table 6, approximately one percent of households does not have access to a vehicle and would potentially confront mobility constraints during an evacuation event.

This assessment uses zero-vehicle households as a proxy to provide an estimate of persons with mobility constraints that may need evacuation assistance. These zero-vehicle households would Cupertino Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment | 19
require outside assistance. Although outside the scope of this assessment, the City may want to consider a program that ensures a more accurate accounting of households needing assistance and programs to facilitate their evacuation. This estimate also assumes employment centers would provide evacuation assistance to employees without access to a vehicle. Additionally, it was assumed that some households with more than two vehicles likely would not be able to utilize all of their vehicles during an evacuation event (e.g., homes with three or more vehicles but with only two licensed drivers).

Table 6: Resident Population and Evacuation Demand Vehicle Trips of the Evacuation Area Population1 Households2
Household Vehicle
Ownership2 Estimated Evacuation Demand3,4,5
0 1 2 3+ Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C
12,636 4,355
48 604 2,400 1,303
4,050 8,710 4,050
1% 14% 55% 30%
Notes:

1. The estimated population is obtained from Genasys Protect data provided by the City staff on July 25, 2025.

2. The estimated number of households and household vehicle ownership is derived from 2023 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates and adjusted according to the estimated population.

3. Assumption of number of vehicles that will evacuate: zero-vehicle household: 1 vehicle; one-vehicle household: 1 vehicle; two-vehicle household: 2 vehicles; three-or-more vehicle household: 2.5 vehicles.

4. Assume that daytime population from Genasys Protect consists of residents, employees, students, and visitors. Calculated as (daytime population - employees - students - visitors) / residents * 100%, The residents present in the evacuation area were estimated to be 46% and 100% of the population for Scenarios A and B respectively.

5. It should be noted that this information does not constitute a specific analysis of households with mobility challenges as it does not specifically account for people who have mobility impairments that preclude them from using a vehicle; it also does not specifically account for households that own one or more vehicles, but where not all members of the household may necessarily have access to them at all times (for example, a household with one vehicle which a household member drives to work, leaving other members of the household at home with no vehicle available).

Source: 2023 ACS 5-Year Estimates; Genasys Protect; Santa Clara Countywide VMT Estimation Tool; Fehr & Peers, 2025.

Table 7: Employee Population and Evacuation Demand Vehicle Trips of the Evacuation Area
Employment (A)1
Estimated Evacuation Demand2
Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C
556 550 10 550
Notes:

1. The estimated employment is obtained from the Santa Clara Countywide VMT Evaluation Tool, using 2025 as the baseline year.

2. Assumes that all the employees will evacuate with 0.99 vehicles per employee (one percent of evacuation area households are zero-vehicle households).

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2025.

4.1.2 Student Population
Within the designated evacuation area, several schools serve a substantial student population that would require timely evacuation in the event of an emergency at working hours. Schools located Cupertino Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment | 20
within the evacuation area include Abraham Lincoln Elementary School, Tessellations Elementary School, John F. Kennedy Middle School, and Monta Vista High School. Table 8 presents the estimated number of student evacuation trips during Scenario A. Table A-4 and Table A-5 show the school enrollment data and estimated student evacuation trips, categorized by mode of travel, including pick-up/drop-off by parents, carpooling, and individual student drivers.

Table 8: Student Population and Evacuation Demand Vehicle Trips of the Evacuation Area School Enrollment
Estimated Evacuation Demand Vehicle Trips
Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C
3,560 3,120 0 3,120
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2025.

4.1.3 Visitor Population
Table 9 presents the estimated number of visitor trips generated by recreational land uses that would require evacuation during an emergency. Additional details on how these visitor trip estimates were developed can be found in Table A-6.

Table 9: Visitor Land Use and Evacuation Demand of the Evacuation Area Visitors
Estimated Evacuation Demand Vehicle Trips
Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C
355 180 0 180
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2025.

4.1.4 Total Estimated Evacuation Demand
Considering the estimated trips generated in the evacuation area from all employees, residents, students and visitors, the total number of estimated trips during an evacuation event can be estimated. The total evacuation demand is 7,900 and 8,720 during Scenario A and Scenario B respectively, as shown in Table 10.

Table 10: Total Estimated Evacuation Demand Vehicle Trips for the Evacuation Area Type of Evacuees Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C
Residents 4,050 8,710 4,050
Employees 550 10 550
Students 3,120 - 3,120
Visitors 180 - 180
Total 7,900 8,720 7,900
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2025.

Cupertino Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment | 21
Figure 3 shows the distribution of the evacuation demand across two screenlines. These screenlines represent the edge of the hazard area (screenline 1) and the estimated evacuation edge (screenline 2).

4.2 Evaluating Evacuation Route Capacity

4.2.1 Scenario A (Quantitative Analysis)
The total estimated evacuation demand was distributed across the roadway network in proportion to the combined resident, employee, student, and visitor population data for each Genasys Protect zone10 within the evacuation area. Detailed percent trips assigned for each roadway can be found in Table B-1. The distance to evacuation gateways map (see Figure 5) was used to identify primary routes likely to be used by evacuees.

Traffic volume data for the roadway segments on the evacuation area were collected in July 2025.

These counts, combined with estimated demand, were used to calculate the total evacuation vehicle demand. StreetLight data from the same period in 2024 were collected and compared with data from October 2024 to evaluate the impact of school sessions versus non-school periods. For Scenario A, representing a typical Fall weekday at 2 PM, a factor of 1.2 was applied to account for the increased traffic associated with schools being in session.

Evacuation route capacity was assessed by dividing vehicle demand volumes by roadway evacuation capacity to calculate the volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio. As shown in Table 11, the results of the evacuation capacity assessment indicate that all evacuation routes have V/C ratios greater than 1 near the evacuation area except for Prospect Road. This indicates that these roads would require more than one hour to accommodate the evacuation demand from the hillside, making them bottlenecks during an evacuation.

Foothill Boulevard, Stevens Creek Boulevard and McClellan Road are the most critical bottlenecks with V/C ratio greater than 2. Prospect Road and Stelling Road have V/C ratios of 1, suggesting they are at capacity and should be prioritized for evacuation demand and supply strategies.

It is also important to note that emergency scenarios are often unpredictable (as well as driver behavior during the evacuation time period) and it is anticipated that evacuees would vacate at a rate that more closely resembles a bell curve from the time the evacuation order is issued. These are conditions which would affect the total estimated evacuation time in our assessment and are beyond the scope and budget of our assessment. There is also general unpredictability in operational issues, such as power issues that would trigger traffic signals to operate in “red flash mode” in which traffic would need to proceed through intersections in an all-way stop configuration. 10 A Genasys Protect zone is a predefined geographic area used during emergencies to streamline response efforts, reduce confusion, and optimize traffic flow.

Trip Distribution for Scenario A
FIGURE 3
280
280
280
85 85
yW ellivelleB
S Tantau Ave
evA thgirW
S Stelling Rd
Regnart Rd
evA hcniF
Prospect Rd
Saratoga Ave
dvlB aznA eD N
Doyle Rd
dR bbuB
S Blaney Ave
Moorpark Ave
Cox Ave
McClellan Rd
dR otiuQ
dvlB aznA eD S
S Mary Ave
evA relliM
N Tantau Ave
dvlB llihtooF S
Pruneridge Ave
W Homestead Rd E Homestead Rd
Johnson Ave
N Stelling Rd Hollenbeck Ave
dR efloW S
dR elavynnuS-agotaraS S
Vallco Pkwy
Rainbow Dr
Bollinger Rd
Stevens Creek Blvd
W Campbell Ave
dvlB llihtooF N
N Blaney Ave
dR efloW
Stevens Canyon Rd
Phil Ln
evA liauQ
Mount Eden Rd
Basemap
FIGURE 2
0 1 2
Miles
Cupertino City Boundary Evacuation Routes
Data Source: Fehr & Peers
Cupertino City Boundary
Evacuation Routes
West of SR-85 Screenline
East of the WUI Screenline
Trip Distribution | Scenario A
Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) Trip Distribution %
SR-85 Trip Distribution %
Rodrigues Ave
Torre Ave
5%
18%
21%
14%
14%
22%
6%
23%
21%
4%
24%
5%
17%
6%
Cupertino City Boundary
Evacuation Routes
Screenline
East of the WUI Screenline
West of SR-85 Screenline
Trip Distribution
Scenario A
SR-85 Trip Distribution %
Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) %
0 1 2
M i l
Cupertino Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment | 23
Table 11: Evacuation Route Link Capacity Analysis (Scenario A) Evacuation Route Link
Evacuation
Travel
Demand1
Existing
Hourly
Traffic
Total
Evacuation
Demand
Adjusted
Evacuation
Route
Capacity
V/C
Ratio2

1. East of the Evacuation Area Screenline
Cristo Rey Drive
west of Foothills Boulevard 400 239 639 570 1.1
Foothill Boulevard
north of Alpine Drive 1,420 883 2,303 570 4.0
Stevens Creek Boulevard
east of Cupertino Road 1,660 417 2,077 570 3.6
McClellan Road
east of Imperial Avenue 1,110 100 1,210 570 2.1
Bubb Road
north of Hyannisport Drive 1,110 234 1,344 570 2.4
Rainbow Drive
west of Seven Springs Lane
1,740 20 1,760 570 3.1
Prospect Road
east of Parker Ranch Trailhead 470 116 586 570 1.0

2. West of SR 85 Screenline
Foothill Boulevard
south of I-280 1,820 883 2,703 1,560 1.7
Stevens Creek Boulevard
west of SR-85 1,660 719 2,379 1,560 1.5
Bubb Road
south of Stevens Creek Boulevard 320 550 870 570 1.5
McClellan Road
east of Bubb Road 1,900 506 2,406 570 4.2
Stelling Road
north of Orion Lane 400 196 596 570 1.0
South De Anza Boulevard
north of SR-85 1,340 1,578 2,918 2,490 1.2
Prospect Road
east of S De Anza Boulevard 470 912 1,382 1,140 1.2
Note: Bolded text indicates roadways over one-hour evacuation capacity.

1. Rounded to nearest 10.

2. Total evacuation demand divided by adjusted outbound capacity.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2025.

4.2.2 Scenario B (Quantitative Analysis)
Scenario B assumes a wildfire-triggered evacuation following an earthquake at 6 AM, during a time when schools are not in session. The total estimated evacuation demand was distributed across the Cupertino Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment | 24
roadway network in proportion to the combined population, and employment population data for each Genasys Protect zone11 within the evacuation area. Detailed percent trips assigned for each roadway can be found in Table B-2. The distance to evacuation gateways map (see Figure 5) was used to identify primary routes likely to be used by evacuees.

