Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CC 12-02-2025 Item No. 12 Study Session Mary Ave Project_Written Communications_2
CC 12-02-2025 #12 Study Session on the Mary Avenue Project Written Communications From:Jean Bedord To:City Council; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk Subject:Agenda Item #12: Mary Avenue Study Session, Dec. 2, 2025 City Council Date:Tuesday, December 2, 2025 3:36:02 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please include in written communications ----------------------------------------------------- Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, Councilmembers Fruen, Mohan and Wang, I am appalled by this agenda item. Instead of a study session, the council should be approving the final paperwork to ensure this project is approved by the end of the year. This site is included in the Housing Element approved by the state HCD, and the ONLY site that is 100% low income housing for special populations, specifically IDD (Intellectually and Developmentally Disabled). Would failure to approve this in a timely manner be a deliberate choice not to fulfill city obligations to the region and the state? Last night, council spent an inordinate amount of time on the merits of artistic bike racks, yet ignored the importance of revising the current Housing Element. When the United Furniture townhomes are approved, the city will have a deficit of two housing units in affordable housing. This deficit will increase with reduction of affordable units at The Rise/Vallco, as well as the other townhome projects in the pipeline. When the first townhome project is approved, the city has only six months to demonstrate good faith changes to accommodate the Housing Element deficit. Mary Avenue Villas are a crucial component of the city's responsibility to comply with the Housing Element that they approved. No project is perfect. Isn't it time to stop procrastinating and get shovels in the ground? Very frustrated resident, Jean Bedord From:Debbie Timmers To:City Council Cc:Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk Subject:Support for Mary Ave Villas, Agenda item 12 Date:Tuesday, December 2, 2025 3:21:16 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore and Councilmembers, I am a long term resident of Cupertino and I am writing to express my strong support for the proposed Mary Avenue Villas project, which would provide much-needed housing for disabled, very low-income adults in our community. Disabled adults are vital members of our city—our neighbors, volunteers, colleagues, and friends. Yet no group faces greater barriers in finding safe, stable, and affordable housing. Supporting them is not only the compassionate thing to do; it reflects Cupertino's core values. As you know, building affordable housing is exceptionally difficult under even the best circumstances. This project is only possible because of the availability of the city-owned property on Mary Avenue. Further delays could jeopardize the project entirely, especially with construction costs continuing to rise and new building requirements scheduled to take effect in 2026. We have a rare and time-sensitive opportunity to do something truly meaningful. I urge you to finalize the approvals for Mary Avenue Villas today so that this essential project can move forward. Our community will be stronger, more just, and more compassionate because of it. Thank you for your leadership and consideration. Sincerely, Debra Timmers From:louise saadati To:City Council Cc:City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject:Mary Ave Villas, Item 12 Date:Tuesday, December 2, 2025 2:35:32 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please include the following in Written Communications for Dec 2, 2025 for Agenda Item 12 for the Study Session for Mary Ave Villas. Dear Mayor Chaio, Vice-Mayor Moore and City Councilmembers: Please progress forward and grant city approvals for the Mary Ave Villas Project to move ahead. Further studying and delaying the Mary Ave Villas project would jeapardize the project beginning or finishing. There will be increasing construction costs as well as new construction codes in 2026 which will hinder the project and being removed. Other projects have been removed due to rising costs and zone and code changes. This affordable housing project would not be possible without the city owned property on Mary Avenue. Building affording housing is extremely difficult and needed. Supporting housing for very low income and disabled residents is the humane thing to do. They are the most impacted in difficulty in finding affordable housing. Please approve and authorize the Mary Avenue Villas immediately to facilitate construction beginning as soon as possible. This will help keep our affordable compliant with the requirement by HCD. We don’t want a Builder’s Remedy because of this. Thank you, Louise Saadati 40 year resident of Cupertino Sent from my iPhone From:Connie-Comcast Swim5am To:City Clerk; City Council Subject:CC Agenda Item 12 , Mary Ave Project— urge approval now! Date:Tuesday, December 2, 2025 2:25:56 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. City Council Agenda Item 12 for Mary Ave Project—urge approval now! Good Evening, Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, Councilmembers, and City Manager: My name is Connie Cunningham, 38 year resident and Chair, Housing Commission, speaking for myself only. Thank you to the City Council for its vote on July 15, 2025 to move this project forward after the Study Session that evening. I was excited to see that vote. I am supportive of the application to develop new Extremely Low Income homes for Intellectually Developmentally Disabled Individuals (IDD) and, also, other Below Market Rate (BMR) housing units on City-owned property along Mary Avenue. It is the right thing to do for Cupertino to join other cities in our region to provide housing for residents of all incomes and abilities. I am disappointed that this project is being delayed by holding another Study Session now, more than four months after July 15 vote. This is much needed housing that has been on the Council’s Work Program for many years. I remember 2019 when former Mayor Scharf made it a priority and I was new to the Housing Commission. I have attended the Housing Commission and City Council meetings for this project. I have also attended Housing Element meetings at which the site was identified for this purpose. It is hard to find land in Cupertino. I applaud the Council and the City Planners for finding this special place. It would not be possible to build these homes without Cupertino owned property. ELI housing is the most difficult to finance. Many families and individuals will be helped with this housing. It will also help the City’s goal to keep individuals from falling into homelessness. Many Individuals who are Intellectually Developmentally Disabled live with aging parents, therefore, these homes will help them and our community. There are many financial benefits to the City to have housing that keeps people from homelessness. I am disappointed that this project is being delayed. Construction costs are increasing and new building requirements are coming in 2026. Delay may also make it difficult for the builder to obtain financing since financing for Extremely Low Income housing is particularly difficult. I urge you to take the remaining steps now. It is critical to move this project forward tonight. Connie L Cunningham (Former meetings 2025-07-15 CC Agenda Item 11, Study Session, Mary Avenue Project and 2025-09-03 Oral Communications supporting Mary Avenue Project) From Connie's iPhone From:Lina To:Public Comments Subject:Public Comments- Agenda Item 12 - Dec 2 2025 - Mary Ave Housing: Stop the Process, Be Transparent Date:Tuesday, December 2, 2025 1:47:28 PM Attachments:image.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, Council Members, Ms. Kapoor, and City Staff, I am writing to firmly oppose the Mary Ave Villas project in its current state and demand an immediate halt and restart of the entire process. The City has an obligation to be transparent and follow the rules, but with this project, you skipped essential steps. The community was never given a chance to weigh in on the decision to give away a piece of our public land—our public right-of-way—before you started designing a building on it. I reviewed the Dec 2nd agenda attachments for Item #12. The City has not followed the actions recommended by its former City Attorney in 2022, and even admits to missed key steps: 2022 City Plan explicitly stated that this project must follow Surplus Land Act (SLA) notice requirements to qualify for an exemption- "... the disposition of the property would meet the criteria for “exempt surplus land” if the notice requirements of the Surplus Land Act are followed. Per SLA code, this includes public meeting declaration and notification to HCD, both of which were not done. These are distinct and separate from the Notice of Action exemption. The City missed the following key step that was spelled out in the 2022 City plan. "Following the selection of a qualified housing developer, initiate concurrently the following processes: ... A City Council declaration that the site is exempt surplus land." The City went ahead and created a parcel involving public roads that was not even vacated properly. How can a housing project proceed if the parcel is not even valid? The responses in the Dec 2nd, 2025 FAQ claiming that the missed steps can be done at a later time is problematic in that it moves a proposal forward without fair and timely public input that residents are entitled to. This process has felt biased (the City has yet to address the conflicts of interests with stakeholders/associates of Rotary Club) and rushed behind closed doors. As residents have finally learned about this project through grassroots efforts and not through public noticing, over 600 petition signers are now opposed to the project at this extremely narrow site. https://www.change.org/p/halt-the-mary-avenue-villas- project-at-this-unsuitable-location Countless residents took to the streets on November 1, 2025, peacefully protesting. We are asking you, our constituents, to be good neighbors and responsible leaders. Halt this project now. Take a step back, follow the state laws, and bring this decision back to the public in an honest, upfront way. Give us a voice before you give away our streets. Sincerely, Lina Garden Gate Resident From:hbluhmst@yahoo.com To:City Council; City Clerk Cc:Cupertino City Manager"s Office; cupertinoforall@gmail.com Subject:Support for Mary Ave Villas, Agenda item 12 Date:Tuesday, December 2, 2025 1:43:53 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear members of the Cupertino City Council, I am in support of the Mary Avenue Villas. Our church is part of the rotating safe car park in Cupertino/Saratoga. So, I know first hand how many people have a hard time finding affordable housing. 1. I know that building affordable housing is very difficult. This important project would not be possible without the use of the city-owned property on Mary Avenue. 2. Supporting disabled and very low income residents is the right thing to do. There is no other group of people who are more disadvantaged in finding safe and affordable housing. 3. Further delays on the Mary Ave Villas project could jeopardize it entirely because of increased construction costs and new building requirements coming online in 2026. Please finalize the city approvals today. Thank you very much for your consideration, Hella Bluhm-Stieber (Cupertino City volunteer) From:Tiff To:City Council Cc:Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk Subject:I Support for Mary Ave Villas project Date:Tuesday, December 2, 2025 11:47:09 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Support housing elements, Agenda item 12 1. Building affordable housing is exceptionally difficult. This important project would not be possible without the use of the city-owned property on Mary Avenue. 2. Supporting disabled and very low income residents is the right thing to do. There is no other group of people who are more disadvantaged in finding safe and affordable housing. 3. Further delays on the Mary Ave Villas project could jeopardize it entirely because of increased construction costs and new building requirements coming online in 2026. Please finalize the city approvals today. Cupertino resident, Susan From:Santosh Rao To:City Council; Tina Kapoor; Floy Andrews; City Attorney"s Office; Chad Mosley; Benjamin Fu; Luke Connolly; Gian Martire; Kirsten Squarcia; City Clerk Subject:Request for exempt surplus documentation including resolution to deem exempt surplus. Date:Tuesday, December 2, 2025 11:23:55 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Clerk, Please include the below in written communications. Thank you. [Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident, taxpayer, voter] Dear Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, City Council Members, City Manager Kapoor, and Community Development Directors, I am writing regarding the Mary Avenue parcel which the City has indicated is being treated as exempt surplus land under the California Surplus Land Act (Government Code § 54221). Given the statutory requirements associated with exempt surplus designations, I am requesting clear and complete documentation to confirm that the City has fully complied with all applicable procedures to deem the parcel exempt surplus. To ensure transparency and proper statutory compliance, please provide the following information: 1. Exempt Surplus Resolution: The formal resolution or council action declaring the parcel as “exempt surplus.” The specific exemption under § 54221(f)(1) cited as the basis for this designation, and the subclause(s) used to qualify the parcel as exempt. 2. Written Findings and Supporting Evidence: Any written findings prepared to support the exempt surplus designation. Staff analysis or supporting documentation referenced in those findings. 3. Public Notice and HCD Notification: Confirmation of compliance with the 30‑day notice requirement to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Any public posting or comment opportunities provided in accordance with state law. 4. Timeline and Record of Actions: Dates of adoption, public notice, and HCD notification. Links or copies of any publicly available documentation, including agenda items, staff reports, and meeting minutes, reflecting the formal record of this process. I request that this information be provided as supplemental items for the Study Session scheduled for the 12/2/25 agenda, Item 12. This will allow residents to fully understand the process and statutory compliance related to the exempt surplus designation for the Mary Avenue parcel. If a formal resolution declaring the parcel as exempt surplus (or as surplus land) does not exist, I respectfully request clarification on the basis for any assumption that the parcel could be allocated to Charities Housing or Rotary or any other housing entity and the resulting community hearings that were already held by Charities Housing. Specifically, I ask the City to describe how any decisions regarding developer selection or project allocation were made without a formal exempt surplus or surplus declaration, and how such actions align with the requirements of the Surplus Land Act (Government Code § 54221). Further, I request that the Council carefully review the statutory criteria for exempt surplus under § 54221(f)(1) and its subclauses, including the requirement for findings based on substantial evidence. Based on these qualifications, I urge the Council not to deem the parcel exempt at this time. Instead, I request that the proper process be followed, including: Preparing and adopting written findings demonstrating compliance with the statutory requirements. Conducting a public meeting with appropriate agenda posting, notification, and opportunity for community input. Considering the full sequence of procedures required for non‑exempt surplus land, including Notice of Availability (NOA), the 60‑day response period, and any negotiations with interested entities. Submitting required notifications and documentation to HCD in accordance with § 54222.5. Following these steps will ensure full compliance with the Surplus Land Act, provide transparency to the community, and maintain public confidence in the City’s handling of this public asset. I look forward to the inclusion of this documentation and clarification in the supplemental materials for the upcoming study session. Sincerely, San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident, taxpayer, voter) From:Robert George To:City Council; City Clerk; Public Comments; Tina Kapoor; Chad Mosley; Rachelle Sander Subject:Cupertino Memorial Park Pickleball Date:Tuesday, December 2, 2025 10:39:05 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. City Clerk, Please include this email as part of written communications for the 12/2/25 City Council meeting. Dear City Council Members, City Manager Kapoor, and Directors Sander and Mosley, I am a resident of Cupertino and have been for over 25 years. I am also an active pickleball player at Memorial Park most mornings. I live near Blackberry Farm Golf Course and walking trail so I'm VERY familiar with living near a popular location which can get noisy at times. I get it. I worked with the City Council to agree on the placement of the trail through the park and it has worked very well over the years. Sure there are folks who wander off the trail and poke around on our property but I kindly ask them to stay on the marked trails and enjoy what our community has to offer. But we can't let the few dictact the benefits to the many. We can and should come up with solutions which help mitigate noise but let's not look at things as either black or white. For morning play I have switched to a quiet paddle, I only play on the courts furthest from residents' homes and I help enforce quiet play during morning hours. I'm doing my part to be a good citizen but I also want the benefits offered by the great community we've built. Seriously, I would be devastated if I couldn't play pickleball with my new found friends. I helped put together a survey of players and we've found that not only is pickleball at the park an important part of our player community, it also leads to a lot of commerce in the area which benefits the entire city. Lets NOT turn our parks into uninviting destinations. Thanks for your time and service, --Robert George 22096 Dean Court, Cupertino From:Walter Li To:City Council; City Clerk; City Attorney"s Office; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; Chad Mosley; Benjamin Fu Cc:Lina; Shaun Fong; Brian Avery Subject:Mary Ave Villas — Pattern of Lawlessness, Favoritism, and Demand Cupertino Halt the Project Date:Tuesday, December 2, 2025 10:25:01 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, Council Members, CM Kapoor, CAO, Director Mosley, and Director Fu, I am writing to demand that the City of Cupertino immediately halt all progress on the Mary Ave Villas project. The City’s conduct reveals a disturbing pattern of lawlessness and favoritism that violates multiple provisions of California Government Code and undermines public trust. Evidence of Lawlessness and Favoritism • No Adopted Findings (GC §54221(f)(1)(A)) Cupertino never adopted written findings at a public meeting, leaving the project without legal foundation. • Parcel Formed Before Vacating Public Land The City reversed the statutory sequence, creating a parcel before vacating public right-of- way, invalidating the parcel and any project based on it. • Bypassing the Surplus Land Act (GC §§54220–54234) Required steps — declaration, HCD notification, NOA issuance, and negotiation windows — were skipped. Instead, Cupertino advanced Rotary/Charities Housing directly, excluding other eligible entities. • Failure to Notify HCD (GC §54222.5) The City never notified HCD, shielding itself from oversight while privileging its chosen developer. • No Notice of Availability (GC §54222) No NOA was issued to schools, parks districts, or affordable housing developers, ensuring only favored partners could proceed. • Invalid Community Hearings Hearings were held before findings, notifications, and statutory waiting periods, misleading the public and rendering them procedurally void. • Penalties for Violation (GC §54230.5) Cupertino risks fines of 30% of land value and repeat penalties, exposing taxpayers to severe liability. Demand for Immediate Halt Given these violations and the clear evidence of favoritism, I demand that the City: 1. Cease all work on Mary Ave Villas immediately. 2. Nullify all community hearings conducted to date. 3. Withdraw the project from further consideration until full compliance with state law is demonstrated. 4. Provide the public with a written statement confirming the halt and outlining corrective measures. Conclusion The Mary Ave Villas project is not simply flawed — it is unlawful. Cupertino has ignored statutory mandates, bypassed oversight, and played favorites. This is governance by preference, not by law. The project is invalid. The hearings are invalid. The favoritism is undeniable. The City must halt the Mary Ave Villas project immediately to avoid penalties, restore public trust, and demonstrate that Cupertino is not above the law. Sincerely, Walter Li Originator of the petition "Halt The Mary Aveune Villas Project at this Unsuitable Location" Working with the neighbors in opposition of the Mary Ave Villas Project Wmbjt@hotmail.com 408-781-7894 From:J Zhao To:City Council Cc:Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk Subject:Strong support for Mary Ave Villas, Agenda Item 12 Date:Tuesday, December 2, 2025 10:11:02 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear honorable council members, I am writing with enthusiastic support for the Mary Avenue Villas housing project being considered for item 12 on tonight's agenda. This is a 40-unit housing project that will provide much needed affordable housing for very low income residents and disabled residents. As somebody who served on the City's Housing Commission and who studied urban planning, I know how difficult it is in our current political and economic system to deliver real affordable homes for our community members, especially more vulnerable ones. This is a critical opportunity to make a dent in our affordable housing crisis, and you have the opportunity to push our city in the right direction. I have read about community members' concerns about potential drawbacks. However, I disagree with the concerns around parking and street narrowing. I regularly bike along Mary Avenue to take the overcrossing bridge, and the parking spaces are underutilized. I think it would be in the City's interests to repurpose the underutilized parking spaces. I do not find the concerns about the street being too narrow to have merit; the development plans will not narrow vehicle lanes. I urge the Council not to delay this project. We all know that time is of the essence when it comes to construction projects. Delays can lead to skyrocketing costs and the window of opportunity for this project can close. Thank you for your consideration. I hope that you will rise to your duty to represent our most vulnerable community members. Sincerely, John Zhao From:Santosh Rao To:City Council; Tina Kapoor; Floy Andrews; City Attorney"s Office; Chad Mosley; Benjamin Fu; Luke Connolly; Gian Martire; Kirsten Squarcia; City Clerk Subject:Mary Ave Villas Violations of State Law and Request for Full Restart of Process Date:Tuesday, December 2, 2025 9:28:42 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Clerk, Would you please include the below in written communications for Mary Ave Villas agenda item for the 12/2/25 city council meeting. Thank you. [Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident, taxpayer, voter] Subject: Mary Ave Villas Violations of State Law and Request for Full Restart of Process Dear Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, Council Members, Attorney Andrews, CM Kapoor, CAO, Director Mosley, and Director Fu, I am writing to urge you to halt all progress on the Mary Ave Villas project and restart the legally required process from the beginning. Based on publicly available documents and the City’s own admissions, the actions taken to date violate multiple provisions of California Government Code governing surplus land, disposition, parcel formation, public notice, and mandatory state notifications. The City cannot legally assume that the property is available for Rotary, Charities Housing, or any IDD-related project until it completes the statutory sequence in full compliance. The project itself is invalid, and any community hearings conducted thus far are also invalid because they were held before the required steps were taken. Attorney Andrews, I request you to take an objective non-biased look at the below and advise council to act in accordance with state law to ensure the city is protected from consequences of violations of state law Mayor, Vice-Mayor, Council members, you have an obligation to be unbiased, objective and your first and primary obligation is to ensure the city is not in violation of state laws that result in consequences that may be a financial or litigious burden to the city. I request Attorney Andrews to seek exparte disclosures from council members on their affiliation to any organization currently associated with the project and investigate ahead of time if any council members need to recuse themselves from this and all further hearings on Mary Ave Villas until such time the project is fully reset and decoupled from any such organizations. Please also verify if a spouse affiliation exists to any organization currently associated with this project. Before a project agenda item comes to council CM and department directors have an obligation to ensure state laws are not being violated and if violations are confirmed to assess for the best procedures to cure violations and ensure all decisions are made by council on dais, not left to staff discretion. This project is a test of CM Kapoor’s leadership and I implore the CM to ensure the city is in compliance with state laws referenced below before you move any further ahead. Below is a detailed breakdown of the required process and the violations to date. 1. REQUIRED FINDINGS WERE NEVER ADOPTED (Mandatory Under GC §54221(f)(1)(A)) Before declaring land exempt and before entering any negotiations, the governing body must adopt written findings at a noticed public meeting. Government Code §54221(f)(1)(A) (verbatim): “The local agency shall adopt written findings, based on substantial evidence, demonstrating that the property meets the requirements of this subdivision.” Cupertino produced no written findings, no substantial-evidence analysis, and no adopted resolution containing the findings. Proceeding without this step invalidates all subsequent actions. 