The results of the evacuation capacity assessment in Table 11 indicate that all the roadways near the evacuation area except for Cristo Rey Drive, McClellan Road and Prospect Road have V/C ratios greater than 2. This indicates that these roads would require more than one hour to accommodate the evacuation demand from the evacuation area, making them bottlenecks during an evacuation.

This scenario is evaluated with a road closure on McClellan Road at Club House Lane near the Deep Cliff Golf Course, with schools not in session. When this segment of McClellan Road is closed, evacuees located east of Club House Lane can only travel eastbound along McClellan Road, while those west of the closure can only travel westbound. In other words, evacuees cannot cross the closed segment, which results in separate evacuation routes for areas on either side of the closure.

Under these conditions, evacuation demand on McClellan Road would decrease, with some trips shifted to Foothill Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard. As a result, McClellan Road would experience a lower V/C ratio.

Under Scenario B, evacuation demand is higher than under Scenario A, as summarized in Table 10.

However, because existing hourly traffic is lower at 6 AM under Scenario B, the total evacuation demand (i.e., the sum of evacuation travel demand and existing hourly traffic) on some roadways is lower under Scenario B than under Scenario A. A morning evacuation (6:00 AM) reflects conditions when most residents are at home, resulting in higher residential evacuation demand but relatively low existing traffic volumes on the roadways. In contrast, an afternoon evacuation (2:00 PM) occurs when many residents are at work or school, leading to lower residential evacuation demand but higher levels of existing traffic associated with general daytime travel activity. Scenario B has higher evacuation travel demand but lower existing traffic, resulting in a lower total evacuation demand on some roadways than Scenario A. As a result, these roadways show lower V/C ratios under Scenario B despite the higher evacuation travel demand.
11 A Genasys Protect zone is a predefined geographic area used during emergencies to streamline response efforts, reduce confusion, and optimize traffic flow.

Trip Distribution for Scenario B
FIGURE 4
280
280
280
85 85
yW ellivelleB
S Tantau Ave
evA thgirW
S Stelling Rd
Regnart Rd
evA hcniF
Prospect Rd
Saratoga Ave
dvlB aznA eD N
Doyle Rd
dR bbuB
S Blaney Ave
Moorpark Ave
Cox Ave
McClellan Rd
dR otiuQ
dvlB aznA eD S
S Mary Ave
evA relliM
N Tantau Ave
dvlB llihtooF S
Pruneridge Ave
W Homestead Rd E Homestead Rd
Johnson Ave
N Stelling Rd Hollenbeck Ave
dR efloW S
dR elavynnuS-agotaraS S
Vallco Pkwy
Rainbow Dr
Bollinger Rd
Stevens Creek Blvd
W Campbell Ave
dvlB llihtooF N
N Blaney Ave
dR efloW
Stevens Canyon Rd
Phil Ln
evA liauQ
Mount Eden Rd
Basemap
FIGURE 2
0 1 2
Miles
Cupertino City Boundary Evacuation Routes
Data Source: Fehr & Peers
Cupertino City Boundary
Evacuation Routes
West of SR-85 Screenline
East of the WUI Screenline
Trip Distribution | Scenario B
Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) Trip Distribution %
SR-85 Trip Distribution %
Rodrigues Ave
Torre Ave
6%
25%
25%
6%
12%
19%
7%
31%
25%
2%
16%
6%
13%
7%
Cupertino City Boundary
Evacuation Routes
Screenline
East of the WUI Screenline
West of SR-85 Screenline
Trip Distribution
Scenario B
SR-85 Trip Distribution %
Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) %
0 1 2
M i l
Cupertino Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment | 26
Table 12: Evacuation Route Link Capacity Analysis (Scenario B) Evacuation Route Link
Evacuation
Travel
Demand1
Existing
Hourly
Traffic
Total
Evacuation
Demand
Adjusted
Evacuation
Route
Capacity
V/C
Ratio2

1. East of the Evacuation Area Screenline
Cristo Rey Drive
west of Foothills Boulevard 520 31 551 570 1.0
Foothill Boulevard
north of Alpine Drive 2,180 283 2,463 570 4.3
Stevens Creek Boulevard
east of Cupertino Road 2,180 31 2,211 570 3.9
McClellan Road
east of Imperial Avenue 520 13 533 570 0.9
Bubb Road
north of Hyannisport Drive 1,050 64 1,114 570 2.0
Rainbow Drive
west of Seven Springs Lane
1,660 85 1,745 570 3.1
Prospect Road
east of Parker Ranch Trailhead 610 23 633 570 1.1

2. West of SR 85 Screenline
Foothill Boulevard
south of I-280 2,700 283 2,983 1,560 1.9
Stevens Creek Boulevard
west of SR-85 2,180 142 2,322 1,560 1.5
Bubb Road
south of Stevens Creek Boulevard 170 86 256 570 0.4
McClellan Road
east of Bubb Road 1,400 31 1,431 570 2.5
Stelling Road
north of Orion Lane 520 28 548 570 1.0
South De Anza Boulevard
north of SR-85 1,130 362 1,492 2,490 0.6
Prospect Road
east of S De Anza Boulevard 610 144 754 1,140 0.7
Note: Bolded text indicates roadways over one-hour evacuation capacity.

1. Rounded to nearest 10.

2. Total evacuation demand divided by adjusted outbound capacity.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2025.

Cupertino Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment | 27

4.2.3 Scenario C (Qualitative Analysis)
Scenario C assumes a wildfire-triggered evacuation following an earthquake at 2 PM on a school day.

Scenario C demonstrates the worst-case evacuation condition in which an earthquake initiates wildfire. Scenario C builds on Scenario A by assuming the same evacuation demand, but with additional roadway closures at the following roadways because of an earthquake causing wildfire:
• Stevens Creek Boulevard at SR-85
• SR-85 Southbound Ramps at Stevens Creek Boulevard
Due to the results of the baseline scenario, no further quantification was conducted for Scenario C.

However, in addition to the capacity constraints identified in Scenario A, the following evacuation route capacity issues have been noted:
• The closure on Stevens Creek Boulevard and SR-85 Southbound Ramps would divert 2,378 evacuees assigned to Stevens Creek Boulevard (refer to Table 11) to the adjacent routes. The updated trip distribution is shown in Table B-3. These alternative routes include Foothill Boulevard, McClellan Road, and De Anza Boulevard. Since these routes are already bottlenecks in Scenario A, the added volume would result in further congestion and increase the severity of the bottleneck causing more delay and queuing.
• Stevens Creek Boulevard also serves the evacuees from the entire corridor east and west of the FHSZ. A portion of the rerouted evacuation demand from Stevens Creek Boulevard is expected to shift towards Rainbow Drive and to Stelling Road or De Anza Boulevard, which serve as one of the key evacuation corridors to SR-85.
• Foothill Boulevard is already identified as a critical bottleneck with a V/C ratio exceeding 4 in both the scenarios. The rerouted evacuation demand due to the roadway closures would further exacerbate congestion and significantly affect evacuation efficiency.

4.3 Analyzing Distance to Evacuation Gateways
Distance to evacuation gateways is mapped in Figure 5. The map illustrates the primary evacuation routes likely to be used by evacuees. The distance for all the evacuation routes ranges from 0.9 to 2.5 miles with most falling between 1.5 to 2 miles. From each start point, there is one or two best routes to reach the gateways with similar distances.

Routes A, B, E, and F (via Cristo Rey Drive, Stevens Creek Boulevard, Rainbow Drive, and Prospect Road, respectively) are within two miles of the nearest evacuation gateways. According to Table 11 and Table 12, Cristo Rey Drive and Prospect Road are not expected to experience capacity constraints under Scenarios A and B. As a result, evacuees using these routes are expected to have relatively short evacuation times.

In contrast, Route D (via Bubb Road) is located 2 miles to the nearest evacuation gateway (Gateway 3), while Route C (via Foothills Boulevard) exceeds 2 miles in distance to the nearest gateway (Gateway 3). Given that Foothills Boulevard is projected to be over capacity (V/C > 4) under Scenarios A and B, and Bubb Road is over capacity (V/C > 2) under both scenarios, evacuees using these routes are likely to encounter significant traffic congestion and longer evacuation times.

Distances to Evacuation Gateways
FIGURE 5
280
280
280
85 85
yW ellivelleB
S Tantau Ave
evA thgirW
S Stelling Rd
Regnart Rd
evA hcniF
Prospect Rd
Saratoga Ave
dvlB aznA eD N
Doyle Rd
dR bbuB
S Blaney Ave
Moorpark Ave
Cox Ave
McClellan Rd
dR otiuQ
dvlB aznA eD S
S Mary Ave
evA relliM
N Tantau Ave
dvlB llihtooF S
Pruneridge Ave
W Homestead Rd E Homestead Rd
Johnson Ave
N Stelling Rd Hollenbeck Ave
dR efloW S
dR elavynnuS-agotaraS S
Vallco Pkwy
Rainbow Dr
Bollinger Rd
Stevens Creek Blvd
W Campbell Ave
dvlB llihtooF N
N Blaney Ave
dR efloW
Stevens Canyon Rd
Phil Ln
evA liauQ
Mount Eden Rd
Basemap
FIGURE 2
0 1 2
Miles
Cupertino City Boundary Cupertino City Boundary
Evacuation Routes
Distance to Evacuation Gateway
0 - 0.5 Miles 0.5 - 1 Miles 1 - 1.5 Miles 1.5 - 2 Miles 2.5 - 3 Miles Gateway
Start
A
B
C
D
E
F
1 2
3 4
5 6

0.9 miles
from Point F
to Gateway 6

1.1 miles
from Point F
to Gateway 5

1.3 miles
from Point B
to Gateway 1

1.4 miles
from Point E
to Gateway 4

1.6 miles
from Point E
to Gateway 5

1.6 miles
from Point B
to Gateway 2

1.9 miles
from Point A
to Gateway 1
2 miles
from Point D
to Gateway 3

2.2 miles
from Point D
to Gateway 4

2.4 miles
from Point C
to Gateway 3

2.5 miles
from Point C
to Gateway 1
Gateway
Start
Distance to Evacuation Gateway
0 - 0.5 Miles 0.5 - 1 Miles 1 - 1.5 Miles 1.5 - 2 Miles 2.5 - 3 Miles 0 1 2
M il
Rodrigues Ave
Torre Ave
Data Source: Fehr & Peers
Cupertino Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment | 29

5. Recommendations
The City of Cupertino has already implemented several key strategies that support evacuation readiness and enhance emergency response capabilities. These existing measures provide a strong foundation for coordinated and effective action during wildfire or other disaster events:
• Established multi-jurisdictional plans that enable Fire and Sheriff departments to operate seamlessly under a unified command structure. This coordination ensures faster decisionmaking, effective resource deployment, and a cohesive response across different agencies and jurisdictions.
• Traffic signals within the evacuation network are equipped with battery backup systems, allowing them to remain operational during power outages for up to eight hours. This functionality helps maintain orderly traffic flow, reduces confusion at intersections, and supports safer, more efficient evacuations.
• Strong coordination and communication among key agencies including Fire, Sheriff, and Public Works—facilitate real-time updates and operational alignment. These communication protocols enable swift sharing of situational information, ensuring a collaborative response during rapidly evolving emergency situations.

In addition to the recommended policies (Policy HS-2.1 to Policy HS-2.15) included in the Safety Element Update, the following recommendations are listed as potential measures that can enhance the evacuation process through the supply side (increasing evacuation capacity), demand side (managing evacuation volumes), and information side (improving awareness and communication).

These recommendations will be incorporated into future updates of the Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), and Health and Safety Element Update to ensure consistency and alignment. Some recommendations can be implemented more readily through the EOP. Others may require additional coordination and formal adoption as part of the Safety Element Update or LHMP.

5.1 Supply-Side Strategies
Supply-side strategies aim to temporarily increase evacuation capacity at key bottleneck locations while balancing the everyday safety and function of the roadway system. • Increasing capacity through the use of contraflow lanes or dual purpose shoulder evacuation/protected bike lane widening by changing future roadway design, especially in areas with less accessibility and located on key evacuation routes. These areas are primarily located on I-280, Foothills Boulevard, Stevens Creek Boulevard, Bubb Road, and SR-85 corridors. These routes should consider incorporating design treatments such as painted medians (instead of raised medians) or other treatments that could assist in creating reversible lanes, or a dual-purpose shoulder to facilitate additional capacity in an evacuation event scenario.
• Extending water service into evacuation corridors strengthens firefighting capacity and longterm water investment ensures reliable resources that sustain evacuation operations under emergency conditions.
• Managed traffic control during evacuation, including turn restrictions and route or ramp closures, to maximize outflows from evacuation areas.
• Faster clearing of fire-induced road closures.

Cupertino Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment | 30
• Plan for street parking management on high hazard days.

5.2 Demand-Side Strategies
• The City of Cupertino can support vehicle volume reduction during an evacuation by encouraging carpooling and use of public transit;
• Encouraging a one car per household evacuation pledge (for households that must have second vehicles, an alternative could involve early off-site placement of a second car when advance wildfire warnings or other hazard requiring evacuation are available); • Identifying shelter locations within the City limits and outside the FHSZ to reduce demand on evacuation routes outside the FHSZ and plan/implement shelter facilities; and

5.3 Information-Side Strategies
The City of Cupertino can further support evacuation through the following measures:
• Enhance community evacuation programs to improve resident, employee, student, and visitor preparedness and familiarity with evacuation routes and processes. • Strengthen coordination of emergency response equipment and resources between neighboring jurisdictions, allowing for shared use based on operational needs rather than ownership.
• Enhance communication protocols between cities and elected officials to support unified decision-making, real-time information sharing, and coordinated emergency response across jurisdictional boundaries.
• Explore and deploy wildfire early detection systems (i.e., wildfire video surveillance cameras, drones, etc.) especially for constrained access parcels. • Use real-time traffic management tools to implement dynamic route guidance and monitoring to guide evacuees away from congested routes and encourage the use of secondary or tertiary routes to distribute traffic more evenly. • Study a phased evacuation process where different groups or areas evacuate at different times to prevent congestion on main evacuation routes. This can be based on factors like proximity to danger, traffic volume, or priority of evacuation. • Study and install vehicle monitoring devices and variable message signs to monitor evacuation programs and provide notification of any changes in evacuation routes or plans due to a change in the wildfire or incidents to motorists along the road.

5.4 Additional Considerations
This evacuation assessment includes trips generated by both employees and residents from the evacuation area and assumes all residents and employees will be evacuated using vehicles. A critical consideration for emergency personnel is to assist individual residents and employees who either do not have access to a vehicle or cannot drive, to ensure that compete evacuation is provided. The EOP includes provisions to coordinate with the VTA, Silicon Valley (SV) Hopper, and emergency services. Further research into strategies for evacuating people who do not have access to a vehicle is recommended. Options for assisting with evacuation in such situations could include, but not be limited to, the following:
• Neighborhood “buddy” program to link people needing assistance with people willing to assist.

Cupertino Evacuation Route Capacity Assessment | 31
• Partnership with transportation network companies (TNCs) like Uber and Lyft.

For individual students and visitors who do not have access to a vehicle, options for assisting with evacuation in such situations could include, but not be limited to, the following:
• Designated pick-up zones for TNCs or buses to ensure orderly evacuation. • Provide dedicated shuttle, school vans, or charter bus service, if available.

P
Appendix A:

Socioeconomic Data
P
Table A-1: Summary of Socioeconomic Data – Census1
Geographic Area Households Population Employment
Household Vehicle Ownership
0 1 2 3+
Census Tract 5077.01 1,216 4,092 1,526 90 217 515 394
Block Group 1; Census
Tract 5077.01 N/A 878 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Block Group 2;
Census Tract 5077.01 N/A 1,927 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Census Tract 5077.02 2,163 6,107 3,310 24 300 1,192 647 Block Group 1;
Census Tract 5077.02 N/A 2,052 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Block Group 2;
Census Tract 5077.02 N/A 1,704 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Block Group 3;
Census Tract 5077.02 N/A 2,351 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Census Tract 5077.04 1,214 3,466 1,453 150 299 457 308
Block Group 1;
Census Tract 5077.04 N/A 1,060 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Block Group 2;
Census Tract 5077.04 N/A 2,406 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Census Tract 5077.05 1,385 4,560 1,753 19 255 671 440
Block Group 1;
Census Tract 5077.05 N/A 1,952 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Block Group 2;
Census Tract 5077.05 N/A 1,373 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Block Group 3;
Census Tract 5077.05 N/A 1,235 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 5,978 35,613 8,042 283 1,071 2,835 1,789
Notes:

1. Census block group and census tract locations are illustrated in Figure A-1.

Source: 2023 ACS 5-year Estimates; Fehr & Peers, 2025.

P
Figure A-1: Census Block Group and Census Tract Locations P
Table A-2: Summary of Socioeconomic Data – Genasys Protect1 Geographic Area Total Population Total Daytime
Population Total Households
SCC-005 0 0 0
SCC-006 0 3 0
SCC-008 198 270 82
SCC-010 12 52 2
SCC-011 13 41 4
SCC-020 67 37 21
CUP-007 784 1,057 376
CUP-008 1,294 931 418
CUP-016 10 124 3
CUP-017 3,188 2,523 1,042
CUP-018 1,339 1,245 461
CUP-029 2,841 2,046 953
CUP-032 654 470 248
CUP-033 2,236 1,546 745
Total 12,636 10,345 4,355
Notes:

1. Genasys Protect zone locations are illustrated in Figure A-2.

Source: Genasys Protect; Fehr & Peers, 2025.

P
Figure A-2: Genasys Protect Zone Locations (highlighted numbers in study area) P
Table A-3: Summary of Socioeconomic Data – Santa Clara County VMT Estimation Tool1 Geographic Area Households Population Employment
TAZ 132 955 2,702 94
TAZ 130 0 0 0
TAZ 127 204 614 14
TAZ 128 231 693 25
TAZ 126 647 2,038 647
TAZ 103 193 530 77
TAZ 133 325 920 66
TAZ 102 278 749 55
TAZ 116 305 910 64
TAZ 115 1 3 1,448
TAZ 129 996 2,995 150
TAZ 105 413 1,240 5
TAZ 136 22 62 135
TAZ 122 328 1,033 0
TAZ 125 238 751 2
TAZ 131 273 822 5
TAZ 1334 661 1,880 55
TAZ 135 640 1,825 31
TAZ 134 677 1,916 7
TAZ 117 582 1,741 1,448
TAZ 123 466 1,472 0
Total 8,435 24,896 4,328
Notes:

1. TAZ locations are illustrated in Figure A-3.

Source: Santa Clara Countywide VMT Estimation Tool; Fehr & Peers, 2025.

P
Figure A-3: Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) Locations (light blue indicates study area) P
Table A-4: School Enrollment Data
School Name School Enrollment
Abraham Lincoln Elementary 700
John F Kennedy Middle 930
Tessellations Elementary School 270
Total (non-driving students) 1,9001
Monta Vista High School (can drive) 1,6602
Total Students 3,560
Notes:

1. Elementary and middle school students are assumed to evacuate either by carpooling with another student (20%) or by being picked up/dropped off individually (80%).

2. High school students are assumed to be able to drive and are therefore assigned the following evacuation mode shares: drive alone (20%), carpool (30%), and pick-up/drop-off (50%).

Table A-5: Estimated Student Evacuation Trips
Driving Condition
Percent Estimates
Number of
Students Factor1 Estimated Student Evacuation Trips 1,900 Students (Non- Driving)
1,660
Students
(Can Drive)
Drive Alone 0% 20% 330 1.0 330
Carpool 20% 30% 880 0.5 440
Drop-Off 80% 50% 2,350 1.0 2,350
Total 3,560 3,120
Notes:

1. Drive Alone trips assume one person per vehicle; Carpool trips assume two passengers per vehicle, excluding the driver; and Drop-Off trips assume one passenger per vehicle, with the driver not counted.

P
Table A-6: Estimated Visitor Evacuation Trips
Recreational Attractions Location Number of Visitors1
PG&E Trailhead East of Rancho San
Antonio County Park 200
Deep Cliff Golf Course North of Linda Vista Park 20
Rim Trail North of Stevens Creek
County Park 100
Parker Ranch Trailhead East of Fremont Older
Open Space Preserve 35
Total Visitors 355
Estimated Visitor Evacuation Trips2180
Notes:

1. The number of visitors is based on the percentage of parking spaces assumed during the study period. (Refer to Table 2 notes for the percentages assumed).