2. CITY FORMED A PARCEL BEFORE VACATING PUBLIC LAND (Unlawful Sequence) State law requires that public right-of-way must be vacated first, then the resulting parcel can be formed and its legal status established before any disposition or exemption is claimed. Cupertino did it in reverse: Parcel created first Then a project assumed Without vacating the right-of-way Without a public hearing on vacating land under the Streets & Highways Code Streets & Highways Code §8320: “The legislative body shall not order the vacation until after a public hearing.” Because no hearing was held and no vacation was completed, the parcel legally does not exist as a developable property. Thus, any project based on that parcel formation is invalid. 3. CITY BYPASSED THE SURPLUS LAND ACT REQUIREMENTS (GC §§54220–54234) Unless the City can prove – with findings adopted in public – that the land meets a statutory exemption, it must follow the Surplus Land Act (SLA) fully. This was not done. Required SLA steps (state law): 1. Declare property surplus or exempt with written findings 2. Notify HCD within 30 days of such action 3. Issue a Notice of Availability (NOA) to all required affordable housing entities 4. Provide a 60-day response window 5. Engage in a 90-day Good Faith Negotiation period if proposals are received 6. Only after completion may the City select a developer, conduct hearings, or move to project review. All of these steps were skipped. Instead, the City moved directly to: Selecting Rotary/Charities Housing partnership Holding community meetings Presenting a full conceptual project Discussing design attributes This sequence directly violates the SLA. 4. HCD WAS NOT NOTIFIED (GC §54222.5) State law is explicit: Government Code §54222.5 (verbatim): “A local agency shall provide to the Department of Housing and Community Development a description of any actions taken” including surplus or exempt declarations. The law also states: “Failure to provide this information shall constitute a violation of this article.” Cupertino did not notify HCD. Therefore, the City is formally in violation of state law. 5. NO NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY (NOA) WAS ISSUED (GC §54222) The law requires that the City issue an NOA to: All affordable housing developers on HCD’s list Schools Parks districts Other eligible agencies Government Code §54222 (verbatim): “The local agency shall send a written offer to sell or lease the property…” No NOA was issued. Therefore: The 60-day statutory period never began The 90-day negotiation window never occurred The City cannot legally select Rotary, Charities Housing, or any other entity 6. COMMUNITY HEARINGS HELD TO DATE ARE INVALID Under state law, community hearings must occur after the City: Completes findings Notifies HCD Issues NOA Completes statutory waiting periods Completes required negotiations Holding hearings before these steps is procedurally invalid and misleading to the public. All meetings conducted thus far must be nullified. 7. PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION (GC §54230.5) The penalty section is explicit: Government Code §54230.5(a) (verbatim): “A local agency that violates this article shall be liable for a penalty of 30 percent of the final sale price of the property.” If the City proceeds unlawfully: Cupertino may be fined 30% of the land value Additional penalties apply for repeat violations HCD may require the City to restart the process under direct state oversight These risks must be avoided. REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION Given the violations described above, I respectfully request that the City: 1. Halt all work on Mary Ave Villas immediately. 2. Publicly acknowledge that the statutory process was not followed. 3. Restart the process from Step 1, in this legally required order: 1. Hold hearing to vacate public land 2. Form parcel legally 3. Adopt written findings under GC §54221(f)(1)(A) 4. Notify HCD under GC §54222.5 5. Issue NOA to all required entities under GC §54222 6. Allow the full 60-day response window 7. Enter the mandatory 90-day negotiation period 8. Only then — and not before — initiate project selection or community hearings Until this is completed in full, the City cannot legally assume the land is available for Rotary, Charities Housing, or any IDD-related project. 4. Re-do all community outreach only after the statutory requirements are complete. 5. Provide the public with a full written timeline of every corrective step. Conclusion The Mary Ave Villas process is legally defective. The steps were taken out of sequence, statutory requirements were skipped, state agencies were not notified, public rights-of-way were never vacated, and no written findings were adopted as required by Government Code. The project is invalid as currently presented. The community hearings are invalid. The City must restart the process from the beginning. I request that you agendize this matter immediately and direct staff to comply with state law in full. Sincerely, San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident, taxpayer, voter) From:Ed Agrawal To:City Clerk; Tina Kapoor; City Attorney"s Office; City Council; Chad Mosley; Benjamin Fu; Luke Connolly; Gian Martire Cc:Kirsten Squarcia Subject:Request to Halt the Mary Ave Villas Project and Ensure Full Public Process- followup from Cupertino City Council Teleconference Meeting - November 18, 2025 Date:Tuesday, December 2, 2025 3:08:34 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, Council Members, Ms. Kapoor, and City Staff, I am writing as a concerned Garden Gate neighborhood resident of 18 years to express strong opposition to the Mary Ave Villas project in its current form, and to request an immediate halt to the process until all proper procedures are followed. It is the City’s duty to act transparently and adhere to the law, yet this project appears to have bypassed critical steps. The community has not been given an opportunity to provide meaningful input before the City began designing a structure on what is, in part, our public right-of-way. Upon reviewing the December 2, 2025, agenda attachments for Item #12, it is evident that the City has not implemented the recommendations of its former City Attorney from 2022. In particular, the City itself acknowledges that several essential steps were overlooked: The 2022 City Plan clearly stated that the project must follow the notice requirements under the Surplus Land Act (SLA) to qualify for any exemption: “…the disposition of the property would meet the criteria for ‘exempt surplus land’ if the notice requirements of the Surplus Land Act are followed.” Under SLA, this requires both public meeting declarations and notification to HCD—neither of which has been done. These requirements are distinct from any Notice of Action exemption. Additionally, the City neglected to follow a key step outlined in the 2022 plan: “Following the selection of a qualified housing developer, initiate concurrently the following processes: … A City Council declaration that the site is exempt surplus land.” Furthermore, the City proceeded to create a parcel involving public roads that has not been properly vacated. It is unclear how a housing project can lawfully advance on an invalid parcel. The December 2, 2025 FAQ responses suggesting that these steps can be completed later are deeply concerning. Moving a project forward without timely and fair public input undermines trust and the principle of transparency. Residents have only recently learned of this project through grassroots efforts, not through official public notice. To date, over 600 residents have signed a petition opposing this project at such a constrained site: https://www.change.org/p/halt-the-mary-avenue-villas-project-at-this- unsuitable-location. On November 1, 2025, many residents peacefully protested to express their concerns and opposition. I urge the City Council to act as responsible stewards of public land and community trust. Halt the Mary Ave Villas project immediately, follow the appropriate state laws, and ensure that the public is given a genuine opportunity to participate in this decision before any further action is taken. Moreover, on behalf of my Lawson Middle Schooler 6th grader, I would like to add that this project would take away a crucial bike lane that is used by children for safe school commutes. This is not the community that Cupertino is and this is not the community me and my daughter want community to become. Cupertino has always been about prioritizing families over developers and big corporate interests and if there is genuine interest to develop low income housing, we fully support that but with adherence to due process and not "giving away" city land in a hush hush manner. Please respect this huge groundswell of support for scrapping Mary Avenue villas project and use your official post for what the residents actually want. @Kirsten. Thanks for the reminder, Unfortunately since I am away on work travel, submitting email comment above. Thanks Aditya Agrawal 21345 Rumford Dr. Cupertino, CA 95014 On Sun, Nov 30, 2025 at 1:46 PM Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.gov> wrote: Hello Ed, The Mary Avenue Villas item is included in the December 2 agenda (Item 12) https://cupertino.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1245875&GUID=048C0EBC-7952- 41E2-8120-F93784B5EC5F&Options=info|&Search=. Regards, Kirsten Kirsten Squarcia Interim Deputy City Manager/City Clerk City Manager's Office KirstenS@cupertino.gov (408) 777-3225 From: Ed Agrawal <edagrawal@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 10:27 PM To: Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.gov> Subject: Re: Cupertino City Council Teleconference Meeting - November 18, 2025 (Meeting Begins at 6:45 p.m.) Confirmation CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Thank you for the update On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 10:26 PM Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.gov> wrote: Good evening, the meeting was ended due to a technical issue with the Zoom feature. A new meeting was scheduled for December 1. A new agenda will be published for that meeting. Regards, Kirsten Kirsten Squarcia Interim Deputy City Manager/City Clerk City Manager's Office KirstenS@cupertino.gov (408) 777-3225 On Nov 18, 2025, at 8:46 PM, Ed Agrawal <edagrawal@gmail.com> wrote: CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello I've tried a few times but seems like I cannot connect back into the meeting. Are rest of agenda <Screenshot 2025-11-18 at 8.44.00 PM.png> items still going to be discussed today or meeting will be adjourned? Thanks Aditya Agrawal On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 6:33 PM City Clerks Office <no-reply@zoom.us> wrote: Hi Aditya, Thank you for registering for Cupertino City Council Teleconference Meeting - November 18, 2025 (Meeting Begins at 6:45 p.m.). You can find information about this webinar below. If the meeting does not start exactly on time, we ask that you remain in the waiting room and you will automatically join once the meeting begins. You can also watch the live meeting on the Cupertino City Channel or online at //Cupertino.org/youtube and //Cupertino.org/webcast. If you would like to display a specific image or document during the meeting, please submit it in advance to cityclerk@cupertino.org, and it will be displayed when it is your turn to speak. Thank you. Please submit any questions to: CityClerk@cupertino.org You can cancel your registration at any time. Thank you! Cupertino City Council Teleconference Meeting - November 18, 2025 (Meeting Begins at 6:45 p.m.) Date & Time Nov 18, 2025 06:45 PM Pacific Time (US and Canada) Webinar ID 852 1800 8557 Description Live teleconference meeting of the Cupertino City Council Meeting scheduled for 6:45 p.m. on Tuesday, November 18, 2025. Members of the public who wish to share documents and other visual material during the meeting should email them in advance to cityclerk@cupertino.org. Only a first name (or alias) and an email address are required in order to register for this event. All other fields are optional. Thank you. Add to: Google Calendar WAYS TO JOIN THIS WEBINAR Join via audio US: +16699006833,,85218008557# or +16694449171,,85218008557# Or, dial:US: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 669 444 9171 or +1 719 359 4580 or +1 253 205 0468 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 305 224 1968 or +1 309 205 3325 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 360 209 5623 or +1 386 347 5053 or +1 507 473 4847 or +1 564 217 2000 or +1 646 931 3860 or +1 689 278 1000 or +1 929 205 6099 More International numbers Webinar ID: 852 1800 8557 Outlook Calendar(.ICS) Yahoo Calendar Join from PC, Mac, iPad, or Android Join Webinar If the button above does not work, paste this into your browser: https://cityofcupertino.zoom.us/w/85218008557?tk=mwROLIYHqcal y5A8chqpuhM40UisH6DaXqyqRokm2UU.DQkAAAAT12Od7RZ1Q U1mbGE2bFFwaUZaQ3l2d0RQbEJnAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA&uuid=WN_RWtLnJG-Q2iTbuR NcfXX5A To keep this webinar secure, do not share this link publicly. Webinar ID:852 1800 8557 H.323:144.195.19.161 (US West) 206.247.11.121 (US East) 115.114.131.7 (India Mumbai) 115.114.115.7 (India Hyderabad) 159.124.15.191 (Amsterdam Netherlands) 159.124.47.249 (Germany) 159.124.104.213 (Australia Sydney) 159.124.74.212 (Australia Melbourne) 159.124.168.213 (Canada Toronto) 159.124.196.25 (Canada Vancouver) Webinar ID:852 1800 8557 85218008557@zoomcrc.com Or, join by H.323 Zoom.com 55 Almaden Blvd San Jose, CA 95113 +1.888.799.9666 ©2025 Zoom Communications, Inc. To unsubscribe, [Click here] From:Jordan Clancy Behmke To:Public Comments Subject:Public Comment on Agenda Item 12 For the Dec 2 2025 City Council Meeting Date:Tuesday, December 2, 2025 3:00:29 PM Attachments:December 1 2025 Objection to Mary Ave Cupertino Project (Final 12-2-25).pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, and Councilmembers: Please see the attached as well as the statement below. I represent Garden Gate Community Neighbors (my “Clients”) and file this objection on their behalf to the proposed Mary Avenue Villas project (the “Project”), located in the Mary Avenue Right-of-Way, APN: 326-27-053 (the “Property”). While my Clients support the idea of the Project (which is to provide affordable housing for the disabled), my Clients oppose this Project at this site, for the reasons set forth below, and hereby request that the City vote no on this Project. The Project application was formerly submitted on April 3, 2025 by Charities Housing (the “Applicant”) for a 40-unit, affordable housing community, with 19 units reserved for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, developed by Applicant in partnership with the Cupertino Rotary and Housing Choices Coalition. The proposed Project is situated on a 0.79-acre site abutting Highway 85 and 280, across from De Anza College, and adjacent to the Mary Avenue Dog Park, and currently is proposed to take over the public land and right of way on this street. While my Clients support affordable housing and the reservation of units specifically for disabled, this site is not the right location for this Project. This is an unsuitable location due to the particular layout, location, and environmental issues on this site that put disabled persons and the community at risk and the traffic impact. Further, in its haste to fast track the Project, the City has failed to follow the procedural steps required by law, including but not limited to failing to follow the process required for vacation of public land, failing to follow Street and Highway codes related to abandoning a public right of way, failing to follow Government Code §65402 along with Brown Act requirements. 1. There are environmental risks to the disabled and the Community at this site which have not been addressed by the City or the Applicant. The contamination at this site makes this an unsuitable location and puts the disabled and community at risk. Three reports have stated that the land is contaminated with unsafe levels of lead and that there are lower concentrations of arsenic and have pesticides 4,4-DDE and 4,4-DDT present. The Subsurface Investigation Report, dated April 4, 2025, and the subsequent report dated April 24, 2025 prepared by Intertek PSI (collectively “Subsurface Investigation Report”) indicated unsafe levels of lead (which are a cause for concern) and arsenic levels above the Construction Workers ESL levels along with detectable levels of pesticides 4,4-DDE and 4,4-DDT on the site. Attached as Exhibit A is a copy of the Subsurface Investigation Report. The Subsurface Investigation Report stated at page 8 “the soil represented by these samples would be classified as hazardous by the State of California.” A Memorandum for Peer Review of Subsurface Investigation Report, Undeveloped Land West of Mary and Parkwood Drive, Cupertino, California, drafted by Baseline Environmental Consulting (“Memorandum”) on May 16, 2025, confirmed the same results and also concluded that the soil would be classified as California hazardous waste, for disposal purposes. Attached as Exhibit B is a copy of the Memorandum. At page 2, the Memorandum clearly states that the lead exceeds Residential ESL and Construction Workers ESL levels. The Memorandum recommends that further testing be completed and that at minimum remedial actions be taken to prevent risks to residents and the community, like minimizing the volume of soil removed and capping of the lead. However, the report at page 3 states that these “would reduce the likelihood of exposure for future site occupants, this remedial approach is not adequate without appropriate engineering controls, institutional controls, and regulatory oversight to ensure lead impacted soil would not create an exposure concern for future site occupants.” The Memorandum recommends that 1) a Soil Management Plan (“SMP”) and Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan (“SSHSP”) be prepared, the Project applicant enter into a Remedial Action Agreement with the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health to oversee soil remediation at the site. The Subsurface Investigation Report also states that “A SMP and a SSHSP should be prepared prior to site redevelopment to mitigate exposure of construction workers to the lead and arsenic in the soil.” None of these recommendations have been followed and this poses a risk to the community during construction, the neighbors currently living around this site, and to the future site residents. Given the focus on housing for individuals with disabilities, the City should proceed with an abundance of caution and follow the recommendations of the experts as stated in the above referenced reports and memorandums. The City must require the Applicant to engage the Department of Environmental Health to assess whether the site can be effectively remediated adequately for such future residential use. Individuals with disabilities often have compromised immune systems, making them particularly vulnerable to even low levels of environmental hazards. Without entering into a Remedial Action Agreement with the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health as the recommended action, the Project will fail to effectively address the hazardous lead levels found and put the community and its future inhabitants at risk. Additionally, an environmental action plan is further necessary to consider how the site’s proximity to Highway 85 and Highway 280 will further cause the accumulation of pollutants at this site. Since the Department of Environmental Health must be engaged to specifically address these concerns and since this has not been done by the Applicant, my Clients urge the City to not approve the lease and disposition agreement with the Applicant. At minimum, the decision should be postponed and the recommendation at the end of this meeting should be for the Applicant to enter into the required Remedial Action Agreement with the Department of Environmental Health. 2. There is a significant impact to traffic in the community which can lead to safety issues and a reduced quality of life for its existing residents. The impact to traffic will be significant since the Project proposes narrowing the street, the bike path, and the available parking, and there are changes with parking at De Anza College, all of which impacts the quality of life of the existing residents and can lead to accidents as a result of the increased traffic. The transportation assessment, prepared by Hexagon Transport Consultants (the “Transportation Assessment”) and submitted on November 13, 2025, does not account for critical changes that will affect parking in the neighborhood in 2026. Attached as Exhibit C is the Transportation Assessment. Starting January 6, 2026, De Anza College will no longer offer free parking to visitors and will require payment to park (see https://www.deanza.edu/parking/#oneday and https://www.instagram.com/p/DPsXkeTERd-/). This change significantly impacts local parking and traffic on Mary Avenue, as this street has been historically used as overflow parking from De Anza College. Since parking will no longer be free at De Anza College for visitors, there will be an increase of traffic and cars attempting to park on this street all the while the Project will reduce the size of the street, the bike lane, and available parking. While the transportation assessment discusses the impact on festival days at De Anza College it fails to consider these coming changes. The impact on traffic and parking will affect this community negatively and for this reason the City should vote no on approving the lease and disposition agreement with the Applicant. At minimum, the decision should be postponed and the recommendation at the end of this meeting should be for further study to be done to determine how the change in parking at De Anza College will impact this street and community. Further, there is a potential fire and safety issues that must be assessed. The City has waived the normal setback requirements for this Project to maximize land use on this narrow strip. However, the Project's unique design, intended use, and the site itself poses a fire safety issue. The site causes a reduction in the street size, increases parking, and it borders a sound wall adjacent to Highway 85- all of this may impact emergency response and fire crews in the event of a building fire. Therefore, a special assessment should be conducted under the supervision of the Santa Clara County Fire Department to determine if they can effectively combat a structure fire so close to the sound wall, with the smaller street, and increased traffic and parking. This assessment is critical as a large percentage of these units will be for those who are intellectually and developmentally disabled and the fire department should be engaged to determine if they can safely handle a potential fire at this site and evacuate individuals with disabilities during a fire all while managing the uniqueness of this site against the soundwall, the smaller street, and increased traffic and parking. The traffic and street changes pose a safety issue to all the community that lives on this street and to ensure the safety of future residents, it is crucial that the City and the Applicant do it’s due diligence before the City approves the lease and disposition agreement with the Applicant. Therefore, my Clients urge the City to vote No or to postpone a full vote and require further traffic and fire assessment to address these issues. 3. The City has failed to adhere to the procedural requirements under its municipal code and applicable law. The Project requires changes to the lot and street which include public land and a right of way and the sale of public land and therefore the City must adhere to its own procedures and municipal codes when making these changes. While there is no timing requirement in some of these codes, approving the Project before completing these procedures is putting the cart before the horse. By delaying initiating the procedural requirements, the City is As these procedural requirements have not been met, my Clients urge the City to vote no at this time so that the procedural requirements for disposing of public land and right of ways can be met. This Project should not warrant the City abandoning its procedural requirements under the municipal code and applicable law. The City must follow its own code as it relates to vacationing public land (Surplus Land Act Gov’t Code §§54220-54234), changing rights of ways (Streets and Highway Code §8300 et seq), and disposing of public land (Brown Act). The Project requires changes to the lot and street which include public land and a right of way and the sale of public land and therefore the City must adhere to its own procedures and municipal codes when making these changes. While there is no timing requirement in some of these codes, approving the Project before completing these procedures is putting the cart before the horse. As these procedural requirements have not been met, my Clients urge the City to vote no at this time so that the procedural requirements for disposing of public land and right of ways can be met. Finally, out of an abundance of caution and to avoid the appearance of impropriety and self-dealing, council members who are part of the Rotary Association, which is associating or promoting this Project, should recuse themselves from voting on this Project. All laws related to conflicts of interest should be adhered to and any city council member who has a conflict of interest must recuse themselves from voting on this Project. 