2. Visitors are assumed to carpool (two or more passengers per vehicle).

P
Appendix B: Trip
Distribution
P
Table B-1: Trip Distribution Linked to Genasys Protect Zones (Scenario A) Genasys Protect
Zones1 Population Population Distribution Connected Roadways Evacuation Trip Distribution SCC-0052 0 0% Foothills Boulevard 0%
SCC-006 0 0% Foothills Boulevard 0%
SCC-008 198 1% Foothills Boulevard 1%
SCC-010 12 0% Foothills Boulevard 0%
SCC-011 13 0% Prospect Road 0%
SCC-020 67 0% Prospect Road 0%
CUP-007 784 5% Cristo Rey Drive 5%
CUP-008 1,294 8%
Foothills Boulevard 5%
Stevens Creek
Boulevard 3%
CUP-016 10 0% McClellan Road 0%
CUP-017 3,188 20%
Foothills Boulevard 9%
Stevens Creek
Boulevard 10%
McClellan Road 1%
CUP-008 1,339 8%
Foothills Boulevard 5%
Stevens Creek
Boulevard 3%
CUP-029 2,841 38%
Stevens Creek
Boulevard 4%
McClellan Road 24%
Rainbow Drive 10%
CUP-032 654 4%
McClellan Road 2%
Rainbow Drive 2%
CUP-033 2,236 16%
Stelling Road 5%
Rainbow Drive 5%
Prospect Road 6%
Notes:

1. Genasys Protect zone locations are illustrated in Figure A-2.

2. SCC coded zones are located in Santa Clara County’s FHSZ.

Source: Genasys Protect; Fehr & Peers, 2025.

P
Table B-2: Trip Distribution Linked to Genasys Protect Zones (Scenario B) Genasys Protect
Zones1 Population Population Distribution
Connected
Roadways
Evacuation Trip
Distribution
SCC-005 0 0% Foothills
Boulevard 0%
SCC-006 0 0% Foothills
Boulevard 0%
SCC-008 198 2% Foothills
Boulevard 2%
SCC-010 12 0% Foothills
Boulevard 0%
SCC-011 13 0% Prospect Road 0%
SCC-020 67 1% Prospect Road 1%
CUP-007 784 6% Cristo Rey Drive 6%
CUP-008 1,294 10%
Foothills
Boulevard 7%
Stevens Creek
Boulevard 3%
CUP-016 10 0% McClellan Road 0%
CUP-017 3,188 25%
Foothills
Boulevard 10%
Stevens Creek
Boulevard 13%
McClellan Road 2%
CUP-008 1,339 11%
Foothills
Boulevard 8%
Stevens Creek
Boulevard 3%
CUP-029 2,841 22%
Stevens Creek
Boulevard 2%
McClellan Road 15%
Rainbow Drive 5%
CUP-032 654 5%
McClellan Road 3%
Rainbow Drive 2%
CUP-033 2,236 18%
Stelling Road 6%
Rainbow Drive 6%
Prospect Road 6%
Notes:

1. Genasys Protect zone locations are illustrated in Figure A-2.

2. SCC coded zones are located in Santa Clara County’s FHSZ.

Source: Genasys Protect; Fehr & Peers, 2025.

P
Table B-3: Trip Distribution Linked to Genasys Protect Zones (Scenario C) Genasys Protect
Zones1 Population Population Distribution Connected Roadways Evacuation Trip Distribution2 SCC-0053 0 0% Foothills Boulevard 0%
SCC-006 0 0% Foothills Boulevard 0%
SCC-008 198 1% Foothills Boulevard 1%
SCC-010 12 0% Foothills Boulevard 0%
SCC-011 13 0% Prospect Road 0%
SCC-020 67 0% Prospect Road 0%
CUP-007 784 5% Cristo Rey Drive 5%
CUP-008 1,294 8%
Foothills Boulevard 8%
Stevens Creek
Boulevard 0%
CUP-016 10 0% McClellan Road 0%
CUP-017 3,188 20%
Foothills Boulevard 15%
Stevens Creek
Boulevard 0%
McClellan Road 5%
CUP-008 1,339 8%
Foothills Boulevard 8%
Stevens Creek
Boulevard 0%
CUP-029 2,841 38%
Stevens Creek
Boulevard 0%
McClellan Road 26%
Rainbow Drive 12%
CUP-032 654 4%
McClellan Road 2%
Rainbow Drive 2%
CUP-033 2,236 16%
Stelling Road 5%
Rainbow Drive 5%
Prospect Road 6%
Notes:

1. Genasys Protect zone locations are illustrated in Figure A-2.

2. For Scenario C, due to road closure at Stevens Creek Boulevard at SR-85, trips assigned to Stevens Creek Boulevard under Scenario A were shifted to alternative roadways.

3. SCC coded zones are located in Santa Clara County’s FHSZ.

Source: Genasys Protect; Fehr & Peers, 2025.

From: Jean Bedord
To: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Council Subject: Special request for Agenda Item # 3: Summerhill Development Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 5:24:16 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.

I will be speaking at public comment for this item. I would greatly appreciate it if you could (1) Display the "Opportunity Sites" map below from the January 25,2022 Planning Commission meeting, chaired by Steven Scharf. This is from the Planning Commission is in the materials for that day. and (2) play the short clip (1) Map of "Opportunity Sites" from the January 25, 2022 Planning Commission meetings.

That map is in the materials for that day. It includes the Evulich Court site:
(2) Please play this time-stamped link: https://youtu.be/Mm7IWJiLP0g?t=7887 Ray Wang had asked lots of questions about why sites on the western side of town weren't being considered; he also commented that the difference in density between the east and west traditionally causes tension in the community.

Ray asked if the city could just rezone all of western Cupertino to 20 du/a (upper density townhouses) and count that in the sites inventory. Staff responded yes.

At one point, Ray asked of staff: " could we just
2:11:33
take the entire west side and just drive the du up to 20 and you know and then just say let's go count that puppy oh uh 2:11:40
yes we could absolutely the council the city i mean the west side has never experienced that Link to entire meeting, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm7IWJiLP0g&t=3s Thanks much!
Jean Bedord
From: Connie-Comcast Swim5am
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: 2026-4-1 CC Agenda Item 3, 51-unit Townhome Housing Application Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 10:57:59 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 add this to Written Communications
Agenda Item #3
Honorable Mayor Moore, Vice-mayor, Councilmembers
Connie Cunningham
38 year resident
Housing Commission, speaking for myself only
I strongly support this application for 51 new well-designed homes in a wonderful location for students from elementary through high school. My children attended these excellent schools. I know that the new families will deeply appreciate being part of this neighborhood and schools.

Cupertino needs more homes of all types. These townhomes include BelowMarket Rate purchase homes is an excellent step forward.

The County Fire Chiefs clearly explained how the homes meet the new requirements for new fire high severity maps. They are professionals who best advise Council and residents on fire risks and preparation. I urge you to heed their advice.

These homes are near Cupertino highly acclaimed high school, middle school and elementary school. It is also near other city amenities. Of special interest is the applicant’s request for access to the Linda Vista Trail. That would be an amazing access to trails, Blackberry Farm, and the Blackberry Preserve.

Blackberry Preserve is a gem that Cupertino has set-aside for nurturing nature’s plants and animals as well as nurturing the human spirit.

I urge City Council to approve this SummerHill Townhome project tonight.

Thank you for this time to speak.

From Connie's iPhone
From: Rhoda Fry
To: Public Comments
Subject: Agenda Item #3 Linda Vista - public comment
Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 6:07:04 PM
Attachments: Linda Vista Presentation.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.

Agenda Item #3 Linda Vista - public comment
Thanks for reading the attached
CEQA is Required
Purpose of AB130 (SB131) is to streamline straight-forward projects Linda Vista is not for multiple reasons . . .

Per AB130, CEQA is required if project is in an earthquake zone on an “Official Map published by the State Geologist.” The Monta Vista is thrust fault capable of 7M earthquake. Thrust faults cause more damage than conventional faults.

Note developer used Alquist Priolo map which is years behind our State Geologist’s Official Fault Activity Map of California.

CEQA is Required
AMMR & Architectural Site Approval are
not a substitute for AB130 Checklist
Per AB130, CEQA is required if project is in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). Some jurisdictions allow loopholes. Where is Cupertino’s Policy??? AB130 Loophole has 3 requirements and only one was partially met The Planning Department asked both the Developer and Fire for the 3 requirements:
4290, 4291, 7a. The Developer asked for and received an Alternative Means and Methods Request (AMMR). Packet also includes Architectural and Site Approval comments. Why did these 3 requirements get lost in the shuffle? Project fails at least two CEQA exemption triggers for AB130 AMMR Fails: 10 feet ≠ 30 feet
If there’s a fire & earthquake, there’s likely no water, so the exterior sprinklers within 30 feet of the
property line will be useless!

1. Water mains have been breaking (without the assistance of an earthquake)

2. Within active and dangerous earthquake fault zone

3. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ)
Use of AMMR is Improper for 2 Reasons
AMMR = Alternative Means and Methods Request

1. As shown earlier for AB130

2. AMMR is to be used for Exceptional Circumstances
– otherwise Standard Fire Code Prevails!
AMMRs are used when physical limitations, unique
site conditions, or design constraints make it
IMPOSSIBLE to follow the standard.

INCREASING DEVELOPER PROFIT MARGIN IS
NOT A CRITERIA FOR AMMR!!!
Developer misled Fire.

Would you consider this site for
the Housing Element Today?
IF ONLY YOU HAD KNOWN . . .

1. The evacuation routes were at double (some areas quadruple) overcapacity? Why did the Planning Department wait from October 2025 to March 2026, after the Planning Commission meeting on this topic to reveal the assessment? Why is Summerhill not doing an evacuation assessment – what will they tell their buyers?

2. The site was in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone?

3. The Monta Vista fault is a very dangerous thrust fault capable of ~7M? YOU CAN SAY NO NOW!

1. Deny CEQA

2. Deny the project as proposed

3. Revoke SB330 due to significant health and safety risks The proposed project creates specific, adverse impacts upon the public health and safety for which no feasible, objective method exists to mitigate that impact.

CC 4-01-2026
#4
Mary Ave Villas Project
Written Communications
From: Mahesh Gurikar
To: City Clerk; City Council; Public Comments; Luke Connolly Subject: Mary Avenue Villas Project
Date: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 7:20:05 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.

Dear to Citi Clerk,
Please include this under Written Public Commets for April 1, 2026 meeting.