4. Council member should vote No on this Project While affordable housing with reserved spaces for the disabled is a celebrated project for the City, this Project at this site is not the right place for this neighborhood. The City must vote no on approving the lease and disposition agreement with the Applicant. The City and the Applicant should find a better site with less impact to the health and safety of neighbors, construction workers, and its future residences and a site that improves not hurts the quality of life of its surrounding neighborhood. If the City is not willing to vote no at this time, then the City must delay the vote at this meeting and set a future meeting and require in the interim that the Applicant: a. enter into a Remedial Action Agreement with the Department of Environmental Health; b. conduct a further traffic assessment to determine the impact to traffic and parking on this street due to incoming parking changes at De Anza College c. engage the fire department to assess the impact of fire safety services as a result of the site restrictions, the narrower road, and increased traffic/parking on this street Additionally, in the interim, the City must initiate the procedural requirements for vacationing the right of way and public land, and disposition of public land so that these requirements are met and open for public comment before the Project is approved. Sincerely, Jordan C. Behmke, Esq. Attorney at Law Mosaic Law 6203 San Ignacio Avenue Suite 110 San Jose, CA 95119 Phone and Text: (408) 987-6399 Fax: 408-987-6397 email: jcb@mosaiclawusa.com website: www.mosaiclawusa.com Se Habla Español Nous Parlons Français Please follow up all voicemails with an email or text message. Office Hours: By Appointment Only. Appointments are available at my office or in any location, of your choosing, in the Bay Area. General Disclaimer: No attorney-client relationship is intended to be established or should be inferred by a consultation, regardless of whether the consultation is by phone, email, or in person. Legal opinions provided in the spur of the moment during a consultation, with limited background information, and without research should not constitute legal guidance for non-trivial legal matters. Until you sign a retainer agreement, and a retainer paid, no attorney-client relationship exists. However, the information provided by you during the initial consultation is confidential under attorney-client privilege. Again, I am not your attorney until you retain me, or someone from this firm, which requires a signed retainer agreement by both parties, and payment of a retainer. Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail (including attachments) is intended solely for the use of the addressee hereof. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are prohibited from reading, disclosing, reproducing, distributing, disseminating, or otherwise using this transmission. If you have received this message in error, please promptly notify the sender by e-mail and immediately delete this message. This email and its attachments are subject to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§2510-2521. The information herein is confidential, privileged & exempt from disclosure under applicable law. The originator of this e-mail does not represent, warrant or guarantee that the integrity of this communication is protected or that this communication is free of errors, viruses or other defects. Delivery of this message or any portions herein to any person other than the intended recipient is not intended to waive any right or privilege 6203 San Ignacio Avenue, Suite 110, San Jose, Ca 95119 P: (408) 987-6399; jcb@mosaiclawusa.com Page 1 of 4 December 2, 2025 VIA EMAIL (publiccomment@cupertino.gov) Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore and Councilmembers City Council of Cupertino CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 Re: Objection to Mary Avenue Villas Project, Action Item 12 Special Meeting on December 2, 2025 at 2:00 p.m. APN: 326-27-053 (the “Property”) Dear Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, and Councilmembers: I represent Garden Gate Community Neighbors (my “Clients”) and file this objection on their behalf to the proposed Mary Avenue Villas project (the “Project”), located in the Mary Avenue Right-of-Way, APN: 326-27-053 (the “Property”). While my Clients support the idea of the Project (which is to provide affordable housing for the disabled), my Clients oppose this Project at this site, for the reasons set forth below, and hereby request that the City vote no on this Project. The Project application was formerly submitted on April 3, 2025 by Charities Housing (the “Applicant”) for a 40-unit, affordable housing community, with 19 units reserved for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, developed by Applicant in partnership with the Cupertino Rotary and Housing Choices Coalition. The proposed Project is situated on a 0.79-acre site abutting Highway 85 and 280, across from De Anza College, and adjacent to the Mary Avenue Dog Park, and currently is proposed to take over the public land and right of way on this street. While my Clients support affordable housing and the reservation of units specifically for disabled, this site is not the right location for this Project. This is an unsuitable location due to the particular layout, location, and environmental issues on this site that put disabled persons and the community at risk and the traffic impact. Further, in its haste to fast track the Project, the City has failed to follow the procedural steps required by law, including but not limited to failing to follow the process required for vacation of public land, failing to follow Street and Highway codes related to abandoning a public right of way, failing to follow Government Code §65402 along with Brown Act requirements. 1. There are environmental risks to the disabled and the Community at this site which have not been addressed by the City or the Applicant. The contamination at this site makes this an unsuitable location and puts the disabled and community at risk. Three reports have stated that the land is contaminated with unsafe levels of lead and that there are lower concentrations of arsenic and have pesticides 4,4-DDE and 4,4-DDT present. The Subsurface Investigation Report, dated April 4, 2025, and the subsequent report dated April 24, 2025 prepared by Intertek PSI (collectively “Subsurface Investigation Report”) indicated unsafe levels of lead (which are a cause for concern) and arsenic levels above the Construction Workers ESL levels along with detectable levels of pesticides 4,4-DDE and 4,4-DDT on the site. Attached as Exhibit A is a copy of the Subsurface Investigation Report. The Subsurface Investigation Report stated at page 8 “the soil represented by these samples would be classified as hazardous by the State of California.” A Memorandum for Peer Review of Subsurface Investigation Report, Undeveloped Land West of Mary and Parkwood Drive, Cupertino, California, drafted by Baseline Environmental Consulting (“Memorandum”) on May 16, 2025, confirmed 6203 San Ignacio Avenue, Suite 110, San Jose, Ca 95119 P: (408) 987-6399; jcb@mosaiclawusa.com Page 2 of 4 the same results and also concluded that the soil would be classified as California hazardous waste, for disposal purposes. Attached as Exhibit B is a copy of the Memorandum. At page 2, the Memorandum clearly states that the lead exceeds Residential ESL and Construction Workers ESL levels. The Memorandum recommends that further testing be completed and that at minimum remedial actions be taken to prevent risks to residents and the community, like minimizing the volume of soil removed and capping of the lead. However, the report at page 3 states that these “would reduce the likelihood of exposure for future site occupants, this remedial approach is not adequate without appropriate engineering controls, institutional controls, and regulatory oversight to ensure lead impacted soil would not create an exposure concern for future site occupants.” The Memorandum recommends that 1) a Soil Management Plan (“SMP”) and Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan (“SSHSP”) be prepared, the Project applicant enter into a Remedial Action Agreement with the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health to oversee soil remediation at the site. The Subsurface Investigation Report also states that “A SMP and a SSHSP should be prepared prior to site redevelopment to mitigate exposure of construction workers to the lead and arsenic in the soil.” None of these recommendations have been followed and this poses a risk to the community during construction, the neighbors currently living around this site, and to the future site residents. Given the focus on housing for individuals with disabilities, the City should proceed with an abundance of caution and follow the recommendations of the experts as stated in the above referenced reports and memorandums. The City must require the Applicant to engage the Department of Environmental Health to assess whether the site can be effectively remediated adequately for such future residential use. Individuals with disabilities often have compromised immune systems, making them particularly vulnerable to even low levels of environmental hazards. Without entering into a Remedial Action Agreement with the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health as the recommended action, the Project will fail to effectively address the hazardous lead levels found and put the community and its future inhabitants at risk. Additionally, an environmental action plan is further necessary to consider how the site’s proximity to Highway 85 and Highway 280 will further cause the accumulation of pollutants at this site. Since the Department of Environmental Health must be engaged to specifically address these concerns and since this has not been done by the Applicant, my Clients urge the City to not approve the lease and disposition agreement with the Applicant. At minimum, the decision should be postponed and the recommendation at the end of this meeting should be for the Applicant to enter into the required Remedial Action Agreement with the Department of Environmental Health. 2. There is a significant impact to traffic in the community which can lead to safety issues and a reduced quality of life for its existing residents. The impact to traffic will be significant since the Project proposes narrowing the street, the bike path, and the available parking, and there are changes with parking at De Anza College, all of which impacts the quality of life of the existing residents and can lead to accidents as a result of the increased traffic. The transportation assessment, prepared by Hexagon Transport Consultants (the “Transportation Assessment”) and submitted on November 13, 2025, does not account for critical changes that will affect parking in the neighborhood in 2026. Attached as Exhibit C is the Transportation Assessment. Starting January 6, 2026, De Anza College will no longer offer free parking to visitors and will require payment to park (see https://www.deanza.edu/parking/#oneday and https://www.instagram.com/p/DPsXkeTERd-/). This change significantly impacts local parking and traffic on Mary Avenue, as this street has been historically used as overflow parking from De Anza College. Since parking will no longer be free at De Anza College for visitors, there will be an increase of traffic and cars attempting to park on this street all the while the Project will reduce the size of the street, the bike lane, and available parking. While the transportation assessment discusses the impact on festival days at De Anza College it fails to consider these coming changes. The impact on traffic and parking will affect this community negatively and for this reason the 6203 San Ignacio Avenue, Suite 110, San Jose, Ca 95119 P: (408) 987-6399; jcb@mosaiclawusa.com Page 3 of 4 City should vote no on approving the lease and disposition agreement with the Applicant. At minimum, the decision should be postponed and the recommendation at the end of this meeting should be for further study to be done to determine how the change in parking at De Anza College will impact this street and community. Further, there is a potential fire and safety issues that must be assessed. The City has waived the normal setback requirements for this Project to maximize land use on this narrow strip. However, the Project's unique design, intended use, and the site itself poses a fire safety issue. The site causes a reduction in the street size, increases parking, and it borders a sound wall adjacent to Highway 85- all of this may impact emergency response and fire crews in the event of a building fire. Therefore, a special assessment should be conducted under the supervision of the Santa Clara County Fire Department to determine if they can effectively combat a structure fire so close to the sound wall, with the smaller street, and increased traffic and parking. This assessment is critical as a large percentage of these units will be for those who are intellectually and developmentally disabled and the fire department should be engaged to determine if they can safely handle a potential fire at this site and evacuate individuals with disabilities during a fire all while managing the uniqueness of this site against the soundwall, the smaller street, and increased traffic and parking. The traffic and street changes pose a safety issue to all the community that lives on this street and to ensure the safety of future residents, it is crucial that the City and the Applicant do it’s due diligence before the City approves the lease and disposition agreement with the Applicant. Therefore, my Clients urge the City to vote No or to postpone a full vote and require further traffic and fire assessment to address these issues. 3. The City has failed to adhere to the procedural requirements under its municipal code and applicable law. The Project requires changes to the lot and street which include public land and a right of way and the sale of public land and therefore the City must adhere to its own procedures and municipal codes when making these changes. While there is no timing requirement in some of these codes, approving the Project before completing these procedures is putting the cart before the horse. By delaying initiating the procedural requirements, the City is As these procedural requirements have not been met, my Clients urge the City to vote no at this time so that the procedural requirements for disposing of public land and right of ways can be met. This Project should not warrant the City abandoning its procedural requirements under the municipal code and applicable law. The City must follow its own code as it relates to vacationing public land (Surplus Land Act Gov’t Code §§54220-54234), changing rights of ways (Streets and Highway Code §8300 et seq), and disposing of public land (Brown Act). The Project requires changes to the lot and street which include public land and a right of way and the sale of public land and therefore the City must adhere to its own procedures and municipal codes when making these changes. While there is no timing requirement in some of these codes, approving the Project before completing these procedures is putting the cart before the horse. As these procedural requirements have not been met, my Clients urge the City to vote no at this time so that the procedural requirements for disposing of public land and right of ways can be met. Finally, out of an abundance of caution and to avoid the appearance of impropriety and self-dealing, council members who are part of the Rotary Association, which is associating or promoting this Project, should recuse themselves from voting on this Project. All laws related to conflicts of interest should be adhered to and any city council member who has a conflict of interest must recuse themselves from voting on this Project. 4. Council member should vote No on this Project 6203 San Ignacio Avenue, Suite 110, San Jose, Ca 95119 P: (408) 987-6399; jcb@mosaiclawusa.com Page 4 of 4 While affordable housing with reserved spaces for the disabled is a celebrated project for the City, this Project at this site is not the right place for this neighborhood. The City must vote no on approving the lease and disposition agreement with the Applicant. The City and the Applicant should find a better site with less impact to the health and safety of neighbors, construction workers, and its future residences and a site that improves not hurts the quality of life of its surrounding neighborhood. If the City is not willing to vote no at this time, then the City must delay the vote at this meeting and set a future meeting and require in the interim that the Applicant: a. enter into a Remedial Action Agreement with the Department of Environmental Health; b. conduct a further traffic assessment to determine the impact to traffic and parking on this street due to incoming parking changes at De Anza College c. engage the fire department to assess the impact of fire safety services as a result of the site restrictions, the narrower road, and increased traffic/parking on this street Additionally, in the interim, the City must initiate the procedural requirements for vacationing the right of way and public land, and disposition of public land so that these requirements are met and open for public comment before the Project is approved. Sincerely, Jordan Behmke, Esq. Principal Attorney Enc. Exhibit A Subsurface Investigation Report Exhibit B- Memorandum Exhibit C- Transportation Assessment cc. Clients Exhibit A Subsurface Investigation Report Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development Mary Avenue Cupertino, California Charities Housing 1400 Parkmoor Avenue, Suite 190 Professional Service Industries, Inc. 0575-2869 – Subsurface Investigation Charities Housing, Cupertino, California April 24, 2025 June www.intertek.com/building/environmental TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION.............................................. i 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ............................................................................. 1 1.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................... 1 1.3 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING ......................................................................................... 1 2.0 SOIL INVESTIGATION ............................................................................................................... 2 2.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK ................................................................................. 2 2.2 PRE-FIELD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................... 2 2.3 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION .......................................................................................... 2 3.0 ANALYTICAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................ 4 3.1 SOIL ANALYICIAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................... 4 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................ 5 FIGURES FIGURE 1: SITE LOCATION MAP FIGURE 2: SITE PLAN AND BORING LOCATION MAP FIGURE TABLE 1: SOIL ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY APPENDICES APPENDIX A: CITY OF CUPERTINO ENCROACHMENT PERMIT APPENDIX B: LABORATORY REPORT 0575-2869-Subsurface Investigation Charities Housing, Cupertino, California April 24, 2025 Page i STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION The information provided in this Subsurface Investigation Report prepared by Professional Service Industries, Inc. (PSI), Project Number 0575-2869, is intended exclusively for Charities Housing for the evaluation of soil, as it pertains to the subject property in Cupertino, California at the time the activities were conducted. No unnamed third party shall have the right to rely on this report without the express written consent of PSI. The professional services provided have been performed in accordance with practices generally accepted by other environmental professionals, geologists, hydrologists, hydrogeologists, engineers, and environmental scientists practicing in this field. No other warranty, either expressed or implied, is made. As with all subsurface investigations, there is no guarantee that the work conducted has identified any and all sources or locations of hazardous substances or chemicals in the soil. This report is issued with the understanding that Charities Housing is responsible for ensuring that the information contained in this report is brought to the attention of the appropriate regulatory agency. This report has been reviewed by a geologist who is registered in the State of California and whos.e signature and license number appear below. Project Geologist Frank R. Poss Department Manager Principal Consultant www.intertek.com/building/environmental 0575-2869 – Subsurface Investigation Charities Housing, Cupertino, California April 24, 2025 Page 1 www.intertek.com/building/environmental 1.0 INTRODUCTION Professional Service Industries, Inc. (PSI) was retained by Charities Housing to evaluate the possible impact to the near surface soils at the subject property associated with the former agricultural use of the subject property and the proximity to a highway. 1.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The subject property is located on the west side of Mary Avenue, at its intersection with Parkwood Drive in Cupertino California (see Figure 1 - Site Location Map). The subject property does not currently have an address but can be identified as a portion of Santa Clara County Assessor Parcel Number 326-27-030. The site is a relatively level, roughly rectangular-shaped property that measures about 0.79 acres in plan area and is bounded by Mary Avenue to the east and Highway 85 to the west. At the time of our study, the subject property existed as undeveloped land, landscaping, and asphalt-paved parking (see Figure 2 - Site Plan and Vicinity Map). 1.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Redevelopment of the subject property will include grading of the berm in front of the Caltrans Highway 85 soundwall along with removal of trees and vegetation. The subject property will include two buildings, each consisting of two stories and twenty (20) units, as well as a parking lot with approximately twenty-two (22) spaces including accessible and EV charging spaces. 1.3 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared for the subject property (PSI, June 11, 2024), indicates that the property was historically used for agricultural purposes from at least 1939 through the late 1960s. Additionally, the subject property is adjacent to a freeway that may have impacted the subject property with aerially deposited lead (ADL). The ESA did not identify any recognized environmental conditions (RECs), historical RECs, or controlled RECS on the subject property and PSI recommended no further investigation for the subject property. However, PSI did identify the historical agricultural use and the ADL as environmental concerns for possible redevelopment of the subject property. Based on the proposed redevelopment of the property, Charities Housing determined that a subsurface investigation was prudent and contracted PSI to complete this investigation. 0575-2869 – Subsurface Investigation Charities Housing, Cupertino, California April 24, 2025 Page 2 www.intertek.com/building/environmental 2.0 SOIL INVESTIGATION 2.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK The soil investigation at the site was performed to evaluate the nature and extent of potential lead and/or pesticide impact in the surface and near-surface soil that may have resulted from aerially deposited lead and from historical agricultural site use and the potential threat to human health associated with the intrusive, groundbreaking work that is proposed as part of the site development. Our scope of work included advancing six soil borings, sampling of soil from each boring at 0.5 and 2 feet below the ground surface (bgs), analysis of samples, and preparation of this report. All field work was performed under the supervision of a State of California Professional Geologist. A detailed description of the scope of work and methodology used is presented in the sections below. The scope of work, including the number and location of samples and the analyses performed, was in general accordance with the DTSC 2008 Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties. 2.2 PRE-FIELD ACTIVITIES At least 2 days prior to the commencement of drilling activities, PSI staked the proposed boring locations, marked the site with white paint and contacted Underground Service Alert (USA), a public utility locating service, to locate public utilities on or adjacent to the subject site. The USA inquiry identification number (or Ticket Number) for the utility locate request is #2025031202827. Additionally, PSI obtained an encroachment permit from the City of Cupertino to complete the borings within the public right-of-way (Permit Number PW-2025-0143). A copy of the permit is presented in Appendix A. 2.3 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Soil Borings On March 18, 2025, six soil borings were advanced to a depth of 2 feet bgs by PSI personnel using a 3-inch diameter hand auger mounted on a T-bar handle. Three borings (B1 through B3) were advanced within soil-surfaced landscaped areas, and three (B4 through B6) were advanced in paved areas of the existing parking lot. Where required (in the 3 paved areas), Safe2Core Inc., a paving and coring contractor, was utilized to remove the asphalt pavement section to allow access for our hand-auger and sampling equipment. The locations of the soil boring are presented in Figure 2. 0575-2869 – Subsurface Investigation Charities Housing, Cupertino, California April 24, 2025 Page 3 www.intertek.com/building/environmental Due to elevated lead concentrations detected in the soil sample from B2 at 2 feet, PSI returned to the subject property on April 11, 2025 to determine if those elevated concentrations are a localized condition. Two additional soil borings, B7 and B8, were advanced to a depth of 2 feet bgs within the soil-surfaced landscaped area approximately 10 feet north and south of B2, respectively. The borings were advanced by PSI personnel using a 3-inch diameter hand auger mounted on a T-bar handle. A description of the soil sampling, equipment decontamination, and backfill of the eight borings is presented in the following sections. Soil Sampling Soil samples were collected from the surface and subsurface at each boring, at depths of 0.5 and 2 feet bgs, respectively. Once a boring was advanced to the desired sample depth, a grab sample was collected from the auger bucket into a new 2-inch diameter, 6-inch-long stainless-steel soil tube. Once the sample tube was filled, the ends of the tube were sealed with Teflon sheets and capped with polyethylene end caps. PSI personnel wore nitrile gloves during sample collection, changing to a new pair for each sample collected. The samples were immediately labeled and then placed in a chilled cooler, pending delivery to the laboratory for analysis. Groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings, with the Phase I ESA report for the property indicating that the depth to groundwater is approximately 60 to 100 feet bgs. Equipment Decontamination Decontamination procedures were implemented to maintain sample integrity and to prevent cross-contamination between sampling locations. The hand-auger bucket and T-bar were decontaminated before sampling, between samples and between boring locations by washing with a non-phosphate detergent and rinsing with de-ionized water. Backfill of Borings At the completion of sampling at each hand-auger boring, PSI backfilled the five holes located in the landscaped areas with hand-compacted soil cuttings to match the adjacent surface grades. Safe2Core Inc. backfilled the three holes in the paved areas and restored the pavement surfaces in accordance with the City of Cupertino encroachment permit requirements. To avoid leaving any holes open that could cause damage or injury to vehicles, pedestrians or animals, the cores and borings were backfilled within a day of drilling. On April 21, 2025, PSI received email notification from the City of Cupertino Public Works Department that their inspector signed off on the pavement restoration. 0575-2869 – Subsurface Investigation Charities Housing, Cupertino, California April 24, 2025 Page 4 www.intertek.com/building/environmental 3.0 ANALYTICAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The soil samples were submitted to SunStar Laboratories, Inc. of Lake Forest, California, a California certified environmental laboratory, under strict chain-of-custody protocol. Soil samples were delivered to the laboratory within two days of sample collection. 3.1 SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The soil samples collected from each boring (a total of 12 soil samples) were submitted for analyses for the following: • Organochlorine pesticides according to EPA Method 8081 • Lead and arsenic according to EPA Method 6010 Four additional soil samples were analyzed only for lead according to EPA Method 6010. A summary of the soil analytical results are as follows: • Arsenic was detected in three soil samples with concentrations ranging from 3.51 to 7.25 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). • Lead was detected in eleven of the soil samples with concentrations ranging from 5.07 to 680 mg/kg. The lead concentrations are typical of background conditions with the exception of the soil sample collected from B2 at 2 feet. • 4,4-DDE was detected in two soil samples (B3-0.5 and B3-2) at concentrations of 0.047 and 0.061 mg/kg, respectively. • 4,4-DDT was detected in two soil samples (B3-0.5 and B3-2) at concentrations of 0.0089 and 0.020 mg/kg, respectively. A copy of the laboratory analytical reports are included in Appendix B and the analysis results are summarized in Table 1. The soil sample results were compared to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Board Environmental Screening Levels for Residential – Shallow Soil Exposure (ESL-R) and to the RWQCB- ESL for Construction Workers (ESL-CW). None of the concentrations of the tested constituents were detected at greater than their respective ESL-R or ESL-CW with the exception of the following. • The arsenic concentrations detected were below established background arsenic concentration for Santa Clara Valley of up to 20 mg/kg (“Establishing Background Arsenic in 0575-2869 – Subsurface Investigation Charities Housing, Cupertino, California April 24, 2025 Page 5 www.intertek.com/building/environmental Soil of the Urbanized San Francisco Bay Region,” by Dylan Duverge, December 2011). Based on this information, Arsenic is not considered a contaminant of concern at the subject property. The detected arsenic concentrations were above the ESL-CW, so a Soil Management Plan (SMP) and a Site Specific Health and Safety Plan (SSHSP) should be prepared prior to conducting any soil excavation as part of redevelopment of the subject property. • Only one of the lead concentrations was above the ESL-R (B2-2). The results from the soil samples collected from borings B7 and B8, which show background concentrations of lead, effectively bound the elevated detections at B2, indicating that the B2 result as a localized condition. If not below a proposed building, as the new building will create a cap to eliminate contact with lead impacted soil, the soil represented by this sample should be excavated and removed from the property. For the proposed redevelopment, a SMP and SSHSP should be prepared that have appropriate stipulations associated with the lead impacted soil. To evaluate soil disposal, should the soil be defined as a waste, the results of the soil analyses were compared to California Code of Regulations Title 22 List of Inorganic, Persistent, and Bioaccumulative Toxic Substances and their soluble threshold limit concentrations (STLC) and total threshold limit concentrations (TTLC) values. None of these samples had a concentration greater than their respective TTLC. However, the total lead concentration in soil sample B2-2 (680 mg/kg) was greater than the screening criteria of ten times the STLC of 5 milligrams per liter (mg/l). Therefore, a waste extraction test (WET) and Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Potential (TCLP) were performed on this sample to determine its soluble lead concentration. The results of the analyses indicated that the soluble lead concentration was greater than the STLC after a WET, but below the soluble lead concentration after a TCLP. The soil represented by these samples would be classified as hazardous by the State of California upon excavation and classification as a waste material. 0575-2869 – Subsurface Investigation Charities Housing, Cupertino, California April 24, 2025 Page 6 www.intertek.com/building/environmental 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The results of the subsurface investigation are summarized below. • Low concentrations of lead, arsenic, and organochlorine pesticides were found across the subject property with one soil sample having elevated lead concentrations. Based on the concentrations detected, arsenic and organochlorine pesticides are not contaminants of concern, while lead is considered to be a contaminant of concern. • Only one soil sample had a total lead concentration above the ESL-R (B2-2). If not below a proposed building, as the new building will create a cap to eliminate contact with lead impacted soil, the soil represented by this sample should be excavated and removed from the property. Lead in one soil sample and arsenic in three soil samples were above the ESL-CW. A SMP and a SSHSP should be prepared prior to site redevelopment to mitigate exposure of construction workers to the lead and arsenic in soil. • To evaluate whether the soil represented by soil sample B2-2 would be a hazardous waste, when excavated, the soil sample was analyzed for soluble lead by the WET and TCLP methods. The results of the analyses indicated that the soluble lead concentration was greater than the STLC after a WET, but below the soluble lead concentration after a TCLP. The soil represented by this sample would be classified as hazardous by the State of California upon excavation and classification as a waste material. www.intertek.com/building FIGURES www.intertek.com/building TABLE Boring Number Sample Depth (feet)Arsenic Lead gamma Chlordane alpha Chlordane Dieldrin 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDT B1 0.5 7.25 10.4 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 2 <2.0 6.59 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 B2 0.5 3.93 31.0 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 2 3.51 680 (18) {1.1}<0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 B3 0.5 <2.0 22.8 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.047 <0.005 0.0089 2 <2.0 10.3 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.061 <0.005 0.020 B4 0.5 <2.0 <3.0 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 2 <2.0 <3.0 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 B5 0.5 <4.0 <6.0 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 2 <4.0 <6.0 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 B6 0.5 <4.0 <6.0 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 2 <4.0 5.07 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 B7 0.5 NA 8.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 NA 5.4 NA NA NA NA NA NA B8 0.5 NA 7.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 NA 5.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA RWQCB ESLs 0.067 80 0.31 320 2.0 160 14 14 1.1 57 81 57 Notes: All samples from borings B1-B6 collected on March 18, 2025. Alls samples from borings B7 and B8 collected on April 11, 2025 All concentrations are reported in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) with the exception of the WET and TCLP results, which are in milligrams per liter (mg/L). (18) = Soluble lead concentration after a WET; {1.1} = Soluble lead concentration after a TCLP. NA - Not Analyzed < = Not detected above the reporting limit indicated. RWQCB ESLs = Regional Water Quality Control Board Environmental Screening Levels (January 2019, rev. 2). Detections are indicated in bold. Concentrations that exceed the residential ESL are shaded. Construction Worker www.intertek.com/building APPENDIX A CITY OF CUPERTINO ENCROACHMENT PERMIT SPECIAL CONDITIONS: ☐Work hours limited to Monday – Friday: ☐ 7:00 a.m. ☐ 8:00 a.m. to ☐ 4:30 p.m. ☐ 6:00 p.m. ☐Work hours in pavement limited to: ☐ 8:00 a.m. ☐ 9:30 a.m. to ☐ 3:30 p.m. ☐ 4:30 p.m. ☐Any violation of working hours shall result in “STOP WORK” notice ☐Two lanes of traffic to be maintained at all times ☐Permanent paving must be installed WITHIN 5 WORKING DAYS after completion, Traffic markings and bike lane markings to be replaced within 5 days of pavement restoration. ☐Pavement delineation or signs damaged during construction shall be replaced in kind ☐Pavement section shall match existing ☐Street Cut Moratorium Applies (CMC 14.08.040) ☐Slurry Seal Required ☐ Half Width ☐ Full Width ☐ ȱ¢ȱȱȱ¡ȱȱŘȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱentire excavation in sheets. ☐All trenching shall be backfilled to a minimum of 95% relative compaction ☐Trench plates in the travel way shall be traffic rated, properly secured and shall be recessed upon request. See counter-sink steel plate requirements attached. ☐If trench is 3’ of less from Lip of Gutter, contractor shall repave to Lip of Gutter. ☐Jobsite shall be properly posted 48 hours in advance. Parking may not be restricted on Saturday or Sunday. No-Parking signs may not be posted more than 5 days before the start of work, may not refer to towing away, must be removed after the project is completed, and must not cover a period of more than 3 weeks. No-Parking signs must include the project's permit number, construction dates, project description, and contact information for the responsible party. ☐BMP Sheet Attached ☐ ☐ GENERAL CONDITIONS: 1)The Public Works Inspector of the City of Cupertino, (408) 205-6326 or (408) 777-3354, shall be notified at least 48 hours prior to beginning work in the public Right-of-Way or requesting inspection of work. After the work is completed, notify the Public Works Inspector to schedule a final inspection. 2)A copy of this permit must be kept on the job site. 3)The applicant shall notify County Communications, (408) 299-2501, at least 24 hours prior to any work in the traveled way section of a street. 4)Permittee shall employ construction best management practices which will prevent pollutants such as mud, silt, chemical residue, and washings from concrete saw-cutting from entering storm drains. Any spills or discharges that could potentially or actually enter a storm drain or receiving water, must be immediately reported to the City (408-777-3354). See Construction Best Management practices attachment. 5)The applicant agrees that if the encroachment for which this permit is issued which shall at any time in the future interfere with the use, repair, improvement, widening, or change of grade of any street, roadway, highway, sidewalk, curb, drain, or Right-of-Way, applicant or his successor or assigns, shall within 14 days after receipt of written notice from the Director of Public Works to do so, at its own expense either remove such encroachment subject to approval from the Director, or relocate to a site which may be designated by the Director. Any encroachment removed by the City will not be replaced. 6)To the fullest extent allowed by law, PERMITEE and CONTRACTOR shall indemnify and hold harmless CITY, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, officials, agents, employees, servants, consultants and volunteers (hereinafter, “Indemnitees”) from and against any liability, loss, damage, expense, and cost (including reasonable legal fees and costs of litigation or arbitration), resulting from injury to or death of any person, damage to property, or liability for other claims, stop notices, demands, causes of actions and actions, arising out of or in any way related to Contractor’s performance or nonperformance of his/her duties under this Agreement, or from negligent acts or omissions or willful misconduct of Contractor, its agents, employees, or subcontractors. Contractor shall, at his/her own cost and expense, defend any and all claims, actions, suits or legal proceedings that may be brought against the City or any of the Indemnitees (with council acceptable to City) in connection with this Permit or arising out of Developer’s performance or nonperformance of his/her duties and obligations hereunder, except to the extent any of the foregoing is caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of the CITY or the CITY’S agents, employees and independent contractors. 7)Should the Permittee provide services which are subject to the City’s Franchise ordinance, Permittee agrees to pay any applicable City franchise fee. 8)This encroachment permit shall be terminable at the sole discretion of the City upon 30 days written notice to the Permittee. 9)The applicant’s contractor shall carry at all times commercial general liability insurance with a combined single limit of $2.0 million per occurrence;$4.0 million aggregate; and provide a Certificate of Insurance and Endorsement naming the City as Additional Insured. Insurers must be licensed to do business within the State of California and have a current Best’s Guide Rating of A, Class VII or better or that is otherwise acceptable to the City. Insurance shall be primary and non-contributory. 10)All work within the public Right of Way must be completed by a contractor who holds a current Class A or appropriate Class C license and a current City of Cupertino business license. 11)Permittee and Contractor shall comply with Chapter 11.32 of the Cupertino Municipal Code "Truck Traffic Routes" (See attached Truck Traffic Restrictions Map). No person shall operate or drive any truck that exceeds a gross weight of three tons between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:30 am or 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. on the following roadway segments: a.any roadway which runs contiguous to and is within 500 feet of any public school (excluding Homestead Rd and Bollinger Rd) b.McClellan Road, between Stelling Road and Bubb Road. Potholes and bore pits shall be filled to grade with cutback at end of each work day. "Top hat" plates may not be used on public streets. Other: www.intertek.com/building APPENDIX B LABORATORY REPORT 25712 Commercentre Drive Lake Forest, California 92630 949.297.5020 Phone 949.297.5027 Fax PSI -- Oakland RE: Charities - Cupertino Oakland, CA 94601 4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B Frank Poss Lena Davidkov Project Manager Enclosed are the results of analyses for samples received by the laboratory on 03/20/25 10:44. If you have any questions concerning this report, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, 01 April 2025 Project: Project Number: Project Manager: Reported: PSI -- Oakland 4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B 575-2869 Frank Poss Charities - Cupertino 04/01/25 15:24Oakland CA, 94601 25712 Commercentre Drive Lake Forest, California 92630 949.297.5020 Phone 949.297.5027 Fax Sample ID Laboratory ID Matrix Date Sampled ANALYTICAL REPORT FOR SAMPLES Date Received B1-0.5 T251304-01 Soil 03/18/25 08:24 03/20/25 10:44 B1-2 T251304-02 Soil 03/18/25 08:32 03/20/25 10:44 B2-0.5 T251304-03 Soil 03/18/25 08:50 03/20/25 10:44 B2-2 T251304-04 Soil 03/18/25 08:58 03/20/25 10:44 B3-0.5 T251304-05 Soil 03/18/25 09:25 03/20/25 10:44 B3-2 T251304-06 Soil 03/18/25 09:30 03/20/25 10:44 B4-0.5 T251304-07 Soil 03/18/25 09:48 03/20/25 10:44 B4-2 T251304-08 Soil 03/18/25 10:00 03/20/25 10:44 B5-0.5 T251304-09 Soil 03/18/25 10:38 03/20/25 10:44 B5-2 T251304-10 Soil 03/18/25 10:50 03/20/25 10:44 B6-0.5 T251304-11 Soil 03/18/25 11:47 03/20/25 10:44 B6-2 T251304-12 Soil 03/18/25 12:00 03/20/25 10:44 Lena Davidkov, Project Manager SunStar Laboratories, Inc.The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety . Page 1 of 23 Project: Project Number: Project Manager: Reported: PSI -- Oakland 4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B 575-2869 Frank Poss Charities - Cupertino 04/01/25 15:24Oakland CA, 94601 25712 Commercentre Drive Lake Forest, California 92630 949.297.5020 Phone 949.297.5027 Fax DETECTIONS SUMMARY Laboratory ID: Analyte Result Limit Units Method T251304-01B1-0.5 Notes Reporting Sample ID: Arsenic 7.25 2.00 mg/kg EPA 6010b Lead 10.4 3.00 mg/kg EPA 6010b Laboratory ID: Analyte Result Limit Units Method T251304-02B1-2 Notes Reporting Sample ID: Lead 6.59 3.00 mg/kg EPA 6010b Laboratory ID: Analyte Result Limit Units Method T251304-03B2-0.5 Notes Reporting Sample ID: Arsenic 3.93 2.00 mg/kg EPA 6010b Lead 31.0 3.00 mg/kg EPA 6010b Laboratory ID: Analyte Result Limit Units Method T251304-04B2-2 Notes Reporting Sample ID: Arsenic 3.51 2.00 mg/kg EPA 6010b Lead 680 3.00 mg/kg EPA 6010b Lead 1.1 0.10 mg/l EPA 1311 Lead 18 0.025 mg/l STLC Waste Extraction Test Laboratory ID: Analyte Result Limit Units Method T251304-05B3-0.5 Notes Reporting Sample ID: Lead 22.8 3.00 mg/kg EPA 6010b 4,4´-DDE 47 5.0 ug/kg EPA 8081A 4,4´-DDT 8.9 5.0 ug/kg EPA 8081A Lena Davidkov, Project Manager SunStar Laboratories, Inc.The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety . Page 2 of 23 Project: Project Number: Project Manager: Reported: PSI -- Oakland 4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B 575-2869 Frank Poss Charities - Cupertino 04/01/25 15:24Oakland CA, 94601 25712 Commercentre Drive Lake Forest, California 92630 949.297.5020 Phone 949.297.5027 Fax Laboratory ID: Analyte Result Limit Units Method T251304-06B3-2 Notes Reporting Sample ID: Lead 10.3 3.00 mg/kg EPA 6010b 4,4´-DDE 61 5.0 ug/kg EPA 8081A 4,4´-DDT 20 5.0 ug/kg EPA 8081A Laboratory ID:T251304-07B4-0.5Sample ID: No Results Detected Laboratory ID:T251304-08B4-2Sample ID: No Results Detected Laboratory ID:T251304-09B5-0.5Sample ID: No Results Detected Laboratory ID:T251304-10B5-2Sample ID: No Results Detected Laboratory ID:T251304-11B6-0.5Sample ID: No Results Detected Lena Davidkov, Project Manager SunStar Laboratories, Inc.The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety . Page 3 of 23 Project: Project Number: Project Manager: Reported: PSI -- Oakland 4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B 575-2869 Frank Poss Charities - Cupertino 04/01/25 15:24Oakland CA, 94601 25712 Commercentre Drive Lake Forest, California 92630 949.297.5020 Phone 949.297.5027 Fax Laboratory ID: Analyte Result Limit Units Method T251304-12B6-2 Notes Reporting Sample ID: Lead 5.07 3.00 mg/kg EPA 6010b Lena Davidkov, Project Manager SunStar Laboratories, Inc.The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety . Page 4 of 23 Project: Project Number: Project Manager: Reported: PSI -- Oakland 4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B 575-2869 Frank Poss Charities - Cupertino 04/01/25 15:24Oakland CA, 94601 25712 Commercentre Drive Lake Forest, California 92630 949.297.5020 Phone 949.297.5027 Fax ResultAnalyte Limit Batch Reporting Prepared Analyzed Method Notes DilutionUnits B1-0.5 T251304-01 (Soil) SunStar Laboratories, Inc. Metals by EPA 6010B EPA 6010b7.25 25C0360 03/20/25 03/21/25 mg/kg 1Arsenic2.00 "10.4 " " """Lead 3.00 Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA Method 8081A ND EPA 8081A03/25/25 03/26/25 ug/kg 25C03581alpha-BHC 5.0 ND "" """"gamma-BHC (Lindane)5.0 ND "" """"beta-BHC 5.0 ND "" """"delta-BHC 5.0 ND "" """"Heptachlor 5.0 ND "" """"Aldrin 5.0 ND "" """"Heptachlor epoxide 5.0 ND "" """"gamma-Chlordane 5.0 ND "" """"alpha-Chlordane 5.0 ND "" """"Endosulfan I 5.0 ND "" """"4,4´-DDE 5.0 ND "" """"Dieldrin 5.0 ND "" """"Endrin 5.0 ND "" """"4,4´-DDD 5.0 ND "" """"Endosulfan II 5.0 ND "" """"4,4´-DDT 5.0 ND "" """"Endrin aldehyde 5.0 ND "" """"Endosulfan sulfate 5.0 ND "" """"Methoxychlor 5.0 ND "" """"Endrin ketone 5.0 ND "" """"Toxaphene 20 "" " "35-14052.8 %Surrogate: Tetrachloro-meta-xylene "" " "S-GC35-14018.3 %Surrogate: Decachlorobiphenyl Lena Davidkov, Project Manager SunStar Laboratories, Inc.The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety . Page 5 of 23 Project: Project Number: Project Manager: Reported: PSI -- Oakland 4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B 575-2869 Frank Poss Charities - Cupertino 04/01/25 15:24Oakland CA, 94601 25712 Commercentre Drive Lake Forest, California 92630 949.297.5020 Phone 949.297.5027 Fax ResultAnalyte Limit Batch Reporting Prepared Analyzed Method Notes DilutionUnits B1-2 T251304-02 (Soil) SunStar Laboratories, Inc. Metals by EPA 6010B ND EPA 6010b03/20/25 03/21/25 mg/kg 25C03601Arsenic2.00 "6.59 " " """Lead 3.00 Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA Method 8081A ND EPA 8081A03/25/25 03/26/25 ug/kg 25C03581alpha-BHC 5.0 ND "" """"gamma-BHC (Lindane)5.0 ND "" """"beta-BHC 5.0 ND "" """"delta-BHC 5.0 ND "" """"Heptachlor 5.0 ND "" """"Aldrin 5.0 ND "" """"Heptachlor epoxide 5.0 ND "" """"gamma-Chlordane 5.0 ND "" """"alpha-Chlordane 5.0 ND "" """"Endosulfan I 5.0 ND "" """"4,4´-DDE 5.0 ND "" """"Dieldrin 5.0 ND "" """"Endrin 5.0 ND "" """"4,4´-DDD 5.0 ND "" """"Endosulfan II 5.0 ND "" """"4,4´-DDT 5.0 ND "" """"Endrin aldehyde 5.0 ND "" """"Endosulfan sulfate 5.0 ND "" """"Methoxychlor 5.0 ND "" """"Endrin ketone 5.0 ND "" """"Toxaphene 20 "" " "35-14038.2 %Surrogate: Tetrachloro-meta-xylene "" " "S-GC35-14015.7 %Surrogate: Decachlorobiphenyl Lena Davidkov, Project Manager SunStar Laboratories, Inc.The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety . Page 6 of 23 Project: Project Number: Project Manager: Reported: PSI -- Oakland 4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B 575-2869 Frank Poss Charities - Cupertino 04/01/25 15:24Oakland CA, 94601 25712 Commercentre Drive Lake Forest, California 92630 949.297.5020 Phone 949.297.5027 Fax ResultAnalyte Limit Batch Reporting Prepared Analyzed Method Notes DilutionUnits B2-0.5 T251304-03 (Soil) SunStar Laboratories, Inc. Metals by EPA 6010B EPA 6010b3.93 25C0360 03/20/25 03/21/25 mg/kg 1Arsenic2.00 "31.0 " " """Lead 3.00 Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA Method 8081A ND EPA 8081A03/25/25 03/26/25 ug/kg 25C03581alpha-BHC 5.0 ND "" """"gamma-BHC (Lindane)5.0 ND "" """"beta-BHC 5.0 ND "" """"delta-BHC 5.0 ND "" """"Heptachlor 5.0 ND "" """"Aldrin 5.0 ND "" """"Heptachlor epoxide 5.0 ND "" """"gamma-Chlordane 5.0 ND "" """"alpha-Chlordane 5.0 ND "" """"Endosulfan I 5.0 ND "" """"4,4´-DDE 5.0 ND "" """"Dieldrin 5.0 ND "" """"Endrin 5.0 ND "" """"4,4´-DDD 5.0 ND "" """"Endosulfan II 5.0 ND "" """"4,4´-DDT 5.0 ND "" """"Endrin aldehyde 5.0 ND "" """"Endosulfan sulfate 5.0 ND "" """"Methoxychlor 5.0 ND "" """"Endrin ketone 5.0 ND "" """"Toxaphene 20 "" " "35-14046.0 %Surrogate: Tetrachloro-meta-xylene "" " "S-GC35-14013.6 %Surrogate: Decachlorobiphenyl Lena Davidkov, Project Manager SunStar Laboratories, Inc.The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety . Page 7 of 23 Project: Project Number: Project Manager: Reported: PSI -- Oakland 4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B 575-2869 Frank Poss Charities - Cupertino 04/01/25 15:24Oakland CA, 94601 25712 Commercentre Drive Lake Forest, California 92630 949.297.5020 Phone 949.297.5027 Fax ResultAnalyte Limit Batch Reporting Prepared Analyzed Method Notes DilutionUnits B2-2 T251304-04 (Soil) SunStar Laboratories, Inc. Metals by EPA 6010B EPA 6010b3.51 25C0360 03/20/25 03/21/25 mg/kg 1Arsenic2.00 "680 " " """Lead 3.00 TCLP Metals by 6000/7000 Series Methods EPA 13111.1 25C0499 03/28/25 03/31/25 mg/l 1Lead0.10 STLC Metals by 6000/7000 Series Methods STLC Waste Extraction Test 18 25C0502 03/28/25 03/31/25 mg/l 1Lead0.025 Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA Method 8081A ND EPA 8081A03/25/25 03/26/25 ug/kg 25C035810alpha-BHC 50 R-07 ND "" """"gamma-BHC (Lindane)50 R-07 ND "" """"beta-BHC 50 R-07 ND "" """"delta-BHC 50 R-07 ND "" """"Heptachlor 50 R-07 ND "" """"Aldrin 50 R-07 ND "" """"Heptachlor epoxide 50 R-07 ND "" """"gamma-Chlordane 50 R-07 ND "" """"alpha-Chlordane 50 R-07 ND "" """"Endosulfan I 50 R-07 ND "" """"4,4´-DDE 50 R-07 ND "" """"Dieldrin 50 R-07 ND "" """"Endrin 50 R-07 ND "" """"4,4´-DDD 50 R-07 ND "" """"Endosulfan II 50 R-07 ND "" """"4,4´-DDT 50 R-07 ND "" """"Endrin aldehyde 50 R-07 ND "" """"Endosulfan sulfate 50 R-07 ND "" """"Methoxychlor 50 R-07 ND "" """"Endrin ketone 50 R-07 ND "" """"Toxaphene 200 R-07 "" " "R-0735-14047.0 %Surrogate: Tetrachloro-meta-xylene Lena Davidkov, Project Manager SunStar Laboratories, Inc.The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety . Page 8 of 23 Project: Project Number: Project Manager: Reported: PSI -- Oakland 4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B 575-2869 Frank Poss Charities - Cupertino 04/01/25 15:24Oakland CA, 94601 25712 Commercentre Drive Lake Forest, California 92630 949.297.5020 Phone 949.297.5027 Fax ResultAnalyte Limit Batch Reporting Prepared Analyzed Method Notes DilutionUnits B2-2 T251304-04 (Soil) SunStar Laboratories, Inc. Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA Method 8081A EPA 8081A25C035803/25/25 03/26/25 R-07, S-GC35-14019.3 %Surrogate: Decachlorobiphenyl Lena Davidkov, Project Manager SunStar Laboratories, Inc.The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety . Page 9 of 23 Project: Project Number: Project Manager: Reported: PSI -- Oakland 4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B 575-2869 Frank Poss Charities - Cupertino 04/01/25 15:24Oakland CA, 94601 25712 Commercentre Drive Lake Forest, California 92630 949.297.5020 Phone 949.297.5027 Fax ResultAnalyte Limit Batch Reporting Prepared Analyzed Method Notes DilutionUnits B3-0.5 T251304-05 (Soil) SunStar Laboratories, Inc. Metals by EPA 6010B ND EPA 6010b03/20/25 03/21/25 mg/kg 25C03601Arsenic2.00 "22.8 " " """Lead 3.00 Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA Method 8081A ND EPA 8081A03/25/25 03/26/25 ug/kg 25C03581alpha-BHC 5.0 ND "" """"gamma-BHC (Lindane)5.0 ND "" """"beta-BHC 5.0 ND "" """"delta-BHC 5.0 ND "" """"Heptachlor 5.0 ND "" """"Aldrin 5.0 ND "" """"Heptachlor epoxide 5.0 ND "" """"gamma-Chlordane 5.0 ND "" """"alpha-Chlordane 5.0 ND "" """"Endosulfan I 5.0 "47 " " """4,4´-DDE 5.0 ND "" """"Dieldrin 5.0 ND "" """"Endrin 5.0 ND "" """"4,4´-DDD 5.0 ND "" """"Endosulfan II 5.0 "8.9 " " """4,4´-DDT 5.0 ND "" """"Endrin aldehyde 5.0 ND "" """"Endosulfan sulfate 5.0 ND "" """"Methoxychlor 5.0 ND "" """"Endrin ketone 5.0 ND "" """"Toxaphene 20 "" " "S-0335-14032.0 %Surrogate: Tetrachloro-meta-xylene "" " "S-0335-1407.11 %Surrogate: Decachlorobiphenyl Lena Davidkov, Project Manager SunStar Laboratories, Inc.The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety . Page 10 of 23 Project: Project Number: Project Manager: Reported: PSI -- Oakland 4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B 575-2869 Frank Poss Charities - Cupertino 04/01/25 15:24Oakland CA, 94601 25712 Commercentre Drive Lake Forest, California 92630 949.297.5020 Phone 949.297.5027 Fax ResultAnalyte Limit Batch Reporting Prepared Analyzed Method Notes DilutionUnits B3-2 T251304-06 (Soil) SunStar Laboratories, Inc. Metals by EPA 6010B ND EPA 6010b03/20/25 03/21/25 mg/kg 25C03601Arsenic2.00 "10.3 " " """Lead 3.00 Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA Method 8081A ND EPA 8081A03/25/25 03/26/25 ug/kg 25C03581alpha-BHC 5.0 ND "" """"gamma-BHC (Lindane)5.0 ND "" """"beta-BHC 5.0 ND "" """"delta-BHC 5.0 ND "" """"Heptachlor 5.0 ND "" """"Aldrin 5.0 ND "" """"Heptachlor epoxide 5.0 ND "" """"gamma-Chlordane 5.0 ND "" """"alpha-Chlordane 5.0 ND "" """"Endosulfan I 5.0 "61 " " """4,4´-DDE 5.0 ND "" """"Dieldrin 5.0 ND "" """"Endrin 5.0 ND "" """"4,4´-DDD 5.0 ND "" """"Endosulfan II 5.0 "20 " " """4,4´-DDT 5.0 ND "" """"Endrin aldehyde 5.0 ND "" """"Endosulfan sulfate 5.0 ND "" """"Methoxychlor 5.0 ND "" """"Endrin ketone 5.0 ND "" """"Toxaphene 20 "" " "35-14042.3 %Surrogate: Tetrachloro-meta-xylene "" " "S-GC35-14020.2 %Surrogate: Decachlorobiphenyl Lena Davidkov, Project Manager SunStar Laboratories, Inc.The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety . Page 11 of 23 Project: Project Number: Project Manager: Reported: PSI -- Oakland 4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B 575-2869 Frank Poss Charities - Cupertino 04/01/25 15:24Oakland CA, 94601 25712 Commercentre Drive Lake Forest, California 92630 949.297.5020 Phone 949.297.5027 Fax ResultAnalyte Limit Batch Reporting Prepared Analyzed Method Notes DilutionUnits B4-0.5 T251304-07 (Soil) SunStar Laboratories, Inc. Metals by EPA 6010B ND EPA 6010b03/20/25 03/21/25 mg/kg 25C03601Arsenic2.00 ND "" """"Lead 3.00 Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA Method 8081A ND EPA 8081A03/25/25 03/26/25 ug/kg 25C03581alpha-BHC 5.0 ND "" """"gamma-BHC (Lindane)5.0 ND "" """"beta-BHC 5.0 ND "" """"delta-BHC 5.0 ND "" """"Heptachlor 5.0 ND "" """"Aldrin 5.0 ND "" """"Heptachlor epoxide 5.0 ND "" """"gamma-Chlordane 5.0 ND "" """"alpha-Chlordane 5.0 ND "" """"Endosulfan I 5.0 ND "" """"4,4´-DDE 5.0 ND "" """"Dieldrin 5.0 ND "" """"Endrin 5.0 ND "" """"4,4´-DDD 5.0 ND "" """"Endosulfan II 5.0 ND "" """"4,4´-DDT 5.0 ND "" """"Endrin aldehyde 5.0 ND "" """"Endosulfan sulfate 5.0 ND "" """"Methoxychlor 5.0 ND "" """"Endrin ketone 5.0 ND "" """"Toxaphene 20 "" " "35-14068.8 %Surrogate: Tetrachloro-meta-xylene "" " "35-14058.2 %Surrogate: Decachlorobiphenyl Lena Davidkov, Project Manager SunStar Laboratories, Inc.The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety . Page 12 of 23 Project: Project Number: Project Manager: Reported: PSI -- Oakland 4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B 575-2869 Frank Poss Charities - Cupertino 04/01/25 15:24Oakland CA, 94601 25712 Commercentre Drive Lake Forest, California 92630 949.297.5020 Phone 949.297.5027 Fax ResultAnalyte Limit Batch Reporting Prepared Analyzed Method Notes DilutionUnits B4-2 T251304-08 (Soil) SunStar Laboratories, Inc. Metals by EPA 6010B ND EPA 6010b03/20/25 03/21/25 mg/kg 25C03601Arsenic2.00 ND "" """"Lead 3.00 Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA Method 8081A ND EPA 8081A03/25/25 03/26/25 ug/kg 25C03581alpha-BHC 5.0 ND "" """"gamma-BHC (Lindane)5.0 ND "" """"beta-BHC 5.0 ND "" """"delta-BHC 5.0 ND "" """"Heptachlor 5.0 ND "" """"Aldrin 5.0 ND "" """"Heptachlor epoxide 5.0 ND "" """"gamma-Chlordane 5.0 ND "" """"alpha-Chlordane 5.0 ND "" """"Endosulfan I 5.0 ND "" """"4,4´-DDE 5.0 ND "" """"Dieldrin 5.0 ND "" """"Endrin 5.0 ND "" """"4,4´-DDD 5.0 ND "" """"Endosulfan II 5.0 ND "" """"4,4´-DDT 5.0 ND "" """"Endrin aldehyde 5.0 ND "" """"Endosulfan sulfate 5.0 ND "" """"Methoxychlor 5.0 ND "" """"Endrin ketone 5.0 ND "" """"Toxaphene 20 "" " "35-14072.2 %Surrogate: Tetrachloro-meta-xylene "" " "S-GC35-14029.2 %Surrogate: Decachlorobiphenyl Lena Davidkov, Project Manager SunStar Laboratories, Inc.The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety . Page 13 of 23 Project: Project Number: Project Manager: Reported: PSI -- Oakland 4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B 575-2869 Frank Poss Charities - Cupertino 04/01/25 15:24Oakland CA, 94601 25712 Commercentre Drive Lake Forest, California 92630 949.297.5020 Phone 949.297.5027 Fax ResultAnalyte Limit Batch Reporting Prepared Analyzed Method Notes DilutionUnits B5-0.5 T251304-09 (Soil) SunStar Laboratories, Inc. Metals by EPA 6010B ND EPA 6010b03/20/25 03/21/25 mg/kg 25C03602Arsenic4.00 R-01 ND "" """"Lead 6.00 R-01 Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA Method 8081A ND EPA 8081A03/25/25 03/26/25 ug/kg 25C035810alpha-BHC 50 R-07 ND "" """"gamma-BHC (Lindane)50 R-07 ND "" """"beta-BHC 50 R-07 ND "" """"delta-BHC 50 R-07 ND "" """"Heptachlor 50 R-07 ND "" """"Aldrin 50 R-07 ND "" """"Heptachlor epoxide 50 R-07 ND "" """"gamma-Chlordane 50 R-07 ND "" """"alpha-Chlordane 50 R-07 ND "" """"Endosulfan I 50 R-07 ND "" """"4,4´-DDE 50 R-07 ND "" """"Dieldrin 50 R-07 ND "" """"Endrin 50 R-07 ND "" """"4,4´-DDD 50 R-07 ND "" """"Endosulfan II 50 R-07 ND "" """"4,4´-DDT 50 R-07 ND "" """"Endrin aldehyde 50 R-07 ND "" """"Endosulfan sulfate 50 R-07 ND "" """"Methoxychlor 50 R-07 ND "" """"Endrin ketone 50 R-07 ND "" """"Toxaphene 200 R-07 "" " "R-0735-14077.1 %Surrogate: Tetrachloro-meta-xylene "" " "R-0735-14067.7 %Surrogate: Decachlorobiphenyl Lena Davidkov, Project Manager SunStar Laboratories, Inc.The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety . Page 14 of 23 Project: Project Number: Project Manager: Reported: PSI -- Oakland 4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B 575-2869 Frank Poss Charities - Cupertino 04/01/25 15:24Oakland CA, 94601 25712 Commercentre Drive Lake Forest, California 92630 949.297.5020 Phone 949.297.5027 Fax ResultAnalyte Limit Batch Reporting Prepared Analyzed Method Notes DilutionUnits B5-2 T251304-10 (Soil) SunStar Laboratories, Inc. Metals by EPA 6010B ND EPA 6010b03/20/25 03/21/25 mg/kg 25C03601Arsenic2.00 ND "" """"Lead 3.00 Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA Method 8081A ND EPA 8081A03/25/25 03/26/25 ug/kg 25C035810alpha-BHC 50 R-07 ND "" """"gamma-BHC (Lindane)50 R-07 ND "" """"beta-BHC 50 R-07 ND "" """"delta-BHC 50 R-07 ND "" """"Heptachlor 50 R-07 ND "" """"Aldrin 50 R-07 ND "" """"Heptachlor epoxide 50 R-07 ND "" """"gamma-Chlordane 50 R-07 ND "" """"alpha-Chlordane 50 R-07 ND "" """"Endosulfan I 50 R-07 ND "" """"4,4´-DDE 50 R-07 ND "" """"Dieldrin 50 R-07 ND "" """"Endrin 50 R-07 ND "" """"4,4´-DDD 50 R-07 ND "" """"Endosulfan II 50 R-07 ND "" """"4,4´-DDT 50 R-07 ND "" """"Endrin aldehyde 50 R-07 ND "" """"Endosulfan sulfate 50 R-07 ND "" """"Methoxychlor 50 R-07 ND "" """"Endrin ketone 50 R-07 ND "" """"Toxaphene 200 R-07 "" " "R-0735-14090.2 %Surrogate: Tetrachloro-meta-xylene "" " "R-0735-14080.7 %Surrogate: Decachlorobiphenyl Lena Davidkov, Project Manager SunStar Laboratories, Inc.The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety . Page 15 of 23 Project: Project Number: Project Manager: Reported: PSI -- Oakland 4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B 575-2869 Frank Poss Charities - Cupertino 04/01/25 15:24Oakland CA, 94601 25712 Commercentre Drive Lake Forest, California 92630 949.297.5020 Phone 949.297.5027 Fax ResultAnalyte Limit Batch Reporting Prepared Analyzed Method Notes DilutionUnits B6-0.5 T251304-11 (Soil) SunStar Laboratories, Inc. Metals by EPA 6010B ND EPA 6010b03/20/25 03/21/25 mg/kg 25C03602Arsenic4.00 R-01 ND "" """"Lead 6.00 R-01 Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA Method 8081A ND EPA 8081A03/25/25 03/26/25 ug/kg 25C035810alpha-BHC 50 R-07 ND "" """"gamma-BHC (Lindane)50 R-07 ND "" """"beta-BHC 50 R-07 ND "" """"delta-BHC 50 R-07 ND "" """"Heptachlor 50 R-07 ND "" """"Aldrin 50 R-07 ND "" """"Heptachlor epoxide 50 R-07 ND "" """"gamma-Chlordane 50 R-07 ND "" """"alpha-Chlordane 50 R-07 ND "" """"Endosulfan I 50 R-07 ND "" """"4,4´-DDE 50 R-07 ND "" """"Dieldrin 50 R-07 ND "" """"Endrin 50 R-07 ND "" """"4,4´-DDD 50 R-07 ND "" """"Endosulfan II 50 R-07 ND "" """"4,4´-DDT 50 R-07 ND "" """"Endrin aldehyde 50 R-07 ND "" """"Endosulfan sulfate 50 R-07 ND "" """"Methoxychlor 50 R-07 ND "" """"Endrin ketone 50 R-07 ND "" """"Toxaphene 200 R-07 "" " "R-0735-14080.2 %Surrogate: Tetrachloro-meta-xylene "" " "R-0735-14058.1 %Surrogate: Decachlorobiphenyl Lena Davidkov, Project Manager SunStar Laboratories, Inc.The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety . Page 16 of 23 Project: Project Number: Project Manager: Reported: PSI -- Oakland 4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B 575-2869 Frank Poss Charities - Cupertino 04/01/25 15:24Oakland CA, 94601 25712 Commercentre Drive Lake Forest, California 92630 949.297.5020 Phone 949.297.5027 Fax ResultAnalyte Limit Batch Reporting Prepared Analyzed Method Notes DilutionUnits B6-2 T251304-12 (Soil) SunStar Laboratories, Inc. Metals by EPA 6010B ND EPA 6010b03/20/25 03/21/25 mg/kg 25C03601Arsenic2.00 "5.07 " " """Lead 3.00 Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA Method 8081A ND EPA 8081A03/25/25 03/26/25 ug/kg 25C03581alpha-BHC 5.0 ND "" """"gamma-BHC (Lindane)5.0 ND "" """"beta-BHC 5.0 ND "" """"delta-BHC 5.0 ND "" """"Heptachlor 5.0 ND "" """"Aldrin 5.0 ND "" """"Heptachlor epoxide 5.0 ND "" """"gamma-Chlordane 5.0 ND "" """"alpha-Chlordane 5.0 ND "" """"Endosulfan I 5.0 ND "" """"4,4´-DDE 5.0 ND "" """"Dieldrin 5.0 ND "" """"Endrin 5.0 ND "" """"4,4´-DDD 5.0 ND "" """"Endosulfan II 5.0 ND "" """"4,4´-DDT 5.0 ND "" """"Endrin aldehyde 5.0 ND "" """"Endosulfan sulfate 5.0 ND "" """"Methoxychlor 5.0 ND "" """"Endrin ketone 5.0 ND "" """"Toxaphene 20 "" " "35-14072.8 %Surrogate: Tetrachloro-meta-xylene "" " "35-14059.2 %Surrogate: Decachlorobiphenyl Lena Davidkov, Project Manager SunStar Laboratories, Inc.The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety . Page 17 of 23 Project: Project Number: Project Manager: Reported: PSI -- Oakland 4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B 575-2869 Frank Poss Charities - Cupertino 04/01/25 15:24Oakland CA, 94601 25712 Commercentre Drive Lake Forest, California 92630 949.297.5020 Phone 949.297.5027 Fax Result Limit Reporting Units Level Spike Result Source %REC %REC Limits RPD RPD Limit Notes Analyte Metals by EPA 6010B - Quality Control SunStar Laboratories, Inc. Batch 25C0360 - EPA 3050B Blank (25C0360-BLK1)Prepared: 03/20/25 Analyzed: 03/21/25 Arsenic mg/kgND2.00 Lead "ND 3.00 LCS (25C0360-BS1)Prepared: 03/20/25 Analyzed: 03/21/25 Arsenic mg/kg101 2.00 100 80-120101 Lead "107 3.00 100 80-120107 Matrix Spike (25C0360-MS1)Prepared: 03/20/25 Analyzed: 03/21/25 Source: T251304-01 Arsenic mg/kg75.0 2.00 100 7.25 QM-0775-12567.7 Lead "74.8 3.00 100 10.4 QM-0775-12564.4 Matrix Spike Dup (25C0360-MSD1)Prepared: 03/20/25 Analyzed: 03/21/25 Source: T251304-01 Arsenic mg/kg73.3 2.00 100 7.25 20 QM-0775-12566.0 2.27 Lead "74.0 3.00 100 10.4 20 QM-0775-12563.6 1.15 Lena Davidkov, Project Manager SunStar Laboratories, Inc.The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety . Page 18 of 23 Project: Project Number: Project Manager: Reported: PSI -- Oakland 4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B 575-2869 Frank Poss Charities - Cupertino 04/01/25 15:24Oakland CA, 94601 25712 Commercentre Drive Lake Forest, California 92630 949.297.5020 Phone 949.297.5027 Fax Result Limit Reporting Units Level Spike Result Source %REC %REC Limits RPD RPD Limit Notes Analyte TCLP Metals by 6000/7000 Series Methods - Quality Control SunStar Laboratories, Inc. Batch 25C0499 - TCLP Metals Blank (25C0499-BLK1)Prepared: 03/28/25 Analyzed: 03/31/25 Lead mg/lND0.10 LCS (25C0499-BS1)Prepared: 03/28/25 Analyzed: 03/31/25 Lead mg/l1.82 0.10 2.00 75-12591.1 Matrix Spike (25C0499-MS1)Prepared: 03/28/25 Analyzed: 03/31/25 Source: T251281-22 Lead mg/l1.91 0.10 2.00 0.00979 75-12594.8 Matrix Spike Dup (25C0499-MSD1)Prepared: 03/28/25 Analyzed: 03/31/25 Source: T251281-22 Lead mg/l1.93 0.10 2.00 0.00979 3075-12595.9 1.14 Lena Davidkov, Project Manager SunStar Laboratories, Inc.The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety . Page 19 of 23 Project: Project Number: Project Manager: Reported: PSI -- Oakland 4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B 575-2869 Frank Poss Charities - Cupertino 04/01/25 15:24Oakland CA, 94601 25712 Commercentre Drive Lake Forest, California 92630 949.297.5020 Phone 949.297.5027 Fax Result Limit Reporting Units Level Spike Result Source %REC %REC Limits RPD RPD Limit Notes Analyte STLC Metals by 6000/7000 Series Methods - Quality Control SunStar Laboratories, Inc. Batch 25C0502 - STLC Leachate Blank (25C0502-BLK1)Prepared: 03/28/25 Analyzed: 03/31/25 Lead mg/l0.0994 0.025 QB-01 LCS (25C0502-BS1)Prepared: 03/28/25 Analyzed: 03/31/25 Lead mg/l38.5 0.025 40.0 75-12596.1 Matrix Spike (25C0502-MS1)Prepared: 03/28/25 Analyzed: 03/31/25 Source: T251281-13 Lead mg/l35.2 0.025 40.0 0.211 75-12587.5 Matrix Spike Dup (25C0502-MSD1)Prepared: 03/28/25 Analyzed: 03/31/25 Source: T251281-13 Lead mg/l35.1 0.025 40.0 0.211 3075-12587.3 0.224 Lena Davidkov, Project Manager SunStar Laboratories, Inc.The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety . Page 20 of 23 Project: Project Number: Project Manager: Reported: PSI -- Oakland 4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B 575-2869 Frank Poss Charities - Cupertino 04/01/25 15:24Oakland CA, 94601 25712 Commercentre Drive Lake Forest, California 92630 949.297.5020 Phone 949.297.5027 Fax Result Limit Reporting Units Level Spike Result Source %REC %REC Limits RPD RPD Limit Notes Analyte Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA Method 8081A - Quality Control SunStar Laboratories, Inc. Batch 25C0358 - EPA 3550B Soil Blank (25C0358-BLK1)Prepared: 03/20/25 Analyzed: 03/26/25 alpha-BHC ug/kgND5.0 gamma-BHC (Lindane)"ND 5.0 beta-BHC "ND 5.0 delta-BHC "ND 5.0 Heptachlor "ND 5.0 Aldrin "ND 5.0 Heptachlor epoxide "ND 5.0 gamma-Chlordane "ND 5.0 alpha-Chlordane "ND 5.0 Endosulfan I "ND 5.0 4,4´-DDE "ND 5.0 Dieldrin "ND 5.0 Endrin "ND 5.0 4,4´-DDD "ND 5.0 Endosulfan II "ND 5.0 4,4´-DDT "ND 5.0 Endrin aldehyde "ND 5.0 Endosulfan sulfate "ND 5.0 Methoxychlor "ND 5.0 Endrin ketone "ND 5.0 Toxaphene "ND 20 "10.0 35-140Surrogate: Tetrachloro-meta-xylene 90.69.06 "10.0 35-140Surrogate: Decachlorobiphenyl 44.84.48 LCS (25C0358-BS1)Prepared: 03/20/25 Analyzed: 03/26/25 gamma-BHC (Lindane)ug/kg45.5 5.0 40.4 40-120113 Heptachlor "45.6 5.0 40.0 40-120114 Aldrin "40.9 5.0 40.0 40-120102 Dieldrin "46.0 5.0 40.2 40-120114 Endrin "47.1 5.0 40.2 40-120117 4,4´-DDT "50.3 5.0 40.4 33-147125 "10.0 35-140Surrogate: Tetrachloro-meta-xylene 89.28.92 "10.0 35-140Surrogate: Decachlorobiphenyl 80.78.07 Lena Davidkov, Project Manager SunStar Laboratories, Inc.The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety . Page 21 of 23 Project: Project Number: Project Manager: Reported: PSI -- Oakland 4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B 575-2869 Frank Poss Charities - Cupertino 04/01/25 15:24Oakland CA, 94601 25712 Commercentre Drive Lake Forest, California 92630 949.297.5020 Phone 949.297.5027 Fax Result Limit Reporting Units Level Spike Result Source %REC %REC Limits RPD RPD Limit Notes Analyte Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA Method 8081A - Quality Control SunStar Laboratories, Inc. Batch 25C0358 - EPA 3550B Soil Matrix Spike (25C0358-MS1)Prepared: 03/20/25 Analyzed: 03/26/25 Source: T251304-01 gamma-BHC (Lindane)ug/kg37.8 5.0 40.4 ND 30-12093.7 Heptachlor "30.0 5.0 40.0 ND 30-12075.0 Aldrin "24.8 5.0 40.0 ND 30-12062.1 Dieldrin "34.2 5.0 40.2 ND 30-12085.0 Endrin "35.3 5.0 40.2 ND 30-12087.9 4,4´-DDT "26.2 5.0 40.4 ND 30-12064.9 "10.0 35-140Surrogate: Tetrachloro-meta-xylene 53.45.34 "10.0 S-GC35-140Surrogate: Decachlorobiphenyl 25.32.53 Matrix Spike Dup (25C0358-MSD1)Prepared: 03/20/25 Analyzed: 03/26/25 Source: T251304-01 gamma-BHC (Lindane)ug/kg36.0 5.0 40.4 ND 3030-12089.1 4.99 Heptachlor "27.5 5.0 40.0 ND 3030-12068.8 8.58 Aldrin "21.5 5.0 40.0 ND 3030-12053.8 14.3 Dieldrin "31.5 5.0 40.2 ND 3030-12078.4 8.03 Endrin "33.0 5.0 40.2 ND 3030-12082.0 6.84 4,4´-DDT "23.3 5.0 40.4 ND 3030-12057.7 11.7 "10.0 35-140Surrogate: Tetrachloro-meta-xylene 51.35.13 "10.0 35-140Surrogate: Decachlorobiphenyl 51.15.11 Lena Davidkov, Project Manager SunStar Laboratories, Inc.The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety . Page 22 of 23 Project: Project Number: Project Manager: Reported: PSI -- Oakland 4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B 575-2869 Frank Poss Charities - Cupertino 04/01/25 15:24Oakland CA, 94601 25712 Commercentre Drive Lake Forest, California 92630 949.297.5020 Phone 949.297.5027 Fax Notes and Definitions S-GC Surrogate recovery outside of established control limits. The data was accepted based on valid recovery of the remaining surrogate(s). S-03 The surrogate recovery was below acceptance criteria in the sample because of a possible matrix effect. The surrogate recovery was within acceptance criteria in the method blank and LCS. R-07 Reporting limit for this compound(s) has been raised to account for dilution necessary due to high levels of interfering compound(s) and/or matrix effect. R-01 The Reporting Limit has been raised to account for dilution necessary due to matrix interference. QM-07 The spike recovery and/or RPD was outside acceptance limits for the MS and/or MSD. The batch was accepted based on acceptable LCS recovery. QB-01 The method blank contains analyte at a concentration above the MRL; however, concentration is less than 10% of the sample result, which is negligible according to method criteria. Sample results reported on a dry weight basis Relative Percent DifferenceRPD dry Not ReportedNR Analyte NOT DETECTED at or above the reporting limitND Analyte DETECTEDDET Lena Davidkov, Project Manager SunStar Laboratories, Inc.The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety . Page 23 of 23 WORK ORDER T251304 PSI -- Oakland Charities - Cupertino 575-2869Project: Project Number: Client: Printed: 3/20/2025 11:40:59AM Project Manager:Lena Davidkov Report To: PSI -- Oakland Frank Poss 4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B Oakland, CA 94601 Received By: Logged In By: Date Due: Date Received: Date Logged In: 03/27/25 17:00 (5 day TAT) 03/20/25 10:44 03/20/25 11:28 Paul Berner Angel Aguirre Samples Received at:1.5°C Analysis Due TAT Expires Comments COC/Labels Agree Custody Seals Containers Intact Preservation Confirmed Yes Yes Yes No Received On Ice Yes T251304-01 B1-0.5 [Soil] Sampled 03/18/25 08:24 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & 09/14/25 08:2403/27/25 15:00 5 Pb and As Only6010 Individual Metals 04/01/25 08:2403/27/25 15:00 58081 Pesticides T251304-02 B1-2 [Soil] Sampled 03/18/25 08:32 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & 09/14/25 08:3203/27/25 15:00 5 Pb and As Only6010 Individual Metals 04/01/25 08:3203/27/25 15:00 58081 Pesticides T251304-03 B2-0.5 [Soil] Sampled 03/18/25 08:50 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & 09/14/25 08:5003/27/25 15:00 5 Pb and As Only6010 Individual Metals 04/01/25 08:5003/27/25 15:00 58081 Pesticides T251304-04 B2-2 [Soil] Sampled 03/18/25 08:58 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & 09/14/25 08:5803/27/25 15:00 5 Pb and As Only6010 Individual Metals 04/01/25 08:5803/27/25 15:00 58081 Pesticides T251304-05 B3-0.5 [Soil] Sampled 03/18/25 09:25 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & 09/14/25 09:2503/27/25 15:00 5 Pb and As Only6010 Individual Metals 04/01/25 09:2503/27/25 15:00 58081 Pesticides Page 1 of 2 WORK ORDER T251304 PSI -- Oakland Charities - Cupertino 575-2869Project: Project Number: Client: Printed: 3/20/2025 11:40:59AM Project Manager:Lena Davidkov Analysis Due TAT Expires Comments T251304-06 B3-2 [Soil] Sampled 03/18/25 09:30 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & 09/14/25 09:3003/27/25 15:00 5 Pb and As Only6010 Individual Metals 04/01/25 09:3003/27/25 15:00 58081 Pesticides T251304-07 B4-0.5 [Soil] Sampled 03/18/25 09:48 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & 09/14/25 09:4803/27/25 15:00 5 Pb and As Only6010 Individual Metals 04/01/25 09:4803/27/25 15:00 58081 Pesticides T251304-08 B4-2 [Soil] Sampled 03/18/25 10:00 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & 09/14/25 10:0003/27/25 15:00 5 Pb and As Only6010 Individual Metals 04/01/25 10:0003/27/25 15:00 58081 Pesticides T251304-09 B5-0.5 [Soil] Sampled 03/18/25 10:38 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & 09/14/25 10:3803/27/25 15:00 5 Pb and As Only6010 Individual Metals 04/01/25 10:3803/27/25 15:00 58081 Pesticides T251304-10 B5-2 [Soil] Sampled 03/18/25 10:50 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & 09/14/25 10:5003/27/25 15:00 5 Pb and As Only6010 Individual Metals 04/01/25 10:5003/27/25 15:00 58081 Pesticides T251304-11 B6-0.5 [Soil] Sampled 03/18/25 11:47 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & 09/14/25 11:4703/27/25 15:00 5 Pb and As Only6010 Individual Metals 04/01/25 11:4703/27/25 15:00 58081 Pesticides T251304-12 B6-2 [Soil] Sampled 03/18/25 12:00 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & 09/14/25 12:0003/27/25 15:00 5 Pb and As Only6010 Individual Metals 04/01/25 12:0003/27/25 15:00 58081 Pesticides Page 2 of 2Reviewed By Date WORK ORDER T251304 PSI -- Oakland Charities - Cupertino 575-2869Project: Project Number: Client: Printed: 3/28/2025 9:34:58AM Project Manager:Lena Davidkov Report To: PSI -- Oakland Frank Poss 4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B Oakland, CA 94601 Received By: Logged In By: Date Due: Date Received: Date Logged In: 03/27/25 17:00 (5 day TAT) 03/20/25 10:44 03/20/25 11:28 Paul Berner Angel Aguirre Samples Received at:1.5°C Analysis Due TAT Expires Comments COC/Labels Agree Custody Seals Containers Intact Preservation Confirmed Yes Yes Yes No Received On Ice Yes T251304-01 B1-0.5 [Soil] Sampled 03/18/25 08:24 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & 09/14/25 08:2403/27/25 15:00 5 Pb and As Only6010 Individual Metals 04/01/25 08:2403/27/25 15:00 58081 Pesticides T251304-02 B1-2 [Soil] Sampled 03/18/25 08:32 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & 09/14/25 08:3203/27/25 15:00 5 Pb and As Only6010 Individual Metals 04/01/25 08:3203/27/25 15:00 58081 Pesticides T251304-03 B2-0.5 [Soil] Sampled 03/18/25 08:50 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & 09/14/25 08:5003/27/25 15:00 5 Pb and As Only6010 Individual Metals 04/01/25 08:5003/27/25 15:00 58081 Pesticides T251304-04 B2-2 [Soil] Sampled 03/18/25 08:58 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & 09/14/25 08:5803/27/25 15:00 5 Pb and As Only6010 Individual Metals 04/01/25 08:5803/27/25 15:00 58081 Pesticides 09/14/25 08:5804/01/25 15:00 2STLC Pb 09/14/25 08:5804/01/25 15:00 2STLC Leaching Procedure Metals 09/14/25 08:5804/01/25 15:00 2TCLP Leaching Procedure Metals 09/14/25 08:5804/01/25 15:00 2TCLP Pb Page 1 of 2 WORK ORDER T251304 PSI -- Oakland Charities - Cupertino 575-2869Project: Project Number: Client: Printed: 3/28/2025 9:34:58AM Project Manager:Lena Davidkov Analysis Due TAT Expires Comments T251304-05 B3-0.5 [Soil] Sampled 03/18/25 09:25 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & 09/14/25 09:2503/27/25 15:00 5 Pb and As Only6010 Individual Metals 04/01/25 09:2503/27/25 15:00 58081 Pesticides T251304-06 B3-2 [Soil] Sampled 03/18/25 09:30 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & 09/14/25 09:3003/27/25 15:00 5 Pb and As Only6010 Individual Metals 04/01/25 09:3003/27/25 15:00 58081 Pesticides T251304-07 B4-0.5 [Soil] Sampled 03/18/25 09:48 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & 09/14/25 09:4803/27/25 15:00 5 Pb and As Only6010 Individual Metals 04/01/25 09:4803/27/25 15:00 58081 Pesticides T251304-08 B4-2 [Soil] Sampled 03/18/25 10:00 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & 09/14/25 10:0003/27/25 15:00 5 Pb and As Only6010 Individual Metals 04/01/25 10:0003/27/25 15:00 58081 Pesticides T251304-09 B5-0.5 [Soil] Sampled 03/18/25 10:38 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & 09/14/25 10:3803/27/25 15:00 5 Pb and As Only6010 Individual Metals 04/01/25 10:3803/27/25 15:00 58081 Pesticides T251304-10 B5-2 [Soil] Sampled 03/18/25 10:50 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & 09/14/25 10:5003/27/25 15:00 5 Pb and As Only6010 Individual Metals 04/01/25 10:5003/27/25 15:00 58081 Pesticides T251304-11 B6-0.5 [Soil] Sampled 03/18/25 11:47 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & 09/14/25 11:4703/27/25 15:00 5 Pb and As Only6010 Individual Metals 04/01/25 11:4703/27/25 15:00 58081 Pesticides T251304-12 B6-2 [Soil] Sampled 03/18/25 12:00 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & 09/14/25 12:0003/27/25 15:00 5 Pb and As Only6010 Individual Metals 04/01/25 12:0003/27/25 15:00 58081 Pesticides Page 2 of 2Reviewed By Date 25712 Commercentre Drive Lake Forest, California 92630 949.297.5020 Phone 949.297.5027 Fax PSI -- Oakland RE: Charities - Cupertino Oakland, CA 94601 4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B Frank Poss Lena Davidkov Project Manager Enclosed are the results of analyses for samples received by the laboratory on 04/15/25 11:11. If you have any questions concerning this report, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, 18 April 2025 Project: Project Number: Project Manager: Reported: PSI -- Oakland 4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B 575-2869 Frank Poss Charities - Cupertino 04/18/25 15:21Oakland CA, 94601 25712 Commercentre Drive Lake Forest, California 92630 949.297.5020 Phone 949.297.5027 Fax Sample ID Laboratory ID Matrix Date Sampled ANALYTICAL REPORT FOR SAMPLES Date Received B7-0.5 T251707-01 Soil 04/11/25 10:17 04/15/25 11:11 B7-2 T251707-02 Soil 04/11/25 10:27 04/15/25 11:11 B8-0.5 T251707-03 Soil 04/11/25 11:34 04/15/25 11:11 B8-2 T251707-04 Soil 04/11/25 11:42 04/15/25 11:11 Lena Davidkov, Project Manager SunStar Laboratories, Inc.The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety . Page 1 of 8 Project: Project Number: Project Manager: Reported: PSI -- Oakland 4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B 575-2869 Frank Poss Charities - Cupertino 04/18/25 15:21Oakland CA, 94601 25712 Commercentre Drive Lake Forest, California 92630 949.297.5020 Phone 949.297.5027 Fax DETECTIONS SUMMARY Laboratory ID: Analyte Result Limit Units Method T251707-01B7-0.5 Notes Reporting Sample ID: Lead 8.0 3.0 mg/kg EPA 6010b Laboratory ID: Analyte Result Limit Units Method T251707-02B7-2 