Thank you.

Public Comment Opposing Vacation of Public Right-of-Way (Mary Avenue Villas Project) Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,
We strongly oppose the proposed vacation of a public right-of-way (ROW) on Mary Avenue in connection with the Mary Avenue Villas Project.

We believe this action raises serious legal, safety, and public interest concerns that should not be overlooked.

1. Improper Transfer of Public Assets for Private Benefit The proposed ROW vacation effectively transfers public land to a private developer. Public right-of-way exists to serve the broader community—transportation, safety access, utilities, and long-term planning—not to subsidize private development. This sets a dangerous precedent and undermines public trust.

2. Potential Violation of the Surplus Land Act

3. CEQA Concerns and Lack of Proper Environmental Review The permanent removal of public right-of-way, changes in traffic circulation, and cumulative neighborhood impacts are not trivial and deserve full environmental review.

4. Public Safety and Circulation Risks
Mary Avenue serves as an important corridor. Reducing or eliminating public right-of-way could:
- Limit emergency vehicle access
- Increase traffic congestion and unsafe conditions
- Reduce pedestrian and cyclist safety
These impacts directly affect existing residents and should not be dismissed.

Also, changing the configuration of Mary Avenue will negatively impact the safety of users of Mary Avenue and nearby residents.

5. Inadequate Public Process and Transparency. Actions such as coordinated approvals, bundled determinations, and limited meaningful public engagement undermine confidence in the integrity of the process.

We respectfully urge the City Council to:
- Reject the vacation of the Mary Avenue public right-of-way - Require full legal and environmental review, including CEQA compliance - Ensure compliance with the Surplus Land Act
- Prioritize public safety, transparency, and the long-term interests of residents Public land should remain in public hands unless there is a clear, lawful, and compelling public benefit. That standard has not been met.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Mahesh
Cupertino Resident
From: Walter Li
To: City Council; City Clerk; Tina Kapoor; Public Comments Subject: Public Comment Opposing Vacation of Public Right-of-Way (Mary Avenue Villas Project) Date: Monday, March 23, 2026 11:49:12 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.

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed vacation of a public right-of-way (ROW) on Mary Avenue in connection with the Mary Avenue Villas Project.

This action raises serious legal, safety, and public interest concerns that should not be overlooked.

2. Potential Violation of the Surplus Land Act
The City’s determination that this property is exempt from surplus land requirements is highly questionable. Government Code §54221 et seq. is intended to ensure public land is prioritized for affordable housing and public benefit through a transparent process. Bypassing these requirements without clear justification raises serious compliance concerns.

3. CEQA Concerns and Lack of Proper Environmental Review Declaring the project and ROW vacation exempt from CEQA appears inconsistent with the real impacts. The permanent removal of public right-of-way, changes in traffic circulation, and cumulative neighborhood impacts are not trivial and deserve full environmental review.

4. Public Safety and Circulation Risks
Mary Avenue serves as an important corridor. Reducing or eliminating public right-of-way could:
• Limit emergency vehicle access
• Increase traffic congestion and unsafe conditions
• Reduce pedestrian and cyclist safety
These impacts directly affect existing residents and should not be dismissed.

5. Inadequate Public Process and Transparency
The community has serious concerns that decisions regarding this project were effectively predetermined. Actions such as coordinated approvals, bundled determinations, and limited meaningful public engagement undermine confidence in the integrity of the process.

6. Irreversible Loss of Public Infrastructure
Once public right-of-way is vacated and conveyed, it is effectively gone forever. The City should not permanently give up public land without overwhelming, clearly demonstrated public benefit—which has not been shown here.
---
Conclusion
For all of the reasons above, I respectfully urge the City Council to:
• Reject the vacation of the Mary Avenue public right-of-way • Require full legal and environmental review, including CEQA compliance • Ensure compliance with the Surplus Land Act
• Prioritize public safety, transparency, and the long-term interests of residents Public land should remain in public hands unless there is a clear, lawful, and compelling public benefit. That standard has not been met.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Walter Li
CC 4-01-2026
#4
Mary Ave Villas Project
Written Communications
From: Steve Proffitt
To: Public Comments; City Council; City Clerk
Subject: Mary Ave project
Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 2:59:52 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.

Hello,
As a resident of the neighborhood that will be affected by the Mary Avenue project I would like the city Council to reconsider approval of the project. Well, I respect the need for affordable housing and housing for those with disabilities. I can’t help it feel there are better locations for this than that being proposed. I believe both the traffic and safety issues which may be caused by this project or not well understood and may very well be more severe than anticipated.

There appears to be a large parcel of unused land which is presumably part of the Westport project. Perhaps that would be a more suitable location. I feel like the residents of our neighborhood were sold a bill of the goods with the Westport development project. There has been no retail to replace that which was lost with the Oaks and we only have a lot more high density housing.

Respectfully yours,
Steve Proffitt
10464 Brewer Ave, Cupertino, CA 95014
From: Robert Ku
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: Mary Villa Housing Project Objection
Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 1:26:59 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 Councilmembers,
My name is Robertsen Ku and I am a 17 year resident of Cupertino in the Garden Gate neighborhood. I am writing to formally submit my opposition to the Mary Ave Villas project scheduled for discussion during Wednesday April 1, 2026’s public hearing.

I am deeply concerned that the city is moving forward with the vacation of the public rightof-way on Mary Avenue to facilitate a project that presents significant safety and procedural risks:

I am in support of housing in Cupertino, but am concerned about the location, proximity and space of the location and therefore I ask the Council to vote NO on this.

Below are some concerns that are important for my family and I.

Public Safety and Traffic Congestion: The proposed plan to narrow Mary Avenue and eliminate 89 existing parking spaces is irresponsible. This area is a critical corridor for residents and visitors to Memorial Park. Reducing the street width and removing parking will inevitably lead to increased congestion and, more importantly, could impede emergency vehicle access during peak hours or community events.

Inadequate Site Capacity: The 0.79-acre "sliver" of land is physically insufficient to safely support 40 units. Shoehorning high-density housing into a narrow buffer zone against the Highway 85 sound wall raises serious questions about the quality of life and air quality for the future residents, particularly those with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

Procedural and Legal Concerns: I urge the Council to reconsider the declaration of this parcel as "Exempt Surplus Land." Given the ongoing litigation and the community’s concerns regarding CEQA exemptions and soil toxicity (lead/arsenic) near the highway, the city should halt the land transfer until a full, transparent environmental and fiscal audit is completed.

I oppose the Vacation of the Right-of-Way because it permanently removes public parking and narrows a critical roadway, creating a safety hazard. Furthermore, the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) as currently written does not provide enough protection for the surrounding neighborhood regarding traffic mitigation and environmental safety.

Cupertino deserves affordable housing solutions that are safe, well-vetted, and compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. This specific proposal fails those tests. I ask the Council to vote NO on the vacation of the right-of-way and the Disposition and Development Agreement.

Thank you for your time and for considering the concerns of your constituents.

Sincerely,
Robertsen Ku
10674 Grapnel Pl, Cupertino, CA 95014
408-338-0364
From: Ron Schrotenboer
To: City Council; Public Comments; City Clerk
Subject: Mary ave villas
Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 11:09:24 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 council is considering whether to reconsider the Mary Ave. villas project. I ask the council to reconsider.

A significant issue that has not been analyzed is the traffic that comes north from Stevens Creek Blvd and wants to park near the new villas. This traffic will somehow need to make a U turn to use the only parking available on the west side of Mary. This traffic issue was not considered in the traffic study produced in Nov. 2025. I asked the city council to consider this last month (3/3/26), but I am unaware of anything being done. (email sent to council is below.) Cupertino prides itself on transparency according to the mayor’s state of the city address 2026. Please consider this traffic issue or explain why it is not a problem.

Reconsider the Mary Ave. project.

Ron Schrotenboer
21475 Millard Ln.

I have comments concerning traffic resulting from the Mary Ave. villas.

I reviewed the traffic study prepared for the Mary Ave villas project that was included in the supplemental report provided to council on February 3. The study covers a number of the traffic consequences and recommends a few minor adjustments. However, the study fails to consider the consequences of removing the parking on the east side of Mary Ave. and only having parking on the west side.

From the end of Arroyo villages project going north, all of the current parking on the east side of Mary will be eliminated. The study says that the remaining parking on the west side in front of the villas will be sufficient going forward. However, the study did not consider how cars coming from Stevens Creek Blvd will be able to use that parallel parking in front of the villas.

Currently 3-6 cars park regularly overnight on east side north of the second entrance to Glenbrook. Also, during the day cars regularly park in the spots south of the second entrance and also on the current west side angled parking spots. With this project, to park on the parallel spots on the west side of Mary Ave. the cars coming from Stevens creek Blvd will somehow have to make a U turn. However, Mary Ave. will only have 2 lanes and 1 parking lane for the length of the Mary Villas. That is too narrow to make a U turn. I expect people will make all kinds of turns in various places north on Mary by Casa De Anza because there is no place set up for U turns.

This situation will be exacerbated by the small number of off road parking spots for the villas.

Although 20 spots may be more than the state law requires, with 40 units, even with 19 for developmentally disabled people, I expect the residents will have more than 20 cars. Thus, the parking spots will be regularly all occupied. Thus, any support people who come and residents returning will also have to make U turns somewhere to be able to park on the west side.

The traffic study did consider this at all. This will be a real traffic issue that is unsafe.

This problem needs to be considered in detail before the council approves the transfer of public space. Please do not ignore it. As proposed, this project is too big for the narrow space.

From: Connie Cunningham
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: 2026-4-1 CC Agenda Item 4 Petitions for Reconsideration Date: Tuesday, March 31, 2026 2:49:11 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 add this to Written Communications
Agenda Item 4
Subject: Conduct public hearing pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code section 2.08.096 to hear Petitions for Reconsideration
Dear Mayor Moore, Vice-mayor, Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney:

I strongly support the Recommended Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration. I urge Council to approve the Recommended Action as stated in the Agenda.

Sincerely ,
Connie Cunningham
38 year resident
Housing Commission, speaking for myself only
From: Janey Lien
To: City Council; City Clerk
Cc: Janey Lien
Subject: Public Comment for April 1, "26 Meeting: Formal Protest against Mary Ave Villas Land Vacation Date: Tuesday, March 31, 2026 2:49:00 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 Councilmembers,
My name is Janey Lien and I am a 23+ year resident of Cupertino in the Garden Gate neighborhood. I am writing to formally submit my opposition to the Mary Ave Villas project scheduled for discussion during tomorrow’s public hearing. As I am unable to attend the meeting in person, I request that this correspondence be included in the official public record.