Notes Reporting Sample ID: Lead 5.4 3.0 mg/kg EPA 6010b Laboratory ID: Analyte Result Limit Units Method T251707-03B8-0.5 Notes Reporting Sample ID: Lead 7.0 3.0 mg/kg EPA 6010b Laboratory ID: Analyte Result Limit Units Method T251707-04B8-2 Notes Reporting Sample ID: Lead 5.5 3.0 mg/kg EPA 6010b Lena Davidkov, Project Manager SunStar Laboratories, Inc.The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety . Page 2 of 8 Project: Project Number: Project Manager: Reported: PSI -- Oakland 4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B 575-2869 Frank Poss Charities - Cupertino 04/18/25 15:21Oakland CA, 94601 25712 Commercentre Drive Lake Forest, California 92630 949.297.5020 Phone 949.297.5027 Fax ResultAnalyte Limit Batch Reporting Prepared Analyzed Method Notes DilutionUnits B7-0.5 T251707-01 (Soil) SunStar Laboratories, Inc. Metals by EPA 6010B EPA 6010b8.0 25D0236 04/15/25 04/17/25 mg/kg 1Lead3.0 Lena Davidkov, Project Manager SunStar Laboratories, Inc.The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety . Page 3 of 8 Project: Project Number: Project Manager: Reported: PSI -- Oakland 4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B 575-2869 Frank Poss Charities - Cupertino 04/18/25 15:21Oakland CA, 94601 25712 Commercentre Drive Lake Forest, California 92630 949.297.5020 Phone 949.297.5027 Fax ResultAnalyte Limit Batch Reporting Prepared Analyzed Method Notes DilutionUnits B7-2 T251707-02 (Soil) SunStar Laboratories, Inc. Metals by EPA 6010B EPA 6010b5.4 25D0236 04/15/25 04/17/25 mg/kg 1Lead3.0 Lena Davidkov, Project Manager SunStar Laboratories, Inc.The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety . Page 4 of 8 Project: Project Number: Project Manager: Reported: PSI -- Oakland 4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B 575-2869 Frank Poss Charities - Cupertino 04/18/25 15:21Oakland CA, 94601 25712 Commercentre Drive Lake Forest, California 92630 949.297.5020 Phone 949.297.5027 Fax ResultAnalyte Limit Batch Reporting Prepared Analyzed Method Notes DilutionUnits B8-0.5 T251707-03 (Soil) SunStar Laboratories, Inc. Metals by EPA 6010B EPA 6010b7.0 25D0236 04/15/25 04/17/25 mg/kg 1Lead3.0 Lena Davidkov, Project Manager SunStar Laboratories, Inc.The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety . Page 5 of 8 Project: Project Number: Project Manager: Reported: PSI -- Oakland 4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B 575-2869 Frank Poss Charities - Cupertino 04/18/25 15:21Oakland CA, 94601 25712 Commercentre Drive Lake Forest, California 92630 949.297.5020 Phone 949.297.5027 Fax ResultAnalyte Limit Batch Reporting Prepared Analyzed Method Notes DilutionUnits B8-2 T251707-04 (Soil) SunStar Laboratories, Inc. Metals by EPA 6010B EPA 6010b5.5 25D0236 04/15/25 04/17/25 mg/kg 1Lead3.0 Lena Davidkov, Project Manager SunStar Laboratories, Inc.The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety . Page 6 of 8 Project: Project Number: Project Manager: Reported: PSI -- Oakland 4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B 575-2869 Frank Poss Charities - Cupertino 04/18/25 15:21Oakland CA, 94601 25712 Commercentre Drive Lake Forest, California 92630 949.297.5020 Phone 949.297.5027 Fax Result Limit Reporting Units Level Spike Result Source %REC %REC Limits RPD RPD Limit Notes Analyte Metals by EPA 6010B - Quality Control SunStar Laboratories, Inc. Batch 25D0236 - EPA 3050B Blank (25D0236-BLK1)Prepared: 04/15/25 Analyzed: 04/17/25 Lead mg/kgND3.0 LCS (25D0236-BS1)Prepared: 04/15/25 Analyzed: 04/17/25 Lead mg/kg91.3 3.0 100 75-12591.3 Matrix Spike (25D0236-MS1)Prepared: 04/15/25 Analyzed: 04/17/25 Source: T251701-01 Lead mg/kg70.2 3.0 100 4.02 QM-0775-12566.2 Matrix Spike Dup (25D0236-MSD1)Prepared: 04/15/25 Analyzed: 04/17/25 Source: T251701-01 Lead mg/kg70.7 3.0 100 4.02 20 QM-0775-12566.7 0.653 Lena Davidkov, Project Manager SunStar Laboratories, Inc.The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety . Page 7 of 8 Project: Project Number: Project Manager: Reported: PSI -- Oakland 4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B 575-2869 Frank Poss Charities - Cupertino 04/18/25 15:21Oakland CA, 94601 25712 Commercentre Drive Lake Forest, California 92630 949.297.5020 Phone 949.297.5027 Fax Notes and Definitions QM-07 The spike recovery and/or RPD was outside acceptance limits for the MS and/or MSD. The batch was accepted based on acceptable LCS recovery. Sample results reported on a dry weight basis Relative Percent DifferenceRPD dry Not ReportedNR Analyte NOT DETECTED at or above the reporting limitND Analyte DETECTEDDET Lena Davidkov, Project Manager SunStar Laboratories, Inc.The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety . Page 8 of 8 WORK ORDER T251707 PSI -- Oakland Charities - Cupertino 575-2869Project: Project Number: Client: Printed: 4/15/2025 4:02:10PM Project Manager:Lena Davidkov Report To: PSI -- Oakland Frank Poss 4703 Tidewater Ave Ste B Oakland, CA 94601 Received By: Logged In By: Date Due: Date Received: Date Logged In: 04/22/25 17:00 (5 day TAT) 04/15/25 11:11 04/15/25 15:46 Paul Berner Alexis Marroquin Samples Received at:4.2°C Analysis Due TAT Expires Comments COC/Labels Agree Custody Seals Containers Intact Preservation Confirmed Yes Yes Yes Yes Received On Ice Yes T251707-01 B7-0.5 [Soil] Sampled 04/11/25 10:17 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & 10/08/25 10:1704/22/25 15:00 56010 Pb T251707-02 B7-2 [Soil] Sampled 04/11/25 10:27 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & 10/08/25 10:2704/22/25 15:00 56010 Pb T251707-03 B8-0.5 [Soil] Sampled 04/11/25 11:34 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & 10/08/25 11:3404/22/25 15:00 56010 Pb T251707-04 B8-2 [Soil] Sampled 04/11/25 11:42 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & 10/08/25 11:4204/22/25 15:00 56010 Pb HoldT251707-05 B9-0.5 [Soil] Sampled 04/11/25 10:44 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & [NO ANALYSES] HoldT251707-06 B9-2 [Soil] Sampled 04/11/25 10:57 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & [NO ANALYSES] HoldT251707-07 B10-0.5 [Soil] Sampled 04/11/25 12:09 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & [NO ANALYSES] Page 1 of 2 WORK ORDER T251707 PSI -- Oakland Charities - Cupertino 575-2869Project: Project Number: Client: Printed: 4/15/2025 4:02:10PM Project Manager:Lena Davidkov Analysis Due TAT Expires Comments HoldT251707-08 B10-2 [Soil] Sampled 04/11/25 12:21 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & [NO ANALYSES] HoldT251707-09 B11-0.5 [Soil] Sampled 04/11/25 11:07 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & [NO ANALYSES] HoldT251707-10 B11-2 [Soil] Sampled 04/11/25 11:17 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & [NO ANALYSES] HoldT251707-11 B12-0.5 [Soil] Sampled 04/11/25 12:36 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & [NO ANALYSES] HoldT251707-12 B12-2 [Soil] Sampled 04/11/25 12:45 (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & [NO ANALYSES] Page 2 of 2Reviewed By Date Exhibit B 388 17th Street, Suite 230, Oakland, CA 94612 | (510) 420-8686 | www.baseline-env.com Mailing Address: PO Box 18586, Oakland, CA 94619 MEMORANDUM Date: 16 May 2025 Job No.: 23308‐04 To: Gian Martire, Senior Planner, City of Cupertino From: Cem Atabek, Baseline Environmental Consulting Subject: Peer Review of Subsurface Investigation Reports, Undeveloped Land West of Mary Avenue and Parkwood Drive, Cupertino, California Baseline Environmental Consulting (Baseline) has performed a peer review on behalf of the City of Cupertino (City) for the Draft Subsurface Investigation Report dated 4 April 2025 and the Subsurface Investigation Report dated 24 April 2025, both prepared by Intertek PSI, for the undeveloped land west of Mary Avenue and Parkwood Drive identified as Santa Clara County Assessor’s Parcel Number 326‐27‐030 in Cupertino, California (Site). Baseline’s peer review presented below was performed to evaluate the adequacy of the Additional Phase II to ensure compliance with the requirements of Section 17.04.040(B) of the City’s Municipal Code. The Site is currently developed with a landscaped area and paved parking area and is proposed to be redeveloped for residential land use (the project). DRAFT SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION REPORT The Draft Subsurface Investigation Report describes sampling and analysis of soil that was performed at the Site to evaluate potential contamination from aerially deposited lead (ADL) and past agricultural use of the Site. Soil samples were collected from three borings (B1 to B3) located within the landscaped area and three borings (B4 to B6) located within the paved parking area of the Site. Soil samples were collected from depths of 0.5 and 2 feet below the ground surface (bgs), and the samples were analyzed for organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), arsenic, and lead. Soluble lead was also analyzed in one sample based on the elevated concentration of total lead detected in the sample, as discussed further below. Based on our review of the Draft Subsurface Investigation Report, it appears that appropriate soil sampling and laboratory analytical methods were performed. The soil sample results were compared to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Board Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for Residential Exposure (Residential ESLs) and Construction Workers Exposure (Construction Worker ESLs) and hazardous waste thresholds. Baseline notes that the Construction Worker ESL for arsenic presented in Table 1 of the Draft Subsurface Investigation Report is 2.0 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg); however, this ESL is based on cancer risk and there is a lower Construction Worker ESL for arsenic (0.98 mg/kg) Memorandum May 16, 2025 Page 2 23308‐04 Mary Ave Phase II Peer Rev which is based on the non‐cancer hazard. Typically, the lower of the ESLs for cancer risk and non‐cancer hazard is referenced as the appropriate ESL. The Draft Subsurface Investigation Report indicates that arsenic concentrations detected at the Site were below established background arsenic concentrations for Santa Clara Valley of up to 20 mg/kg and references the December 2011 background arsenic study titled Establishing Background Arsenic in Soil of the Urbanized San Francisco Bay Region by Dylan Duverge. Baseline notes that this 2011 background arsenic study lists a range of arsenic concentrations detected in the northern Santa Clara Valley as being up to 20 mg/kg; however, it concludes that 11 mg/kg is an appropriate upper estimate (99th percentile) of regional background concentrations of arsenic, and 11 mg/kg is typically referred to as a screening level for naturally occurring background arsenic in the Bay Area. The concentration of arsenic detected at the Site range from 3.51 to 7.25 mg/kg, and therefore these arsenic concentrations appear to be naturally occurring background concentrations. The Draft Subsurface Investigation Report indicates that based on the concentrations detected, arsenic and OCPs are not contaminants of concern, while lead is considered to be a contaminant of concern. Lead was detected in seven of the soil samples with concentrations that are typical of background conditions with the exception of the soil sample collected from boring B2 (near the center of the landscaped area on the Site) at 2 feet (sample ID B2‐2), which was reported to contain 680 mg/kg of lead, exceeding the Residential ESL (80 mg/kg) and Construction Worker ESL (160 mg/kg). To evaluate whether the soil represented by sample B2‐ 2 would be a hazardous waste, when excavated, the sample was analyzed for soluble lead by the Waste Extraction Test (WET) and Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Potential (TCLP) methods. Soluble lead analyzed by the WET method was detected at a concentration of 18 milligrams per liter (mg/L), which exceeds the Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC) of 5 mg/L. Soluble lead analyzed by the TCLP method was detected at a concentration of 1.1 mg/L, which is below the TCLP threshold of 5 mg/L. Based on the total and soluble lead results, the soil represented by sample B2‐2 would be classified as non‐Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (non‐RCRA) hazardous waste (or California hazardous waste) for waste disposal purposes. The Draft Subsurface Investigation Report recommended additional soil sampling in the area of boring B2 prior to Site redevelopment to further define the extent of lead impacted soil and minimize the volume of soil being removed from the property as a California hazardous waste. The Draft Subsurface Investigation Report recommended that if soil represented by sample B2‐ 2 would not be below a proposed building, as the new building would create a cap to eliminate contact with lead impacted soil, the soil represented by this sample should be excavated and removed from the property. Memorandum May 16, 2025 Page 3 Baseline notes that while capping of lead impacted soil beneath buildings would reduce the likelihood of exposure for future Site occupants, this remedial approach is not adequate without appropriate engineering controls, institutional controls, and regulatory oversight to ensure that the lead impacted soil would not create an exposure concern for future Site occupants or construction/maintenance workers. For situations where contaminated soil is capped, regulatory agencies typically require the establishment of a deed restriction and implementation of operation and maintenance activities to ensure that future Site occupants and construction/maintenance workers are aware of the remedial cap and contaminated soil conditions, and to ensure that the contaminated soil would remain capped and not be disturbed without appropriate precautions. The Draft Subsurface Investigation Report also recommends that a Soil Management Plan (SMP) and a Site‐Specific Health and Safety Plan (SSHSP) be prepared prior to conducting any soil excavation as part of redevelopment of the subject property due to the detected concentrations of arsenic and lead. Baseline generally agrees with these recommendations; however, Baseline notes that response actions such as preparation and implementation of an SMP are typically not performed (or required by regulatory agencies) to address naturally occurring background concentrations of metals. The health and safety of construction workers is ultimately the responsibility of the contractor. The project applicant should provide the project contractor with the results of all soil sampling performed at the Site, and the contractor must prepare and implement an appropriate SSHSP that addresses potential exposure to soil as required by California Code of Regulations Title 8. Subsurface Investigation Report The Subsurface Investigation Report describes sampling and analysis of soil that was performed at the Site including the sampling and analytical results discussed in the Draft Subsurface Investigation Report, and additional sampling performed to evaluate the extent of lead impacted soil identified by sample B2‐2. Two borings, B7 and B8, were advanced approximately 10 feet north and south of boring B2, respectively. Soil samples were collected from depths of 0.5 and 2 feet bgs, and the samples were analyzed for lead. Based on our review of the Subsurface Investigation Report, it appears that appropriate soil sampling and laboratory analytical methods were performed. The analytical results from the soil samples collected from borings B7 and B8 revealed background concentrations of lead, indicating that the elevated lead is a localized condition in the area of boring B‐2. The Subsurface Investigation Report also recommended that if soil represented by sample B2‐2 would not be below a proposed building, the soil represented by this sample should be excavated and removed from the property. The Subsurface Investigation Report recommended that an SMP and SSHSP should be prepared for the proposed project that have appropriate stipulations associated with the lead impacted soil. Memorandum May 16, 2025 Page 4 Baseline notes that the lateral extent of lead impacted soil appears to have been defined to the north and south of boring B‐2, however the vertical extent of lead impacted soil in the area of boring B2 has not been defined. Lead contamination from ADL is typically confined to the upper few feet of soil, and excavation of lead impacted soil at the Mary Avenue Dog Park (located adjacent to the north of the Site) extended to a maximum depth of below 2 feet bgs,1 which suggests that the impacts from lead at the Site may also be limited to the upper few feet of soil. The lateral extent of lead impacted soil was also not defined to the east or west of boring B‐2, however boring B‐2 was located very close to the western Site boundary, and the east‐west dimension of the Site is relatively narrow (approximately 50 to 60 feet). Baseline considers the detection of lead at a concentration exceeding the Residential ESL and Construction Worker ESL in sample B2‐2 to be a potentially unacceptable health risk for construction workers and future residential occupants of the Site. Section 17.04.050(B) of the City’s Municipal Code indicates: If a Focused or other Phase II ESA, as required pursuant to Section 17.04.040(B)(1), identifies an unacceptable or a potentially unacceptable health risk, the project applicant shall, depending on the contaminant, contact either the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) or local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). The project applicant shall enter into a regulatory agency oversight program with an appropriate regulatory agency, or an established voluntary oversight program alternative with an appropriate regulatory agency, as determined by the City, and follow the regulatory agency’s recommended response actions until the agency reaches a no further action determination, prior to issuance of any permit for a project that allows ground disturbing activity. Based on the requirements of the City’s Municipal Code, Baseline recommends that the project applicant enter into a Remedial Action Agreement with the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health as an appropriate regulatory agency to oversee soil remediation at the Site. Baseline recommends approval of the permit application for the project from a hazardous materials contamination standpoint, with the following conditions: Remediation of lead impacted soil at the Site should be performed in accordance with an SMP prepared and implemented under regulatory agency oversight. The SMP should be prepared and certified by a qualified Environmental Professional, and should be submitted to the City 1 TRC, 2013. Environmental Services, Soil Removal Completion Report, Cupertino Dog Park, Cupertino, California, December 18. Memorandum May 16, 2025 Page 5 and the regulatory oversight agency for review and approval. The SMP should include the following: A description of the precise extent of proposed contaminated soil removal, proposed remediation goals, and detailed procedures for soil handling, soil characterization for off‐Site disposal or on‐Site re‐use, confirmation sampling and analysis, and importing of clean fill material. Measures to prevent potential exposure of the surrounding public to contaminants that could be released in fugitive dust (e.g., dust control procedures, air monitoring protocols, and air monitoring action levels) during the removal of contaminated soil and other construction activities, in addition to preventing potential exposure of future Site occupants to contaminated soil. Notification procedures and response actions that would be taken if previously unidentified soil contamination or underground features of environmental concern (e.g., sumps, underground storage tanks) are identified during project construction activities. A requirement that all remedial excavation and contaminated soil handling and disposal activities be overseen by a qualified Environmental Professional, and that all confirmation and waste characterization soil sampling be performed by a qualified Environmental Professional. The excavation and off‐Site disposal of contaminated soil and confirmation sampling results should be documented in a Completion Report prepared and certified by a qualified Environmental Professional which should be submitted to the regulatory oversight agency for review and approval, and the project applicant should provide the City with written evidence that the regulatory oversight agency has issued a no further action determination for the Site prior to the City issuing any permits that would allow other ground disturbing activity (beyond soil remediation) at the Site. Exhibit C Memorandum Date: November 13, 2025 To: Mr. Andy Lief, Charities Housing From: Kai-Ling Kuo, Andrea Lin Subject: Transportation Study for Proposed Affordable Housing Project on Mary Avenue in Cupertino, California Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has completed a transportation study for the proposed affordable housing project on Mary Avenue in Cupertino, California. The project proposes affordable housing between the SR 85 soundwall and Mary Avenue. The project proposes constructing 2 two- story buildings with a total of 40 dwelling units (19 affordable disabled housing units and 21 affordable housing units) and 20 on-site parking spaces (18 regular spaces and 2 accessible spaces) on a 0.8- acre site. Access to the buildings would be provided via 2 two-way driveways on Mary Avenue. The project site location and site plan are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2, respectively. Scope of Study This study was conducted for the purpose of identifying the potential transportation impacts and operational issues related to the proposed development. The transportation impacts of the project were evaluated following the standards and methodologies established in the City of Cupertino’s Transportation Study (TS) Guidelines (January 2025). This study consists of a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis and a transportation analysis per the TS Guidelines. As discussed below, the project would result in an increase in net vehicle trip generation of 163 daily trips, which is within the definition of a Tier 2 project (projects with trip generation between 110 and 1,000 daily vehicle trips and less than 100 peak hour trips). Based on the City’s TS Guidelines, a Tier 2 transportation analysis requires an off-site intersection operations analysis, review of General Plan consistency, a parking supply evaluation, a site access and circulation assessment, and a safety assessment. The intersection operations analysis includes an analysis of weekday AM and PM peak- hour traffic conditions at the intersection of Mary Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard. VMT Analysis Transportation impacts under CEQA are measured using VMT. The City of Cupertino TS Guidelines provide VMT exemption screening criteria for development projects. If a project meets the City’s screening criteria, the project is expected to result in a less-than-significant VMT impact and a detailed CEQA VMT analysis is not required. Cupertino Sports Center Cupertino 1 85 Morro Bay Ter Mo r r o B a y T e r Mo r r o B a y T e r Campus DrCampus Dr Lubec St An s o n A v e Milford Dr Ca s t i n e A v e S S t e l l i n g Rd Im p e r i a l A v e Bu b b R d Greenleaf Dr N S t e l l i n g R d Stevens Creek Blvd Ma r y Ave Glen PlGlen Pl Parkwood Dr Parkw o o d D r Pe n i n s u l a B l v d Pe n i n s u l a B l v d Garden Gate Elementary School Cupertino Memorial Park De Anza College X = Study Intersection = Site Location LEGEND Mary Ave Dog Park Mary Ave Dog Park Mary Ave Dog Park Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA Figure 1 Site Location and Study Intersection Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA Figure 2 Site Circulation Plan Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA November 13, 2025 P a g e | 4 Per the TS Guidelines, a project may be screened out if it meets one or more of the following criteria: (1) a project located within one-quarter mile of a High-Quality Transit Corridor or transit stop as defined by CEQA; (2) local-serving retail of 50,000 square feet or less; or (3) land-use projects consisting of 100% affordable housing. The project would provide 100% affordable housing; thus, it is expected to result in a less-than-significant VMT impact and would not require detailed VMT analysis. Existing Transportation System The existing transportation system in the project study area is described below. Included are descriptions of the existing roadway network, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and transit services. Existing Roadway Network Regional access to the project site is provided via SR 85. Local access to the site is provided via Stevens Creek Boulevard, Stelling Road, and Mary Avenue. These facilities are described below. SR 85 is a six-lane freeway with two mixed-flow lanes and one high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction in the vicinity of the project site. SR 85 extends north through Mountain View, connecting with US 101, and south through San Jose, connecting again with US 101. Access to the project site is provided via its interchange with Stevens Creek Boulevard. Stevens Creek Boulevard is an east-west roadway classified as a boulevard (arterial) in the City’s General Plan. It extends from Ridgeway Drive in the west to Bascom Avenue in the east. In the vicinity of the project site, Stevens Creek Boulevard has 6 lanes with left turn/U-turn pockets at intersections, a landscaped median, buffered bike lanes in each direction, and sidewalks along both sides of the roadway. On-street parking is prohibited on both sides of the roadway, and the posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph). Access to the project site is provided via its intersection with Mary Avenue/Campus Drive. Stelling Road is a north-south roadway classified as an avenue (major collector) in the City’s General Plan. It extends past Homestead Road in the north and past Prospect Road to the south. In the vicinity of the project site, Stelling Road has 4 lanes with left turn/U-turn pockets at intersections, a landscaped median, sidewalks along both sides of the roadway, and striped bike lanes in each direction. On-street parking is prohibited on both sides of the street. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. Access to the project site is provided via its intersection with Stevens Creek Boulevard. Mary Avenue is a two-lane north-south local street classified as a neighborhood connector in the City’s General Plan. It extends from Meteor Drive in the north to Campus Drive in the south. Mary Avenue has sidewalks on the east side of the street and on the west side of the street for the most part, except along the project frontage. It has buffered and protected (Class IV) bike lanes on both sides of the roadway. On-street parking is allowed on both sides of the street north of Morro Bay Terrace. The parking is diagonal on the west side and parallel on the east side. The project would remove parking on the east side and change the west side to parallel parking. The posted speed limit is 30 mph. Mary Avenue provides direct access to the project site. Existing Transit Services Existing transit service to the City of Cupertino is provided by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). The VTA bus routes in the project vicinity and the bus stops near the project site are summarized in Table 1 and shown in Figure 3. The closest bus stop is located about 2,100 feet away near the intersection of Mary Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard. The nearby bus stop located at De Anza College is about 2,600 feet from the project site. The bus stops on Stevens Creek Boulevard at Stelling Road are more than a half mile from the project site. Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA November 13, 2025 P a g e | 5 Table 1 Existing Transit Services Existing Bicycle Facilities The bicycle facilities that exist in the project vicinity (see Figure 4) include bike lanes and bike routes. Bike lanes are lanes on roadways designated for use by bicycles with special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Bike routes are signed bike routes where bicyclists share a travel lane with motorists. Bike lanes are present on Mary Avenue (Class IV parking-protected on a portion of the west side between Lubec Street and Morro Bay Terrace and on a portion of the east side between the north end of Mary Avenue Dog Park and the Cupertino Memorial Park parking lot entrance, and Class IIB buffered lanes on the rest of the street), Stevens Creek Boulevard (Class II), Bubb Road (Class IV), and Stelling Road (Class II). A bike route in the area connects the project to local schools like Garden Gate Elementary school. In the project vicinity, the route is present along Lubec Street (east of Mary Avenue), Anson Avenue (north of Lubec Street) Milford Drive, Castine Avenue (north of Milford Drive) and Greenleaf Drive. Existing Pedestrian Facilities Pedestrian facilities consist of sidewalks, ADA compliant curb ramps, and crosswalks at many of the nearby intersections. In the vicinity of the project site, continuous sidewalks exist along the east side of Mary Avenue and both sides of Stevens Creek Boulevard, Campus Drive, and Stelling Road. There is no sidewalk on the west side of Mary Avenue along the project frontage and the Dog Park. There are two high-visibility crosswalks across Mary Avenue at unsignalized intersections along the street: one at Lubec Street north of the site and the other at the driveway for the Cupertino Memorial Park parking lot, south of the site, with rapid rectangular flashing beacons (RRFB). At the signalized intersection of Mary Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard, high-visibility crosswalks are provided across the north, south, east and west legs of the intersection. Headways1 Route Route Description (minutes) Local Routes Route 51 Moffett Field/Ames Research Center - West Valley College 5:50 AM to 8:00 PM 30 Mary Ave at Stevens Creek Boulevard 2,100 Route 55 Old Ironsides Station - De Anza College 5:20 AM to 10:50 PM 30 Stelling Road at Stevens Creek Boulevard 3,600 Route 252 De Anza College - Alum Rock via Valley Medical Center 5:45 AM to 10:30 PM 30 Stelling Road at Stevens Creek Boulevard 3,700 Frequent Routes Route 23 De Anza College - Alum Rock via Stevens Creek Boulevard 4:50 AM to 1:30 AM 15 De Anza College (Campus Road)2,600 Rapid 523 San Jose State University - Lockheed Martin via De Anza Boulevard 5:20 AM to 11:30 PM 20 Stelling Road at Stevens Creek Boulevard 3,700 Notes: 2. Route 25 provides frequent service between Alum Rock Station and Santa Clara Valley Medical Center and less frequent service between Alum Rock Station and De Anza College. Weekday Hours of Operation Nearby Bus Stops Walking Distance from Nearest Stop to Project Site (feet) 1. Headways during weekday peak periods as of October 2025. Cupertino Sports Center Cupertino 23 23 523 51 55 25 523 23, 51, 523 23, 5151 51 23 55 25 85 Campus DrCampus DrCampus Dr Lubec St An s o n A v e Milford Dr Ca s t i n e A v e S S t e l l i n g R d Im p e r i a l A v e Bubb R d Greenleaf Dr N S t e l l i n g R d Ma r y Ave Glen PlGlen Pl Parkwood Dr Parkw o o d D r Pe n i n s u l a B l v d Pe n i n s u l a B l v d Mo r r o B a y T e r Mo r r o B a y T e r Stevens Creek Blvd Garden Gate Elementary School Cupertino Memorial Park De Anza College = Site Location LEGEND XXX 523 XX = Local Bus Route = Frequent Bus Route = Rapid Bus 523 = Nearby Bus RouteXX Mary Ave Dog Park Mary Ave Dog Park Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA Figure 3 Existing Transit Services Cupertino Sports Center Cupertino 85 Campus DrCampus DrCampus Dr Lubec St An s o n A v e Milford Dr Ca s t i n e Av e S S t e l l i n g R d Im p e r i a l A v e Bu b b R d Greenleaf Dr N S t e l l i n g R d Ma r y A v e Glen PlGlen Pl Parkwood Dr Parkw o o d D r Pe n i n s u l a B l v d Pe n i n s u l a B l v d Mo r r o B a y T e r Mo r r o B a y T e r Stevens Creek Blvd Garden Gate Elementary School Cupertino Memorial Park De Anza College = Existing Bike Routes (Class III Bikeway) = Existing Bike Lanes (Class II Bikeway) = Existing Buffered Bike Lanes (Class IIB Bikeway) = Existing Protected Bike Lanes (Class IV Bikeway) LEGEND = Site Location Mary Ave Dog Park Mary Ave Dog Park Mary Ave Dog Park Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA Figure 4 Existing Bicycle Facilities Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA November 13, 2025 P a g e | 8 Project Trip Estimates The magnitude of traffic produced by a new development and the locations where that traffic would appear were estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. In determining project trip generation, the magnitude of traffic traveling to and from the proposed residential development was estimated for the AM and PM peak hours. As part of the project trip distribution and assignment, directions to and from which the project trips would travel were estimated and project trips generated were assigned to specific streets and intersections. These procedures are described below: Trip Generation Through empirical research, data have been collected that show trip generation rates for many types of land uses. The data are published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition. ITE does not have a category for developmentally disabled housing. The closest category for estimating trips generated by this land use is “Senior Adult Housing” as most residents of the project would likely not own cars and care takers or assistants would generate most of the trips. Using this category to represent the developmentally disabled housing units is likely a slight over-estimate of generated traffic because residents would not have cars. Thus, trips that would be generated by the project were estimated using the ITE average trip rates for “Senior Adult Housing - Multifamily” (ITE Land Use 252) for the developmentally disabled units and “Affordable Housing” (ITE Land Use 223) for the proposed affordable housing units. The proposed project is estimated to generate 163 daily vehicle trips, with 12 trips (3 inbound and 9 outbound) during the AM peak hour and 15 trips (9 inbound and 6 outbound) during the PM peak hour (see Table 2). Table 2 Project Trip Generation Estimates Trip Distribution and Assignment The trip distribution pattern for the project was estimated based on the existing travel patterns on the surrounding roadway network and the locations of complementary land uses. The peak-hour trips generated by the project were assigned to the roadway system based on the trip distribution pattern, directions of approach and departure, and the roadway network connections. Project trip distribution and trip assignment are shown in Figure 5. For a conservative analysis, it is assumed that all trips from the project site would pass through the study intersection at Mary Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard. Land Use Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total Proposed Disabled Housing 1 19 d.u.3.25 62 0.19 1 3 4 0.25 3 2 5 Affordable Housing 2 21 d.u.4.81 101 0.36 2 6 8 0.46 6 4 10 Total Project Trips 163 3 9 12 9 6 15 Notes d.u. = dwelling units 1 2 Trip generation rate for the proposed affordable are based on the ITE's Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition rates for Land Use Code 223 "Affordable Housing." Trip generation rate for the proposed housing for the developmentally disabled is based on the ITE's Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition rates for Land Use Code 252 "Senior Adult Housing - Multifamily." Daily Rate 1 Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Size Cupertino Sports Center Cupertino 1 85 Campus DrCampus DrCampus Dr Lubec St An s o n A v e Milford Dr Ca s t i n e A v e S S t e l l i n g R d Im p e r i a l A v e Bub b R d Greenleaf Dr N S t e l l i n g R d Ma r y Ave Glen PlGlen Pl Parkwood Dr Parkw o o d D r Pe n i n s u l a B l v d Pe n i n s u l a B l v d Mo r r o B a y T e r Mo r r o B a y T e r Stevens Creek Blvd 60%40% X = Trip Distribution = Study Intersection = Site Location LEGEND XX% = AM(PM) Peak-Hour TripsXX(XX) Garden Gate Elementary School Cupertino Memorial Park De Anza College Mary Ave Dog Park Mary Ave Dog Park Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA Figure 5 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment 1 DrCa m p u s Av e Ma r y Blvd CreekStevens 1(4)5( 4 ) 4( 2 ) 2(5) Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA November 13, 2025 P a g e | 1 0 Intersection Traffic Operations This section presents the methods used to determine traffic conditions at the study intersection and the traffic effects of the project. Scope of Analysis This study analyzes the traffic effects of the project at the Mary Avenue/Campus Drive and Stevens Creek Boulevard intersection during the weekday AM and PM peak hours of commute traffic. Traffic conditions at the study location were analyzed for the weekday AM (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and PM (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) peak hours of commute traffic. These periods represent the most congested traffic conditions on the surrounding street network during a typical weekday. Intersection traffic conditions were evaluated for the following scenarios: • Existing Conditions. Existing AM and PM peak-hour traffic volumes were obtained from new turning movement counts conducted on a typical weekday, October 7, 2025 (see Appendix A). • Existing Plus Project Conditions. Existing plus project traffic volumes were estimated by adding to the existing traffic volumes the additional traffic generated by the project (see Figure 5). Existing plus project conditions were evaluated relative to existing conditions to determine potential project adverse effects. Intersection Level of Service Analysis Methodology Traffic conditions at the study intersection were evaluated using level of service (LOS). Level of service is a qualitative description of operating conditions ranging from LOS A, or free-flow conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, or jammed conditions with excessive delays. The City of Cupertino evaluates level of service at signalized intersections based on the latest Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) level of service methodology. For the study, the intersection levels of service were analyzed using Synchro software in accordance with the HCM 7th Edition methodology. The HCM method evaluates signalized intersection operations based on average control delay time for all vehicles at an intersection. The correlation between average control delay and level of service is shown in Table 3. Signalized study intersections are typically subject to the local municipalities’ level of service standards. The City’s TS Guidelines (2025) do not provide level of service standards for signalized intersections. For this study, an LOS D standard was applied to the study intersection based on the 2021 TS Guidelines. Definition of Adverse Intersection Operational Effects For most major intersections, a development is said to create an adverse effect on traffic conditions at a study intersection if for either hour, any of the following conditions occur: 1. The level of service at signalized intersections degrades from an acceptable level (LOS D or better) under no-project conditions to an unacceptable LOS E or F under project conditions. 2. The project would deteriorate already unacceptable operations at a signalized intersection by increasing the average critical delay by four or more seconds and increasing the critical volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio by 0.01 or more; or increase the v/c ratio by 0.01 or more at an intersection with unacceptable operations when the change in critical delay is negative (i.e. decreases). This can occur if the critical movements change. Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA November 13, 2025 P a g e | 1 1 Table 3 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Average Control Delay The 2025 TS Guidelines also provide a deficiency criterion for intersection vehicle queuing as part of evaluating the project’s effect on traffic operations. An adverse effect on signalized intersection operations would occur if for either peak hour: 1. The project traffic would cause 95th percentile vehicle queues to exceed the existing or planned length of a turn pocket, or 2. Where a queue exceeds the available storage without the project, project traffic would increase the queue by more than 50 feet. Lane Configurations and Traffic Volumes The existing lane configurations at the study intersections are shown on Figure 6. The traffic volumes for the existing conditions and existing plus project conditions are shown in Figure 6 and described above for the analysis scenarios. Cupertino Sports Center Cupertino 1 85 Campus DrCampus DrCampus Dr Lubec St An s o n A v e Milford Dr S S t e l l i n g R d Im p e r i a l A v e Bub b R d N S t e l l i n g Rd Ma r y Ave Glen PlGlen Pl Parkwood Dr Parkw o o d D r Pe n i n s u l a B l v d Pe n i n s u l a B l v d Mo r r o B a y T e r Mo r r o B a y T e r Stevens Creek Blvd X = Study Intersection = Site Location LEGEND = AM(PM) Peak-Hour Traffic VolumesXX(XX) Cupertino Memorial Park De Anza College = Signalized Intersection Mary Ave Dog Park Mary Ave Dog Park Mary Ave Dog Park Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA Figure 6 Existing Lane Configuration and Study Traffic Volumes 1 DrCa m p u s Av e Ma r y Blvd CreekStevens 1 1 Existing Volumes Existing + Project Volumes Blvd Creek DrCa m p u s Stevens Blvd Creek Dr Ca m p u s Stevens Ma r y Av e Ma r y Av e 40 ( 8 4 ) 3( 5 ) 9( 3 0 ) 99 ( 7 1 ) 10 ( 8 ) 18 1 ( 6 9 ) 88(43) 722(863) 94(101) 98(136) 732(1377) 107(33) 40 ( 8 4 ) 3( 5 ) 9( 3 0 ) 10 3 ( 7 3 ) 10 ( 8 ) 18 6 ( 7 3 ) 88(43) 722(863) 95(105) 100(141) 732(1377) 107(33) Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA November 13, 2025 P a g e | 1 3 Intersection Levels of Service The results of the intersection level of service analysis (see Table 4) show that the study intersection would operate at an acceptable level of service under existing and existing plus project conditions. The intersection level of service calculation report is included in Appendix B. Table 4 Intersection Level of Service Summary Intersection Queuing Analysis Typically, vehicle queuing analysis is done for high-demand movements at intersections where the project would add a substantial number of trips to the left-turn movements (10 or more peak hour vehicle trips per lane). The project would not be adding 10 or more peak hour vehicle trips per lane to any turning movement (see Figure 5). Thus, it is not expected that the addition of the project would negatively affect the existing queuing conditions. General Plan Consistency The project is located on Mary Avenue, which is a local street. This street is not identified on the City’s High Injury Network. The project would not conflict with the General Plan policies because the project would not affect access to roadways, transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. Pedestrian Facilities The existing pedestrian facilities in the project vicinity provide good connectivity with continuous sidewalks from the project site to nearby points of interest, including bus stops, schools, and parks. High-visibility crosswalks across Mary Avenue are provided at the unsignalized intersections at Lubec Street to the north and at Cupertino Memorial Park driveway to the south. There is currently no sidewalk along the project frontage. The project would construct a new 4.5-foot- wide sidewalk along its frontage on Mary Avenue to connect to the existing sidewalk to the south and the dog park to the north. The new sidewalk is consistent with the existing sidewalk configuration within the adjacent neighborhood. The sidewalk would be buffered from traffic by a 5-foot-wide bike lane, 2.5-foot buffer, and parallel street parking. Walkways from the street frontage would provide direct access to the buildings. The project would not affect the existing pedestrian access in the area. The project would provide adequate pedestrian facilities on site connecting pedestrians to the rest of the City’s pedestrian facilities. Bicycle Facilities The project proposes re-aligning the existing bike lane along the project frontage and converting the angled street-parking spaces to parallel street-parking spaces. The proposed bike lane would be 5 feet wide, which meets the minimum recommendation of 5 feet for lateral clearance of bike lanes listed in the VTA bicycle technical guidelines. The bike lane would be protected from vehicular traffic by 8-foot-wide parallel parking spaces and a 2.5 foot striped buffer between the bike lane and the LOS Peak Delay1 Delay1 Change in #Intersection Standard Control Hour (sec)LOS (sec)LOS Delay AM 31.6 C 31.6 C 0.0 PM 27.0 C 27.2 C 0.2 Notes: 1. Average delay (seconds per vehicle) is reported for signalized intersections. 1 Mary Ave/Campus Dr & Stevens Creek Blvd D Signal Existing Existing plus Project Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA November 13, 2025 P a g e | 1 4 parking spaces. The project would introduce two driveways along the west side of Mary Avenue that would cross the bike lane. The project proposes using a different paving material to signal to drivers to slow down and look out for cyclists and pedestrians. The landscaping planters and curb islands next to the driveways would also provide adequate line of sights for cyclists and pedestrians. The project proposes two pairs of reverse curves to create a lateral shift of the bike lane at the north and south ends of the project site to connect the proposed bike lane to the existing bike lane. The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) design guidelines for Bike Transitions, which are adapted from the Urban Bikeway Design Guide, Third Edition, was used to evaluate the proposed reverse curves. For an urban street, a design speed of 10 mph could be assumed for protected bike lanes. For an approach speed of 10 mph, NACTO recommends a minimum edge radius of 18 feet. At the north end of the site, the curve radii are less than 18 feet, which cannot accommodate a travel speed of 10 mph. At the south end of the site, the curve radii are greater than 18 feet. Recommendation: To accommodate a design speed of 10 mph for the bike lane per NACTO’s guidelines, the turn radii of the reserve curves on the north end of the project site should be a minimum of 18 feet and signage should be added ahead of the curves to inform cyclists to slow down to 10 mph. The proposed bicycle lane would connect to the existing bicycle lane on Mary Avenue; thus the proposed project would not conflict with any planned facilities identified in the City of Cupertino 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan. Transit Services As previously stated, the closest bus stop serves Local Route 51 and is located about 2,100 feet away at the intersection of Mary Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard. The nearby bus stop for Frequent Route 23 is located at De Anza College and is about 2,600 feet from the project site. The bus stops in both directions can be accessed via the existing pedestrian network. Any small increase in transit trips is expected to be accommodated by the existing transit capacity. Parking Vehicle Parking The City of Cupertino minimum parking requirement for medium density multi-family housing per the City’s Zoning Code (Table 19.124.040(A)) is two parking spaces per dwelling unit. Because the project would provide 100% affordable housing, the project can qualify for the State Density Bonus Law. Per public Resources Code Section 65915(p)(2), the City may not impose minimum vehicular parking ratios for developments that include at least 20% low-income units that exceed 0.5 spaces per unit. Therefore, for the proposed 40 dwelling units, the project would be required to provide 20 parking spaces per the State Density Bonus Law. Additionally, approximately half of the dwelling units provided by the project would be for developmentally disabled residents that would not own cars or drive. The project proposes a total of 20 parking spaces in an on-site parking lot. Thus, the project meets the State Density Bonus Law parking requirements. Bicycle Parking The City’s zoning code requires medium density multi-family developments to provide one long-term (Class I Facility) bicycle parking space per 2 residential units and one short-term (Class II Facility) bicycle parking space per 10 residential units. For the proposed 40 units, the project would be required to provide 20 long-term and 4 short-term bicycle parking spaces. The project proposes 16 inverted-U bike racks (which provide 2 bicycle parking spaces per inverted-U bike rack): 4 bike racks Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA November 13, 2025 P a g e | 1 5 in front of Building 1 near the community room, 3 bike racks north of Building 1, 1 rack in front of Building 2 near the manager’s office, 4 bike racks behind Building 1 near the elevators, and 4 bike racks behind Building 2 near the elevators. The 8 proposed bike racks in front of buildings would provide 16 short-term parking spaces for public use, which would meet the short-term bicycle parking requirement. The 8 bike racks behind the buildings near the elevators could provide 16 parking spaces for residents. However, these spaces are not protected. Thus, the project does not meet the minimum requirements for long-term bicycle parking spaces. Recommendation: To meet the city’s requirements, the project should provide 20 long-term bicycle parking spaces. These long-term bicycle parking spaces should be provided in bicycle lockers (fully enclosed space accessible only by the owner of the bicycle), restricted access rooms (locked room or enclosure accessible only to the owners), or enclosed cages (chain link enclosures with a lock). Removal of On-Street Parking The project would convert the angled street-parking spaces to parallel street-parking spaces on its frontage along Mary Avenue and remove the parallel street-parking spaces on the east side of the street across from the project frontage. This would remove 84 angled street-parking spaces on the west side and 38 parallel street-parking spaces on the east side (approximately 950 feet) and add 33 parallel parking spaces to the west side of Mary Avenue, which would result in a net loss of 89 street- parking spaces. Hexagon previously conducted a parking study (see Appendix C) to identify the current parking supply and demand of the on-street parking on Mary Avenue between Lubec Street and Stevens Creek Boulevard. There are currently 171 diagonal parking spaces provided along the west side and 70 parallel parking spaces provided on the east side, for a total of 241 on-street parking spaces. The parking study found the existing peak parking demand was 37 parking spaces (26 spaces on the west side of Mary Avenue and 11 spaces on the east side of Mary Avenue) with 7 occupied spaces along the project frontage. As stated previously, the project meets the vehicular parking requirements per the State Density Bonus Law with the proposed parking on site. Additionally, approximately half of the dwelling units provided by the project would be for developmentally disabled residents that would not own cars or drive. Therefore, the project is not expected to increase parking demand for on street parking. With the project, there would be 152 on-street parking spaces (with 33 parallel parking spaces along the project frontage), which would still provide enough spaces to meet the anticipated parking demand (37 total spaces and 7 spaces along the project frontage). Site Access and Circulation A review of the project site plan was performed to identify the adequacy of site access and on-site circulation. This review is based on the site plan dated May 9, 2025 (see Figure 2 and Figure 7). Vehicle access to the site would be provided via two driveways along Mary Avenue. Driveway Design and Operations The project proposes two driveways on Mary Avenue: one located opposite Parkwood Drive and the other about 180 feet south of that driveway. Two driveways are necessary because the project proposes angled on-site parking. The site is not wide enough to provide 90-degree parking. Per the City’s Standard Details 1-20, driveway width for commercial/high density residential should be between 24 and 32 feet. The driveway to the north (near Building 2) would be 24 feet wide and the driveway to the south (near Building 1) would be 26 feet wide, which meets the City’s requirements for driveway width. Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA November 13, 2025 P a g e | 1 6 The project-generated trips that are estimated to access both driveways are 12 trips during the AM peak hour (3 inbound and 9 outbound) and 15 trips during the PM peak hour (9 inbound and 6 outbound). Due to the low number of AM and PM peak hour project-generated trips, operational issues related to vehicle queuing or delays, or with potential pedestrian or bicycle traffic would be minimal at the project driveways. The distance between the first 90-degree parking stall and the street edge for both of the driveways is 24 feet. Thus, there is enough room for one inbound vehicle to queue in the driveway without blocking the traffic on Mary Avenue. The maximum number of vehicles that would enter a driveway is 9 inbound vehicles during the PM peak hour, which is equivalent to approximately one vehicle every 6 minutes. Thus, no inbound queuing issues are expected at the project driveways. Driveway Sight Distance The project driveways should be free and clear of any obstructions to provide adequate sight distance, thereby ensuring that exiting vehicles can see pedestrians on the sidewalk and vehicles and bicycles traveling along Mary Avenue. Any landscaping and signage should be located in such a way to ensure an unobstructed view for drivers exiting the site and turning onto Mary Avenue. Providing the appropriate sight distance reduces the likelihood of a collision at a driveway and provides drivers with the ability to locate sufficient gaps in traffic. The project proposes trees that would be planted along the Mary Avenue frontage near the driveways. Per the City’s Standard Details 7-2, the canopies of the trees should be at least 8.5 feet in height so that they do not impede the view of exiting drivers. If additional frontage improvements, such as signage or additional landscaping, are proposed, they should be located so that the view of exiting drivers is not impeded or not exceed 3.5 feet in height, per the City’s Standard Details 7-2. The minimum acceptable sight distance is considered the Caltrans stopping sight distance. Sight distance requirements vary depending on roadway speeds. Mary Avenue has a speed limit of 30 mph, so the Caltrans stopping sight distance is 250 feet (based on a design speed of 35 mph). Accordingly, a driver must be able to see 250 feet along Mary Avenue to stop and avoid a collision. Based on the site plan and narrow travel lanes on Mary Avenue, on-street parking next to the project driveways would potentially block the line of sight of exiting drivers (see Figure 8). Recommendation: To ensure drivers exiting the project driveways have adequate lines of sight, it is recommended that two parallel parking spaces on the north side of each driveway and one parking space on the south side of the project driveways be removed. If the driveways are changed to one- way as recommended below, only the parking spaces next to the outbound driveway (south driveway) need to be removed. The on-street parking supply would still be adequate with the reduction of these six parallel parking spaces. Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA Figure 7 Proposed Parking Lot Plan Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA Figure 8 Sight Distance LEGEND = Recommended Parallel Parking Spaces to be Removed Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA November 13, 2025 P a g e | 1 9 On-Site Circulation and Stall Dimensions On-site vehicular circulation was reviewed in accordance with generally accepted traffic engineering standards. The project would provide an on-site surface parking lot (20 parking spaces) with a one- way aisle. In the parking lot, there would be two 90-degree parking spaces on the north end, two 90- degree parking spaces on the south end, and 16 angled parking spaces (60 degrees) along the west side of the parking lot (see Figure 7). The driveways to access the parking lot would be two-way driveways that are 24 feet wide and 26 feet wide with a 26-foot-wide drive aisle to access the 90-degree parking spaces. The drive aisle to access the 60-degree angled parking spaces would be a one-way aisle that is 14 feet wide. Recommendation: For improved circulation, it is recommended that the driveways are one-way, with the north driveway for inbound only and the south driveway for outbound only. Per the City of Cupertino’s Zoning Code Table 19.124.040(B), the minimum parking stall dimensions should be 8.5 feet wide and 18 feet long. Two-way drive aisles to access 90-degree parking spaces should be a minimum of 22 feet wide. The 90-degree parking spaces on the north and south ends of the parking lot would be a minimum of 8.5 feet wide and 16 feet long and would be accessed by a drive aisle that is 26 feet wide. The parking spaces include a 2-foot overhang into the walkway in front of the spaces, which effectively would provide a 6-foot walkway (sufficient for pedestrians to travel through). Based on the site plan, the proposed 90-degree parking spaces would meet the City’s minimum stall dimensions. Per Table 19.124.040(B), a one-way aisle to access 60-degree angle parking spaces should be a minimum of 13 feet wide. Based on the proposed parking lot plan, the 60-degree angle parking spaces would be 8.5 feet wide, 18 feet long, and have a one-way aisle that is 14 feet wide. Thus, the project’s angled parking spaces would meet the City’s minimum requirements. Emergency Vehicle Access and Circulation The City of Cupertino Fire Department requires a minimum driveway width of 20 feet, requires turnarounds for driveways more than 150 feet in length, and requires a minimum of 13.5 feet of vertical clearance. The project site has a maximum depth of 42 feet from Mary Avenue. Therefore, Mary Avenue would serve as the project’s fire access road. Garbage Truck Access and Circulation Concrete trash pads/enclosures are shown in the parking lot. All garbage collection activities would occur on-site. Garbage trucks would need to pull into one of the driveways, perform garbage collection activities, back out onto Mary Avenue, and pull into the other driveway to perform the rest of the garbage collection activities. The truck would encroach onto the opposite travel lane when turning into and out of the driveways. However, because of the relatively low volumes on Mary Avenue, it is not expected that this would cause any operational issues. Figure 7 shows site access and circulation for garbage trucks. Safety Assessment The project would not alter any streets in the area. The project driveways and the internal aisles on site are designed in accordance with city standards. The project would generate mostly passenger vehicles, and the surrounding roadway system is designed to accommodate these vehicles. Therefore, the project would not worsen existing geometric hazards or create new geometric hazards. Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project TA November 13, 2025 P a g e | 2 0 Conclusions The transportation analysis for the Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Project resulted in the following conclusions: • Trip Generation. The proposed project is estimated to generate 163 new daily vehicle trips, with 12 trips (3 inbound and 9 outbound) during the AM peak hour and 15 trips (9 inbound and 6 outbound) during the PM peak hour. • Intersection Operation. The Mary Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard intersection would operate at an acceptable level of service under existing and existing plus project conditions. • Site Access and Circulation. The site access and circulation review resulted in the following recommendations: o Long-term Bicycle Parking. To meet the city’s requirements, the project should provide 20 long-term bicycle parking spaces. These long-term bicycle parking spaces should be provided in bicycle lockers (fully enclosed space accessible only by the owner of the bicycle), restricted access rooms (locked room or enclosure accessible only to the owners, or enclosed cages (chain link enclosures with a lock). o Sight Distance. To ensure drivers exiting the project driveways have adequate lines of sight, it is recommended that two parallel parking spaces on the north side of each driveway and one parking space on the south side of the project driveways be removed. If the driveways are changed to one-way as recommended below, only parking spaces next to the outbound driveway need to be removed. o Site Circulation. It is recommended that the driveways be one-way access, with the north driveway for inbound only and the south driveway for outbound only. o Bike Lane. To accommodate a design speed of 10 mph for the bike lane, the turn radii of the reserve curves on the north end of the project site should be a minimum of 18 feet and signage should be added ahead of the curves to inform cyclists to slow down to 10 mph. ATTACHMENTS Appendix A – Traffic Counts Appendix B – Intersection Level of Service Calculations Appendix C – Parking Study Appendix A Traffic Counts CAMPUS DRIVE MARY AVESTEVENS CREEK BLVDSTEVENS CREEK BLVD (303) 216-2439 www.alltrafficdata.net Location:1 CAMPUS DRIVE & STEVENS CREEK BLVD AM Tuesday, October 7, 2025Date: Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Peak Hour:08:00 AM - 09:00 AM Peak 15-Minutes:08:15 AM - 08:30 AM 290 187 904 845 52200 937 951 0.90 N S EW 0.84 0.87 0.84 0.85 (436)(592) (2,234) (2,013) (2,268) (2,312) (163)(584) 18 1 099 94 722 83 107 732 90 5 8 10 40 3 90 STEVENS CREEK BLVD STEVENS CREEK BLVD CAMPUS DRIVE MARY AVE 5 8 7 3 N S EW 3 5 16 0 5 2 1 2 2 9 2 9 1 3 0 030 1 1 7 0 1 N S EW 2 0 1 0 6 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 Left Thru Right Total EastboundInterval Start Time Rolling Hour West East South North Pedestrian Crossings U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn 7:00 AM 0 3 0 0 3 01 13 67 0 5 88 218 0 1 2 11,09810 12 0 16 7:15 AM 0 1 0 0 5 11 15 66 1 3 115 234 0 3 0 01,4033 7 1 15 7:30 AM 0 4 0 0 30 00 10 82 2 4 130 296 0 0 1 11,7736 6 2 20 7:45 AM 0 3 0 0 22 14 24 94 1 7 129 350 0 2 0 11,97514 22 0 29 8:00 AM 0 10 0 0 27 21 17 129 1 16 208 523 0 0 1 12,18319 34 3 56 8:15 AM 0 14 2 0 27 40 25 202 1 28 196 604 2 5 3 02,09025 19 4 57 8:30 AM 0 7 1 0 34 34 28 155 2 17 167 498 0 0 3 22,03427 18 1 34 8:45 AM 0 9 0 0 11 13 20 246 1 22 151 558 1 3 0 22,06936 23 1 34 9:00 AM 0 12 1 0 9 30 13 142 1 44 116 430 0 5 0 12,02039 21 6 23 9:15 AM 0 17 1 0 8 10 10 190 0 46 160 548 2 5 0 158 20 7 30 9:30 AM 0 17 2 0 8 10 16 220 0 21 152 533 1 4 0 245 11 10 30 9:45 AM 0 18 1 0 18 30 20 167 1 24 157 509 0 3 0 345 24 5 26 Count Total 37040217327 5,301202020811501,769237111,76021114 15106 31 Peak Hour 8 90 732 5 83 722 0 40 3 0 99 10 2,183107 94 9 181 3 8 7 5 CAMPUS DRIVE MARY AVESTEVENS CREEK BLVDSTEVENS CREEK BLVD (303) 216-2439 www.alltrafficdata.net Location:1 CAMPUS DRIVE & STEVENS CREEK BLVD PM Tuesday, October 7, 2025Date: Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Peak Hour:05:00 PM - 06:00 PM Peak 15-Minutes:05:15 PM - 05:30 PM 148 231 1,007 1,478 11984 1,546 1,027 0.97 N S EW 0.86 0.89 0.73 0.94 (661)(422) (2,766) (4,055) (2,821) (4,241) (406)(298) 69 071 101 863 43 33 1,377 125 0 11 8 84 5 300 STEVENS CREEK BLVD STEVENS CREEK BLVD CAMPUS DRIVE MARY AVE 7 20 2 1 N S EW 18 2 11 1 6 0 1 0 1 1 1 4 6 3 0 000 0 0 3 1 1 N S EW 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 Left Thru Right Total EastboundInterval Start Time Rolling Hour West East South North Pedestrian Crossings U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn 4:00 PM 0 16 3 0 12 05 34 370 0 17 200 739 0 9 2 12,66618 20 21 23 4:15 PM 0 29 2 0 16 20 23 247 0 9 197 590 2 3 1 02,63716 22 11 16 4:30 PM 0 20 0 0 17 11 19 340 0 9 186 659 1 6 0 12,77318 17 14 17 4:45 PM 0 9 0 0 25 01 20 394 0 7 165 678 0 1 0 12,78116 16 12 13 5:00 PM 0 20 1 0 9 54 40 383 0 8 188 710 0 2 0 02,8204 28 6 14 5:15 PM 0 19 2 0 21 13 26 345 0 9 235 726 0 1 1 52,72814 26 6 19 5:30 PM 0 25 1 0 20 11 29 297 0 12 221 667 1 13 0 22,7577 17 12 24 5:45 PM 0 20 1 0 21 13 30 352 0 14 219 717 0 4 1 02,6678 30 6 12 6:00 PM 0 28 1 0 16 37 26 268 1 14 163 618 1 12 0 02,34916 42 17 16 6:15 PM 0 39 3 0 16 34 44 305 2 15 229 755 1 6 0 220 39 16 20 6:30 PM 0 18 2 0 18 14 31 248 2 6 183 577 1 5 1 014 29 9 12 6:45 PM 0 11 1 0 15 12 23 159 1 6 149 399 1 2 1 32 13 5 11 Count Total 197135299153 7,8351920601725402,33512663,70834535 1578 64 Peak Hour 11 125 1,377 0 43 863 0 84 5 0 71 8 2,82033 101 30 69 1 20 2 7 Appendix B Intersection Level of Service Calculations HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing AM 1: Campus Dr/Mary Ave & Stevens Creek Blvd 1 -Ex AM 10/15/2025 Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h)98 732 107 88 722 94 40 3 9 99 10 181 Future Volume (veh/h)98 732 107 88 722 94 40 3 9 99 10 181 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 109 813 119 98 802 104 44 3 10 110 11 201 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 141 1207 176 128 1193 154 129 143 478 143 787 793 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.27 0.27 0.07 0.26 0.26 0.04 0.38 0.38 0.08 0.42 0.42 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 4502 655 1781 4578 590 3456 379 1264 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 109 614 318 98 595 311 44 0 13 110 11 201 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1752 1781 1702 1764 1728 0 1643 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.3 14.3 14.5 4.8 14.0 14.1 1.1 0.0 0.4 5.4 0.3 6.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.3 14.3 14.5 4.8 14.0 14.1 1.1 0.0 0.4 5.4 0.3 6.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.37 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.77 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 141 913 470 128 887 460 129 0 621 143 787 793 V/C Ratio(X)0.77 0.67 0.68 0.77 0.67 0.68 0.34 0.00 0.02 0.77 0.01 0.25 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 510 1929 993 490 1891 980 368 0 621 510 787 793 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 40.2 29.1 29.2 40.6 29.5 29.6 41.8 0.0 17.4 40.2 15.0 12.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.6 0.9 1.7 9.2 0.9 1.7 1.6 0.0 0.1 8.5 0.0 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.6 5.8 6.2 2.4 5.7 6.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 2.7 0.1 2.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 48.8 30.0 30.9 49.8 30.4 31.3 43.4 0.0 17.4 48.7 15.1 13.5 LnGrp LOS D C C D C C D B D B B Approach Vol, veh/h 1041 1004 57 322 Approach Delay, s/veh 32.2 32.6 37.5 25.6 Approach LOS C C D C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.6 38.2 10.9 28.4 7.8 42.0 11.6 27.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.5 21.5 24.5 50.5 9.5 37.5 25.5 49.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.4 2.4 6.8 16.5 3.1 8.5 7.3 16.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 0.0 0.2 7.4 0.0 0.7 0.2 7.1 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 31.6 HCM 7th LOS C HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing PM 1: Campus Dr/Mary Ave & Stevens Creek Blvd 2 -Ex PM 10/15/2025 Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h)136 1377 33 43 863 101 84 5 30 71 8 69 Future Volume (veh/h)136 1377 33 43 863 101 84 5 30 71 8 69 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 151 1530 37 48 959 112 93 6 33 79 9 77 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 188 2210 53 67 1684 196 165 72 393 103 555 637 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.43 0.43 0.04 0.36 0.36 0.05 0.29 0.29 0.06 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5128 124 1781 4637 540 3456 250 1373 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 151 1016 551 48 703 368 93 0 39 79 9 77 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1848 1781 1702 1773 1728 0 1623 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.0 23.3 23.3 2.6 15.9 16.0 2.5 0.0 1.7 4.2 0.3 2.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.0 23.3 23.3 2.6 15.9 16.0 2.5 0.0 1.7 4.2 0.3 2.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.30 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 188 1467 797 67 1236 644 165 0 465 103 555 637 V/C Ratio(X)0.80 0.69 0.69 0.72 0.57 0.57 0.56 0.00 0.08 0.77 0.02 0.12 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 510 2426 1317 250 1930 1005 413 0 465 324 555 637 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 42.0 22.2 22.2 45.8 24.6 24.6 44.8 0.0 25.1 44.7 23.9 18.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 7.8 0.6 1.1 13.3 0.4 0.8 3.0 0.0 0.4 11.3 0.1 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.9 9.0 9.9 1.4 6.3 6.7 1.1 0.0 0.7 2.2 0.2 1.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 49.8 22.8 23.3 59.1 25.0 25.4 47.8 0.0 25.4 56.0 24.0 18.5 LnGrp LOS D C C E C C D C E C B Approach Vol, veh/h 1718 1119 132 165 Approach Delay, s/veh 25.3 26.6 41.2 36.7 Approach LOS C C D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 32.0 8.1 45.9 9.1 33.0 14.6 39.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 17.5 22.5 13.5 68.5 11.5 28.5 27.5 54.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.2 3.7 4.6 25.3 4.5 4.9 10.0 18.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 0.1 0.0 16.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 9.0 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 27.0 HCM 7th LOS C HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing+Project AM 1: Campus Dr/Mary Ave & Stevens Creek Blvd 3 -Ex+P AM 10/15/2025 Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h)100 732 107 88 722 95 40 3 9 103 10 186 Future Volume (veh/h)100 732 107 88 722 95 40 3 9 103 10 186 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 111 813 119 98 802 106 44 3 10 114 11 207 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 144 1206 175 131 1191 156 129 142 473 147 785 793 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.27 0.27 0.07 0.26 0.26 0.04 0.37 0.37 0.08 0.42 0.42 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 4502 655 1781 4567 600 3456 379 1264 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 111 614 318 98 597 311 44 0 13 114 11 207 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1752 1781 1702 1762 1728 0 1643 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.5 14.4 14.5 4.8 14.0 14.2 1.1 0.0 0.4 5.6 0.3 6.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.5 14.4 14.5 4.8 14.0 14.2 1.1 0.0 0.4 5.6 0.3 6.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.37 1.00 0.34 1.00 0.77 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 144 912 469 131 888 460 129 0 615 147 785 793 V/C Ratio(X)0.77 0.67 0.68 0.75 0.67 0.68 0.34 0.00 0.02 0.77 0.01 0.26 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 509 1925 991 489 1886 977 368 0 615 509 785 793 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 40.3 29.2 29.3 40.6 29.6 29.6 41.9 0.0 17.6 40.2 15.1 12.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.5 0.9 1.7 8.2 0.9 1.8 1.6 0.0 0.1 8.4 0.0 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.7 5.8 6.2 2.4 5.7 6.1 0.5 0.0 0.2 2.8 0.1 2.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 48.7 30.1 31.0 48.8 30.5 31.4 43.5 0.0 17.7 48.5 15.2 13.6 LnGrp LOS D C C D C C D B D B B Approach Vol, veh/h 1043 1006 57 332 Approach Delay, s/veh 32.3 32.5 37.6 25.6 Approach LOS C C D C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.9 37.9 11.1 28.4 7.8 42.0 11.7 27.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.5 21.5 24.5 50.5 9.5 37.5 25.5 49.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.6 2.4 6.8 16.5 3.1 8.7 7.5 16.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 0.0 0.2 7.4 0.0 0.7 0.2 7.1 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 31.6 HCM 7th LOS C HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing PM 1: Campus Dr/Mary Ave & Stevens Creek Blvd 4 -Ex+P PM 10/15/2025 Synchro 12 Report Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h)141 1377 33 43 863 105 84 5 30 73 8 73 Future Volume (veh/h)141 1377 33 43 863 105 84 5 30 73 8 73 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width Adj.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 157 1530 37 48 959 117 93 6 33 81 9 81 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 194 2210 53 67 1658 202 165 71 391 105 555 643 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.43 0.43 0.04 0.36 0.36 0.05 0.29 0.29 0.06 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5128 124 1781 4612 561 3456 250 1373 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 157 1016 551 48 707 369 93 0 39 81 9 81 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1848 1781 1702 1769 1728 0 1623 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.3 23.3 23.3 2.6 16.1 16.2 2.5 0.0 1.7 4.3 0.3 3.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.3 23.3 23.3 2.6 16.1 16.2 2.5 0.0 1.7 4.3 0.3 3.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.32 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 194 1467 797 67 1224 636 165 0 463 105 555 643 V/C Ratio(X)0.81 0.69 0.69 0.72 0.58 0.58 0.56 0.00 0.08 0.77 0.02 0.13 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 510 2426 1317 250 1930 1003 413 0 463 324 555 643 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 41.8 22.2 22.2 45.8 24.9 24.9 44.8 0.0 25.2 44.6 23.9 17.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 7.7 0.6 1.1 13.3 0.4 0.8 3.0 0.0 0.4 11.1 0.1 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.0 9.0 9.9 1.4 6.4 6.8 1.1 0.0 0.7 2.2 0.2 1.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 49.6 22.8 23.3 59.1 25.3 25.7 47.8 0.0 25.5 55.7 24.0 18.3 LnGrp LOS D C C E C C D C E C B Approach Vol, veh/h 1724 1124 132 171 Approach Delay, s/veh 25.4 26.9 41.2 36.3 Approach LOS C C D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.2 31.9 8.1 45.9 9.1 33.0 15.0 39.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 17.5 22.5 13.5 68.5 11.5 28.5 27.5 54.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.3 3.7 4.6 25.3 4.5 5.1 10.3 18.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 0.1 0.0 16.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 9.0 Intersection Summary HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 27.2 HCM 7th LOS C Appendix C Parking Study Memorandum Date: September 8, 2025 To: Mr. Andy Lief, Charities Housing From: Gary K. Black Nivedha Baskarapandian Subject: Parking Study and Trip Generation Estimate for the Proposed Affordable Housing Project on Mary Avenue in Cupertino, California Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has completed a parking study and trip generation estimate for the proposed affordable housing project on Mary Avenue in Cupertino, California. The project proposes affordable housing between the CA-85 soundwall and Mary Avenue and would provide 19 units for the developmentally disabled and 21 affordable units. Between Lubec Street and Stevens Creek Boulevard, 171 diagonal parking spaces are provided along the west side, and 70 parallel parking spaces are provided on the east side of Mary Avenue. First Parking Counts Parking counts were completed to determine the current maximum occupied parking spaces on Mary Avenue between Lubec Street and Stevens Creek Boulevard Vehicle parking counts were conducted along Mary Avenue on the following dates and times to determine the parking demand of the existing parking spaces (see Attachment 1). These times were chosen based on predicted usage of the existing parking spaces from the neighboring park and other surrounding uses. • Saturday April 12, 2025, from 12:00-1:00 PM • Tuesday April 15, 2025, from 12:00-1:00 AM, 2:00-3:00 PM, and 7:00-8:00 PM • Thursday April 17, 2025, from 12:00-1:00 AM, 2:00-3:00 PM, and 7:00-8:00 PM The peak parking demand was found to be 24 spaces on the west side of Mary Avenue and six spaces on the east side of Mary Avenue between 2:00-3:00 PM on Thursday April 17, for a total of 30 occupied spaces. Additional Parking Counts The first set of parking counts did not denote where the cars were parked along the street. Therefore, additional counts were conducted. Counts were counted along Mary Avenue from Lubec Street and Stevens Creek Boulevard on Thursday April 24, 2025, from 2:00-3:00 PM which was determined to be the time most parking spaces were occupied (see Attachment 1). Figure 1 shows the summary of the additional parking counts. Lubec St Lubec St 55 22 22 33 1717 85 Ma r y A v e Ma r y A v e Mary A v e Mary A v e Stevens Creek BlvdStevens Creek Blvd Parkwood D r Parkwood D r Glen PlGlen Pl Parkwoo d D r Parkwoo d D r 88 LEGEND = Additional Observed Area = Occupied Parking = Number of Occupied Parking SpacesXXXX Figure 1 Mary Avenue Parking Summary Mary Avenue Affordable Housing Parking Study and Trip Generation Estimate September 8, 2025 P a g e | 3 The peak parking demand based on the additional count was found to be 26 spaces on the west side of Mary Avenue and 11 spaces on the east side of Mary Avenue, for a total of 37 spaces occupied on Mary Avenue between Lubec Street and Stevens Creek Boulevard. Trip Generation Estimates Hexagon prepared trip estimates for the proposed project using trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition, 2025 (see Table 1), Senior Adult Housing - Multifamily (Land Use 252) and Affordable Housing (Land Use 223). Developmentally disabled housing is not a category in the ITE manual. Senior Housing will perhaps over-estimate the number of trips, but best represents housing for people that are not going to work or school on a daily basis. Affordable Housing includes multifamily housing that is rented at below market rate. Eligibility to live in affordable housing can be a function of limited household income, resident age, or special needs. These ITE land use categories best represent the units proposed. The developmentally disabled units would be for residents who are unable to operate vehicles, and the affordable housing units would be for low-income residents. Based on the trip generation rates, the project would generate 164 new daily trips, with 12 new trips (three inbound and nine outbound) during both the AM peak hour and 15 new trips (nine inbound and six outbound) during the PM peak hour. This small number of trips would not cause any noticeable change to traffic operations on Mary Avenue or other streets in the area. Table 1 Trip Generation Estimates Conclusion The results of the parking study and trip generation estimates are summarized below. • On Mary Avenue between Lubec Street and Stevens Creek Boulevard, at most 37 vehicles were parked which occurred during a weekday from 2:00 -3:00 PM. • The project would generate 164 new daily trips with 12 new trips during the AM peak hour and 15 new trips during the PM peak hour. This small number of trips would not cause any noticeable change to traffic operations on Mary Avenue or other streets in the area. Land Use Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total Proposed Disabled Housing 1 19 d.u.3.25 62 0.19 1 3 4 0.25 3 2 5 Affordable Housing 2 21 d.u.4.87 102 0.36 2 6 8 0.46 6 4 10 Total Project Trips 164 3 9 12 9 6 15 Notes d.u. = dwelling units 1 2 Trip generation rate for the proposed affordable are based on the ITE's Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition rates for Land Use Code 223 "Affordable Housing." Trip generation rate for the proposed housing for the developmentally disabled is based on the ITE's Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition rates for Land Use Code 252 "Senior Adult Housing - Multifamily." Daily Rate1 Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Size Attachment 1 Parking Counts AUTO CENSUS Date:Traffic Monitoring and Analysis Counters: 5973 Larkstone Loop Location: Weather:Fair Date Time West East Total 12-Apr 12-1pm 8 0 8 15-Apr 12-1am 1 0 1 15-Apr 2-3pm 21 8 29 15-Apr 7-8pm 1 0 1 0 17-Apr 12-1am 1 0 1 17-Apr 2-3pm 24 6 30 17-Apr 7-8pm 3 1 4 Mary Avenue Parking Count- 25NB03(Cupertino) 4/12-4/17/25 Jo 445 Lily Ann Way Mary Ave. San Jose, CA 95123