I am deeply concerned that the city is moving forward with the vacation of the public right-of-way on Mary Avenue to facilitate a project that presents significant safety and procedural risks:

Thank you for your time and for considering the concerns of your constituents.

Sincerely,
Janey Lien
21328 Meteor Drive, Cupertino, CA 95014
From: James Lloyd
To: Kitty Moore; Liang Chao; Sheila Mohan; J.R. Fruen; R "Ray" Wang Cc: Piu Ghosh (she/her); City Attorney"s Office; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.

Subject: public comment re agenda item 4 for tonight"s Council meeting Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 3:35:40 PM
Attachments: Cupertino - Mary Ave Project - Joint Letter.pdf CalHDF v LCF - compressed.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 Cupertino City Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) and Californians for Homeownership submit the attached public comment (and referenced court decision) regarding agenda item 4 for tonight's Council meeting, the proposed 40-unit, 100% affordable, supportive housing project on Mary Avenue, APN 326 27 053.

Sincerely,
James M. Lloyd
Director of Planning and Investigations
California Housing Defense Fund
[email protected]
CalHDF is grant & donation funded
Donate today - https://calhdf.org/donate/
Apr 1, 2026
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Re: Proposed Supportive Housing Development on Mary Avenue By email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
Dear Cupertino City Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) and Californians for Homeownership submit this letter to remind the City of its obligation to abide by the Housing Element Law, and state environmental laws, when evaluating the proposed 40-unit, 100% affordable, supportive housing project on Mary Avenue, APN 326 27 053.

The City’s Housing Element of its General Plan must provide an inventory of sites where housing is likely to be built in the upcoming cycle for each income level in its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”). (Gov. Code § 65583, subd. (a)(3).) The City’s Housing Element lists the proposed project site in its site inventory (site 10) and assigns 40 lower-income housing units to the site. The City must therefore facilitate the development of the project, which will include 40 lower-income units.

Additionally, the project is exempt from state environmental review pursuant to section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. The project is also eligible for a statutory exemption from state environmental review pursuant to AB 130 (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66). Caselaw from the California Court of Appeal affirms that local governments err, and may be sued, when they improperly refuse to grant a project a CEQA exemption or streamlined CEQA review to which it is entitled. (Hilltop Group, Inc. v. County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 911.) If the City chooses to deny the project, a court may find that the City’s Housing Element is no longer in substantial compliance with Housing Element law, and it may be subject to the builder’s remedy. The Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code, § 65589.5; the “HAA”) requires approval of “builder’s remedy” projects that are submitted during periods of local housing element noncompliance. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (d)(6).) Under the HAA, a city may not disapprove a builder’s remedy project on the grounds it does not comply with the city’s zoning and general plan if the developer submitted either a statutorily defined "preliminary application" or a "complete development application" while the city's housing element was not in substantial compliance with state law. (See Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (d)(6), (h)(5), (o)(1).) This statutory provision temporarily suspends the power of non-compliant municipalities to enforce their zoning rules against qualifying affordable housing projects.

See California Housing Defense Fund v. City of La Cañada Flintridge, Case Number:
23STCP02614 (attached), for a recent court decision affirming the plain language of the statute in this regard.

If the City’s compliance with Housing Element law lapses, developers will be able to propose any residential project, no matter how tall or large, as long as it qualifies as a builder’s remedy project. The City will be bound to approve all such projects even if the City later comes back into compliance with housing element law. For instance, in Santa Monica, a single developer proposed 4,260 housing units, including several 18-story buildings, when Santa Monica’s housing element fell out of compliance. If the City wrongfully denies such builder’s remedy applications, not only may the applicant seek judicial remedies, but the HAA specifically empowers housing organizations, such as CalHDF and Californians for Homeownership, to enforce the act via litigation. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (k)(1)(A)(i).) And if the City contests such Builder’s Remedy applications, it may be liable for costs. For example, the HAA authorizes courts to award attorney’s fees and costs both to applicants and to housing organizations if they prevail in litigation to enforce the HAA. (Id. at subd. (k).) As an example, the City of Berkeley was fined $2.6 million and forced to pay $1.4 million in attorneys’ fees after incorrectly denying a housing development project in violation of the HAA.

As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. New housing such as this is a public benefit: it will provide critical affordable housing supportive housing for the developmentally disabled, and it will prevent homelessness . It will also help cut down on transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions by providing housing in denser, more urban areas, as opposed to farther-flung regions in the state (and out of state). While no one project will solve the statewide housing crisis, the proposed development is a step in the right direction. We urge the City to approve it, consistent with its obligations under state law.

Sincerely,
Matthew Gelfand Dylan Casey
Californians for CalHDF
Homeownership
2 of 2

From: Joshua Safran
To: City Council
Cc: Tina Kapoor; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; Kirsten Squarcia; Lauren Sapudar; City Clerk; Benjamin Fu; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; [email protected]; City Attorney"s Office; [email protected]; Caitlyn Grady; Steven Kahn
Subject: Request for Compliance with Law and Objections to Hearing on Petitions for Reconsideration - Agenda Item 4 of City Council Agenda of April 1, 2026 - Mary Avenue Villas Project (File #: 26-14737) Date: Monday, March 30, 2026 8:55:29 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Demand Letter to City Council of Cupertino re Mary Avenue Villas Project (March 30, 2026).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 Moore and Members of the City Council:

We represent the Garden Gate Coalition for Mary Avenue Safety (the “Coalition”), an unincorporated association of residents and community members directly and adversely affected by the Mary Avenue Villas Project (the “Project”) and the City’s related actions affecting the Mary Avenue public right-of-way, public parking, circulation, safety, and Cityowned land.

Please find attached the Coalition’s Request for Compliance with Law and Objections to Hearing on Petitions for Reconsideration - Agenda Item 4 of City Council Agenda of April 1, 2026 - Mary Avenue Villas Project (File #: 26-14737) for consideration by the City Council and inclusion in the public record relating to this hearing and the Project.

All the best,
Joshua
Joshua Safran
One Almaden Boulevard, Suite 700
San Jose, California 95113
Phone: 510.384.7627
Email: [email protected]
The information in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential, and may be subject to the attorney-client or work product privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, any review, disclosure, distribution, or use of such information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please destroy it and notify the sender immediately.

One Almaden Boulevard, Suite 700 San Jose, CA 95113
P: (408) 478-4100 F: (408) 295-4100 www.strategylaw.com

March 30, 2026 JOSHUA SAFRAN, ESQ.
[email protected]
Cupertino City Council
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
By Email ([email protected])
Request for Compliance with Law and Objections to
Hearing on Petitions for Reconsideration
Agenda Item 4 of City Council Agenda of April 1, 2026:

Mary Avenue Villas Project (File #: 26-14737)
Dear Mayor Moore and Members of the City Council:

We write in advance of the April 1, 2026 hearing recently noticed by the City as a hearing on the Coalition’s previous “petitions for reconsideration.” The City should not proceed as though this is an ordinary reconsideration matter under Cupertino Municipal Code section 2.08.096. The hearing, as presently noticed and postured, is improper. More fundamentally, the City should set aside its prior approvals because the claims raised in the Coalition’s February 27 and March 13 petitions, and now in the Coalition’s verified writ petition and complaint in Superior Court, are serious, meritorious, and independently sufficient to invalidate the approvals already issued.

This Project has been advanced through a shambolic, disordered rush job driven not by lawful sequencing, full environmental review, supported findings, and neutral adjudication, but by a purported external financing deadline that the City repeatedly invoked to justify approving first and rationalizing later. The City should stop now, vacate the challenged approvals, and reset the process in a manner that complies with California law.

I. The Coalition’s Claims Are Meritorious and Require the City to Set Aside the Prior Approvals
The Coalition’s administrative petitions and filed lawsuit present a coherent and substantial challenge to every major Project approval the City has issued to date, including the CEQA exemption determinations, Resolution No. 26-016 (ASA), Resolution No. 26-018 (DDA), Demand Letter to Cupertino City Council re Mary Avenue Villas Project (File #: 26-14737)

Page 2 ends

Resolution No. 26-024 (street vacation), Resolution No. 26-025 (exempt-surplus declaration), and related antecedent and follow-on actions. The City should not treat these claims as technicalities or mere delay tactics. They go to the heart of whether the City had legal authority to do what it did, whether it proceeded in the manner required by law, and whether the approvals are supported by substantial evidence.

A. CEQA
The City’s CEQA theory has been unstable from the outset. At different times, the City has characterized portions of the Project and related actions as not separate CEQA projects, as categorically exempt, or as implementation steps supposedly within the scope of other approvals.

That is precisely the kind of legally backward approach CEQA forbids.

The Mary Avenue Villas Project is not merely a building permit or an isolated site-plan exercise.

It is an integrated undertaking involving, among other things, construction of a 40-unit development project on and through active City-owned right-of-way and public land; elimination and reconfiguration of public parking and circulation; approval of a binding DDA committing the City to convey public property and provide substantial public financial assistance to a private developer; vacation of a portion of Mary Avenue right-of-way; and a declaration that the same land is “exempt surplus.” These are not severable trivia. They are the whole of the action.

The Coalition’s petitions explained in detail why the City’s reliance on a Class 32 exemption is invalid, including because substantial record evidence supports a fair argument that the Project may cause significant traffic, parking, circulation, and safety impacts, and because the City improperly segmented environmentally consequential approvals and property-disposition steps from the Project. The February petition further identified newly available expert analysis from Krupka Consulting quantifying major event parking overload conditions, the Project’s removal of approximately 95 public on-street spaces, and operational conflicts involving large vehicles, lane geometry, and door-swing encroachments. The March petition explained that the March 3 resolutions merely repeated the same defective CEQA theory, asserting again that the right-of-way vacation and exempt-surplus declaration were implementation measures within the larger project and that no exception to the categorical exemption applied.

The City’s own conduct underscores the problem. The City Attorney admitted that the February 5 Notices of Exemption were filed prematurely and had “no force and effect.” That concession alone should have caused the City to stop, reassess finality, and refrain from doubling down on the same defective exemption theories. Instead, the City proceeded to entrench the same theory through additional resolutions.

Demand Letter to Cupertino City Council re Mary Avenue Villas Project (File #: 26-14737)

Page 3 ends

The City should not compound that error now by pretending these issues can be dismissed through a perfunctory denial resolution. The CEQA issues are meritorious, substantial, and likely dispositive.

B. Government Code section 65402 and General Plan Law
The Coalition’s claims under Government Code section 65402 are equally serious. The City approved the February 3 package before obtaining the antecedent Planning Commission conformity findings required for disposition of public property and vacation of public right-ofway. The later February 10 Planning Commission action did not cure that defect; it confirmed it.

A post hoc ratification is not the sequencing the statute requires.

The Coalition repeatedly warned the City that the Planning Commission must act before the legislative body approves disposition and vacation actions that depend on section 65402 review.

The City nevertheless approved the Project and DDA first, then turned to the Planning Commission to retrofit the missing findings. That is backwards. It also matters. The Mary Avenue right-of-way is not an abstract line on a map. The record contains substantial evidence that it serves active public functions including parking, bicycle circulation, access, buffering, and neighborhood connectivity, including as a designated Neighborhood Connector. Reliance on the Housing Element alone does not establish that vacating active public infrastructure or disposing of City-owned land is consistent with the General Plan.

The City therefore acted without satisfying a mandatory prerequisite and without substantial evidence supporting the specific consistency findings required for the actions actually taken.

C. The February 3 DDA Approval Was Unlawful and Predetermined Later Actions
Resolution No. 26-018 and the DDA are not benign or collateral. By approving the DDA, the City committed itself to convey City-owned land to the developer for nominal consideration, provide millions of dollars in financial assistance, and structure the Project around a fixed disposition-andfinancing framework, all before the City had lawfully completed the prerequisite processes governing CEQA, section 65402 conformity, street vacation, and public land disposition.

The DDA thus did not merely follow lawful approvals; it entrenched them and created pressure to obtain later approvals on a deadline-driven basis. The Coalition’s petitions and complaint correctly describe this as commitment first, findings later. That is not how CEQA, section 65402, or basic public land-disposition law works.

Demand Letter to Cupertino City Council re Mary Avenue Villas Project (File #: 26-14737)

Page 4 ends

D. Street Vacation Defects
The March 3, 2026 right-of-way vacation suffers from independent defects. A lawful street vacation requires more than the City’s desire to redevelop public land for the benefit of a private party. It requires supported findings, including that the area is unnecessary for present or prospective public use, and California law also requires that abandonment be in the public interest.

Here, the record cuts the other way. The City’s own materials and the Coalition’s evidence show active present use of the area for parking, bicycle travel, circulation, access, and neighborhood functions. The City’s later redesign drawings do not prove that existing right-of-way is unnecessary; they prove that the Project depends on removing and rerouting existing public functions. Nor did the City grapple in any meaningful way with the Coalition’s evidence regarding Memorial Park overflow demand, event-related parking, cumulative nearby development pressures, truck movements, and safety conflicts.

The vacation findings are therefore conclusory and unsupported.

E. Surplus Land Act Defects
The exempt-surplus declaration is likewise deeply flawed. The central question is not whether the City would prefer to repurpose the land for affordable housing. The question is whether the property is actually unnecessary for the City’s use under the governing statute. The record reflects that the land has active public right-of-way, transportation, and parking functions. The City cannot lawfully bootstrap exempt-surplus status from its own prior redevelopment preference while disregarding those existing public functions.

The City’s addition of a citation to Airport Business Center does not cure the problem. A case citation is not evidence. The City still has not supplied supported findings showing that active public infrastructure and parking in this location are unnecessary for present or foreseeable public use.

F. Fair Hearing, Bias, and Prejudgment
The Coalition’s fair-hearing claims are also substantial. The petitions and complaint detail a record demonstrating prejudgment, bias, compressed procedures, and a hearing environment in which legal objections were treated as moral or ethical improprieties rather than arguments to be assessed on the merits.

As the Coalition documented, Councilmember Fruen expressly stated he had “no reason to believe any of the assertions” made by the Coalition, questioned counsel’s ethics, and framed the matter in moral terms incompatible with impartial quasi-judicial decisionmaking. The petitions further explained why those remarks, together with the Council’s overt deadline-driven compression of Demand Letter to Cupertino City Council re Mary Avenue Villas Project (File #: 26-14737)

Page 5 ends

the process, support a common-law disqualifying conflict in the form of prejudgment and lack of an open mind.

Those concerns did not disappear after February 3. They carried through March 3, and they continue into the scheduling and structure of the April 1, 2026 hearing itself.

In short, the Coalition’s claims are not marginal. They are serious, well-developed, and merit the City’s immediate reconsideration of its own conduct. The lawful response is to set aside the approvals, not to rush to deny reconsideration and then leave the courts to clean up the City’s process.

II. The April 1 “Reconsideration” Hearing Is Improper, and the Petitions Were Not Required
The City should not proceed on the fiction that section 2.08.096 of the Municipal Code governs the April 1, 2026 hearing.

First, the City Attorney already told us in writing that no reconsideration petition was required as to the February 3 actions. In her February 18, 2026 email, the Interim City Attorney wrote that section 2.08.096 applies to “any adjudicatory decision of the City Council,” and then stated: “No adjudicatory decision was taken by Council with respect to Mary Avenue Villas on February 3, 2026, so the reconsideration requirement of Municipal Code section 2.08.096 does not apply to those actions.”
The City cannot now reverse course, notice a hearing under section 2.08.096 on those same February 3 actions, and recommend that the Council deny petitions it previously acknowledged were not required in the first place. Nor can the City simultaneously say that the February approvals were not adjudicatory for reconsideration purposes, while elsewhere insisting that quasijudicial reconsideration procedures somehow govern them. The City’s positions have been irreconcilably inconsistent.

Second, the March 3 actions are not properly treated as adjudicatory reconsideration matters either.

The March 3 resolutions involve a street vacation and an exempt-surplus declaration regarding City-owned land. Those are quintessential public-property and land-use governance decisions of a legislative or quasi-legislative character, not case-specific adjudications of the type section

2.08.096 was designed to cover. The City’s own reconsideration form states that reconsideration petitions are accepted only for “adjudicatory matters that are quasi-judicial decisions by the City Council.” The March 3 actions do not fit that description.

Third, the City’s own notice and agenda confirm that it has already pre-judged the outcome. The April 1, 2026 agenda does not neutrally notice a hearing to determine whether reconsideration Demand Letter to Cupertino City Council re Mary Avenue Villas Project (File #: 26-14737)

Page 6 ends

should be granted. It presents staff’s recommended action in advance: find that both petitions “failed to satisfy any of the grounds for reconsideration” and adopt denial resolutions. That is not the posture of a body genuinely open to reconsideration.

Fourth, the issue has now moved to court. The Coalition filed its writ petition and complaint on March 11, 2026, and the April 1 agenda itself places the City’s existing litigation with the Coalition in closed session immediately before the supposed reconsideration hearing. The complaint expressly places at issue whether reconsideration was required at all, whether the Coalition exhausted all applicable administrative remedies, whether the NOEs were valid, whether the City is estopped from taking positions inconsistent with its own statements, and whether further implementation should be enjoined pending judicial review.

Under these circumstances, the City’s insistence on proceeding under section 2.08.096 is not just unnecessary; it is inappropriate. The Coalition filed the petitions out of an abundance of caution.

The City cannot fairly use those protective filings to bootstrap a new hearing that its own lawyer previously said was not required, particularly after the Coalition has already filed suit and the City has put the matter in litigation posture.

At minimum, the City should acknowledge that the petitions were protective, not jurisdictionally necessary, and should refrain from suggesting that failure to persuade the Council on April 1 has any legal consequence with respect to exhaustion, timeliness, or the merits.

III. The Purported Tax-Credit “Deadline” Never Justified the City’s Disorderly Rush; Nor Did It Justify Denying a Reasonable Religious Accommodation The City repeatedly invoked a purported tax-credit deadline to justify rushing the Project through an unstable and unlawful approval sequence. It has now invoked the same purported deadline to deny a narrow and reasonable request to move the April 1 hearing because it conflicts with the Passover holiday. That is insult to injury.

A. The City’s Own Explanation Shows the Rush Was Driven by the Applicant’s Financing Calendar, Not by Law
The Coalition’s petitions already documented that City officials candidly acknowledged on the record that the process was being compressed to accommodate the developer’s tax-credit schedule.

The February petition quotes the Mayor asking why the City was “rushing,” City staff and counsel explaining that the DDA was “essential” to the tax-credit process, and Councilmember Wang objecting that the City was doing things “because they have a deadline” and “cutting corners.” The March petition likewise explained that the March 3 actions were pursued to satisfy contingencies necessary to preserve the financing schedule rather than because the City had lawfully cured the underlying defects.

Demand Letter to Cupertino City Council re Mary Avenue Villas Project (File #: 26-14737)

Page 7 ends

The more recent correspondence confirms the same point. In refusing to move the April 1 hearing away from Passover, the City first said simply that the “tax credit application for the project is due shortly” and that April 1 was the only evening Council Chambers were available in the short time window. Then, when pressed, the City relied on section 10325(f)(4) of the CTCAC regulations and asserted that the hearing had to occur before the application deadline because projects with no currently pending local appeals are supposedly “more likely to be approved.” None of that justified what the City did. A financing preference is not a legal override. The City was still required to comply with CEQA, Government Code section 65402, the Streets and Highways Code, the Surplus Land Act, and due process.

B. The Official CTCAC Materials Do Not Support the City’s Claimed April 1 Necessity The official 2026 CTCAC meeting schedule lists April 7, 2026 as the application deadline for the June 22, 2026 9% Awards Round 1. The governing regulation cited by the City, title 4, section 10325(f)(4), does not require that all local controversy disappear before the application deadline, much less that the City must schedule a hearing specifically on April 1. Instead, the regulation provides:
“Applicants shall provide evidence, at the time the application is filed, that the project as proposed is zoned for the intended use and has obtained all applicable local land use approvals which allow the discretion of local elected officials to be applied, except that an appeal period may run 30 days beyond that application due date.” The same provision then continues:
“When the appeal period, if any, is concluded, the applicant must provide proof that either no appeals were filed, or that any appeals filed during that time period were resolved within that 30-day period and the project is ready to proceed.” These regulations contradict the City’s entire theory of timing for this Project.

First, the regulations themselves refute the City’s implication that absolute local finality had to exist on April 1. The rule expressly allows an appeal period to run 30 days beyond the application due date.

Second, the regulations focus on “all applicable local land use approvals which allow the discretion of local elected officials to be applied.” It expressly states that certain items are not required at the time of application, including development agreements. Thus, the City’s earlier insistence that the DDA had to be approved on February 3, 2026 because of the tax-credit deadline was especially dubious.

Demand Letter to Cupertino City Council re Mary Avenue Villas Project (File #: 26-14737)

Page 8 ends

Third, the regulations require proof after the appeal period that either no appeals were filed or that any appeals filed were resolved within the 30-day period and the project is ready to proceed. That is a far cry from the City’s assertion that it had to deny a reasonable accommodation request because April 1 was the only possible hearing date.

Fourth, the City’s new fallback claim, that projects with no currently pending local appeals are “more likely” to be approved, is not a legal requirement at all. It is, at most, an unattributed strategic preference relayed by the City. The City cannot lawfully compress public process, ignore legal sequencing, and deny a religious accommodation based on an alleged scoring or optics advantage that it has not substantiated with any binding rule.

C. The Filed Lawsuit Further Undermines the City’s Claim that the Project Is “Ready To Proceed” and Must Be Treated as Locally Settled
The Coalition’s complaint was filed on March 11, 2026. The City’s hearing notice followed on March 20. According to the City’s own April 1 agenda, the Council will discuss the Coalition’s lawsuit in closed session immediately before taking up the supposed reconsideration hearing in open session.

That litigation is not beside the point. It directly challenges every major Project approval and seeks to preserve the status quo by preventing further reliance on the resolutions, DDA, NOEs, conveyance steps, and related implementation actions. The complaint specifically alleges that the City and real parties are using the challenged approvals to seek financing, preserve tax-credit eligibility, satisfy or waive DDA conditions, prepare for conveyance of public property, and otherwise continue implementation. It also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief regarding whether reconsideration was required, whether the NOEs were effective, and whether the City is estopped from taking inconsistent positions.

The City Attorney asserted in her March 26 email that Superior Court litigation supposedly need not be disclosed and “will not impact the application review.” That assertion is demonstrably false.

The CTCAC regulations require more than a formalistic list of approvals. They require a showing that the project is ready to proceed after any local appeal period. A project mired in litigation challenging the validity of every operative approval, the NOEs, the DDA, the street vacation, and the exempt-surplus declaration is not meaningfully “ready to proceed” in the ordinary sense of that phrase.

Moreover, the CTCAC application materials themselves include a Legal Status Questionnaire. The current 2026 Exhibit B includes an “LSQ (Legal Status Questionnaire) tab” and instructs that if the applicant selected “Disclosure provided in tab 5” for any team member, the applicant must provide that disclosure in tab 5. Published CTCAC Legal Status Questionnaire forms require Demand Letter to Cupertino City Council re Mary Avenue Villas Project (File #: 26-14737)

Page 9 ends

disclosure of legal or regulatory matters that may materially affect project or applicant viability and state that disclosures should include “civil or criminal cases filed in state or federal court,” investigations, and enforcement proceedings. An active CEQA and writ action seeking to enjoin the Project, vacate the approvals, and block conveyance of the site is exactly the sort of court proceeding that bears on financial viability and should be disclosed.

At a minimum, the City cannot honestly maintain both of the following propositions at once:

1. The hearing had to be rushed because local approval finality mattered for tax-credit purposes; and

2. A filed lawsuit seeking to vacate the approvals and halt implementation is irrelevant to the application.

Those positions do not fit together.

D. Denying the Accommodation Request Based on This Purported Deadline Was Unwarranted
Counsel for the Coalition promptly informed the City that the noticed date conflicted with the Passover Seder he would be leading and requested rescheduling to any day other than April 1 or

2. That was a narrow and reasonable request. The City denied it anyway, first with a generic reference to the approaching tax-credit filing, then with a more elaborate explanation resting on the same asserted urgency.

Because the underlying urgency was self-created and overstated, the refusal was unjustified. The City had ample time to schedule these matters differently. The February 3 approvals had been staged for weeks. The March 3 approvals were noticed and adopted on the City’s chosen calendar.

The City then chose to notice the April 1 hearing only after the Coalition had already filed suit.

The City cannot manufacture urgency through its own sequencing choices and then wield that urgency to deny a reasonable accommodation tied to religious observance.

That refusal, viewed against the broader background of the City’s rush to approve and entrench the Project, only reinforces the Coalition’s fair-hearing concerns.

IV. The Participation of a Disqualified and Prejudged Councilmember Remains a Serious Problem
The Coalition has already set forth in detail why a member of the February 3 voting majority had a common-law disqualifying conflict of interest in the form of demonstrated partiality, prejudgment, and lack of an open mind. Those objections are not stale. They remain fully preserved, and they apply with equal or greater force now.

Demand Letter to Cupertino City Council re Mary Avenue Villas Project (File #: 26-14737)

Page 10 ends

The City cannot cure a hearing tainted by prejudgment by simply reassembling the same body, on a rushed timeline, for the purpose of denying reconsideration. To the contrary, the manner in which the City has handled the April 1 setting only deepens the concern that the outcome has already been decided.

The record reflects that Councilmember Fruen attacked the Coalition and its counsel’s ethics, declared that he had “no reason to believe any of the assertions” advanced by the Coalition, and cast the dispute in moral terms rather than legal ones. He was not incidental to the outcome; he was a deciding vote in the majority. The complaint properly alleges that his participation constituted a common-law disqualifying conflict in the form of demonstrated partiality and prejudgment.

The City’s April 1 hearing posture makes matters worse, not better. The Council is being asked to consider denial resolutions that staff has already teed up in a hearing scheduled on an accelerated calendar expressly to satisfy the applicant’s asserted financing needs. And the Council will do so after first conferring in closed session regarding the Coalition’s existing litigation against the City.

Whatever label the City puts on that sequence, it is not a recipe for public confidence in a fair, neutral, open-minded adjudicatory process.

For those reasons, the Coalition again objects to the participation of any Councilmember who has demonstrated prejudgment, bias, or other disqualifying lack of impartiality. Any further hearing on any aspect of this Project should occur, if at all, only before a lawful and impartial decisionmaking body.

V. The City Should Not Proceed To Rubber Stamp Its Prior Actions The April 1 agenda telegraphs a predetermined outcome: deny both petitions and adopt denial resolutions. That posture is especially inappropriate where:

A. The City Attorney previously opined that no reconsideration petition was required as to the February 3 actions;
B. The March 3 actions do not properly fall within section 2.08.096 in the first place; C. The Coalition has now filed suit challenging the entire approval sequence; D. The City itself admitted the NOEs were premature and had no force or effect; and, E. The legal, factual, and fairness defects in the approvals remain unaddressed.

The Council should not use the April 1, 2026 hearing as a vehicle to “ratify” or harden approvals already challenged in court, especially where the stated reason for the rush remains the applicant’s tax-credit calendar rather than legal necessity.

Demand Letter to Cupertino City Council re Mary Avenue Villas Project (File #: 26-14737)

Page 11 ends

VI. Requested Action
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Coalition respectfully requests that the City:

1. Acknowledge that the Coalition’s petitions were filed out of an abundance of caution and were not jurisdictionally required under section 2.08.096;

2. Decline to proceed with the April 1, 2026 hearing as a section 2.08.096 reconsideration hearing, or continue it to a later date that does not conflict with Passover and that permits a lawful and orderly process;

3. Refrain from taking the position that denial of the petitions has any bearing on exhaustion, timeliness, or the merits in the pending litigation;

4. Vacate Resolution Nos. 26-016, 26-018, 26-024, and 26-025, together with the related CEQA exemption determinations and NOEs;

5. Refrain from any further reliance on the challenged approvals for financing, conveyance, recordation, or implementation purposes pending resolution of the Coalition’s claims;

6. Ensure that no further adjudicatory or quasi-adjudicatory consideration of the Project occurs before any decisionmaker who has demonstrated disqualifying prejudgment, bias, or lack of an open mind; and,

7. Reset the process, if the City elects to proceed at all, only after full compliance with CEQA, Government Code section 65402, the Streets and Highways Code, the Surplus Land Act, and the basic requirements of a fair and impartial hearing.

The City still has an opportunity to prevent further prejudice to the public, to the Coalition, and to the integrity of its own decisionmaking process. It should take that opportunity now.

Very truly yours,

STRATEGY LAW, LLP
Joshua Safran, Esq.
cc: Tina Kapoor, City Manager ([email protected]; [email protected]) Kirsten Squarcia, Interim Deputy City Manager ([email protected]; ) Lauren Sapudar, Acting City Clerk ([email protected]; [email protected]) Demand Letter to Cupertino City Council re Mary Avenue Villas Project (File #: 26-14737)

Page 12 ends

Benjamin Fu, Director of Community Development ([email protected]; [email protected])
Floy Andrews, Interim City Attorney ([email protected]; [email protected])
William C. Mazzota, Senior Associate, Aleshire & Wynder, LLP ([email protected])
From: Sanat Sangamalli
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: Mary Villa Housing Project Objection
Date: Friday, April 3, 2026 10:07:59 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 Councilmembers,
My name is Sanat and I am a 21 year resident of Cupertino in the Garden Gate neighborhood. I am writing to formally submit my opposition to the Mary Ave Villas project scheduled for discussion during Wednesday April 1, 2026’s public hearing. As I am unable to attend the meeting in person, I request that this correspondence be included in the official public record.

I am deeply concerned that the city is moving forward with the vacation of the public rightof-way on Mary Avenue to facilitate a project that presents significant safety and procedural risks:

Thank you for your time and for considering the concerns of your constituents.

Sincerely,
Sanat Sangamalli
10682 pebble place, Cupertino CA
From: Bhuvna Ayyagari
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: Subject: Mary Villa Housing Project Objection
Date: Friday, April 3, 2026 10:03:52 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 Councilmembers,
My name is B. Ayyagari and I am a 24 year resident of Cupertino in the Garden Gate neighborhood. I am writing to formally submit my opposition to the Mary Ave Villas project scheduled for discussion during Wednesday April 1, 2026’s public hearing. As I am unable to attend the meeting in person, I request that this correspondence be included in the official public record.

I am deeply concerned that the city is moving forward with the vacation of the public rightof-way on Mary Avenue to facilitate a project that presents significant safety and procedural risks:

Thank you for your time and for considering the concerns of your constituents.

Sincerely,
B. Ayyagari
10682 Pbble Place
Cupertino, CA 95014

Cupertino City CouncilApril 1, 2026

Cupertino City Council
April 1, 2026