HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 12-12-2025 Item No. 2 Conduct Study Session on Mary Avenue Project_Late Written CommunicationsCC 12-12-2025
#2
Conduct Study
Session on Mary
Avenue Project
Written Communications
From:Paul Krupka
To:Public Comments
Cc:Brian Avery; Lina Meng
Subject:Public Comment – Special Meeting on December 12, 2025 – Study Session on the Mary Avenue Project
(“Project”)
Date:Thursday, December 11, 2025 3:01:00 PM
Attachments:krupka Georgia t 50.png
Cupertino CC re Mary Avenue Villas 121125 f.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council Members:
Please accept and consider my attached public comment letter during your deliberations on
December 12, 2025.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Paul Krupka
Paul J. Krupka, PE
(he/him/his)
KRUPKA CONSULTING
Trusted Advisor | Transportation
650.504.2299
paul@pkrupkaconsulting.com
KRUPKA CONSULTING
431 Yale Drive | San Mateo, CA | 94402
650.504.2299 | paul@pkrupkaconsulting.com | pkrupkaconsulting.com
December 11, 2025
City Council Members by email only > publiccomment@cupertino.gov
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
RE: Public Comment – Special Meeting on December 12, 2025 – Study Session on the Mary
Avenue Project (“Project”)
Dear City Council Members:
I am supporting Brian Avery, owner of the Glenbrook Apartments, and Lina Meng, a neighbor,
both of whom represent the Garden Gate Neighborhood Group, in providing transportation
advisory services and a professional opinion on the Mary Avenue Villas Project. I offer the
following information and comments for your consideration.
Qualifications
I am a registered Civil Engineer and Traffic Engineer in California and have over 40 years of
diverse experience across all phases of project delivery, including preliminary assessment,
conceptual planning, feasibility analysis, design, and construction. I have demonstrated
expertise in transportation, traffic, and transit planning, engineering, and design related to
transit-oriented development, transit facilities, parking facilities, roadway and highway
improvements, large and small development projects, neighborhood, community, downtown,
city, subarea, county, and sub-regional plans, and transit and highway corridors.
Comments
I have visited the Project site and surroundings, observed traffic and parking activities, surveyed
peak parking occupancy on Mary Avenue and at Memorial Park, and reviewed recent
photographic evidence of related parking conditions during Memorial Park events. I have
reviewed the Transportation Study for Proposed Affordable Housing Project on Mary Avenue
(Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., November 13, 2025, the Memorial Park Specific
Plan (City of Cupertino, February 2024), including the Memorial Park Parking Study (City of
Cupertino, January 2024), the Westport Mixed-Use Project Environmental Impact Report
Addendum No. 1 (PlaceWorks, December 2024), and information on current and planned
development at De Anza College.
The Project will have a significant impact by removing 89 spaces of public on-street parking on
Mary Avenue (95 spaces with recommended Project changes in the aforementioned
Transportation Study), amid heavy observed demand for this parking (upwards of 60 percent
occupied) during many major events at Memorial Park. This 37+% reduction in on-street parking
supply will affect residents who rely on it, spreading parking demand further into residential
neighborhoods. This impact was documented in the formal Project application in April 2025. It
was acknowledged in the aforementioned Transportation Study. Still, it was seemingly
dismissed with this simple conclusion – “With the Project, there would be 152 on-street
City of Cupertino City Council Members
December 11, 2025, Page 2
parking spaces…, which would still provide enough spaces to meet the anticipated parking
demand…along the project frontage.” The anticipated parking demand noted was only 37 spaces,
which reflects a non-Memorial Park event condition.
My peak parking occupancy survey on Saturday, November 1, 2025, found a demand of 42 spaces
(17% occupied (42/241)) on Mary Avenue (total parking supply of 241 spaces). The photographic
evidence I cited above indicated a demand of approximately 140 spaces (58% occupied) during
Memorial Park events. With the Project, this level of demand would equal 96% of the total
parking supply (146 spaces).
Other approved and planned developments will exacerbate this significant impact.
• Memorial Park enhancements, intended to serve existing and new patrons, will increase
parking demand in the neighborhood and on Mary Avenue. While the aforementioned parking
study did not include Mary Avenue, it cited “Maintain Current Parking Configuration along Mary
Avenue” as a recommended management strategy.
• Completion of the Westport Mixed-Use Project will reduce residential and retail areas,
associated vehicle trips, and the total parking supply, but will require accommodating the
resulting parking demand off-site along Mary Avenue.
• The replacement of the Flint Center at De Anza College will enhance opportunities for public
and on-campus entertainment and increase public reliance on off-site parking on Mary Avenue.
Conclusion
The project's significant impact has not been adequately studied to determine appropriate
mitigations.
It is in your community's best interests that you strongly consider doing so.
I appreciate your consideration.
Sincerely,
KRUPKA CONSULTING
Paul Krupka, P.E.
Owner
Cc: Brian Avery
Lina Meng
From:Hal and Janet Van Zoeren
To:Public Comments; City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; bcc: Cupertino ForAll; Hal and Janet
Van Zoeren; Connie Cunningham; Andy Lief; Saadati Louise; Kathy Robinson; Kiran Varshneya; Orrin Mahoney;
Gia Pham HCC; Housing Choices
Subject:Mary Avenue Villas, a Cupertino community created project
Date:Thursday, December 11, 2025 11:19:51 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Cupertino City Council Members,
As you most likely know, a few individuals have fired up a group of heartless NIMBYs by
feeding them misinformation regarding the Mary Avenue Villas project and the characteristics
of those it would benefit. In their quest to kill the project, these community members and
their naive followers keep trying to delay the project by adding to their numbers and falsely
claiming
· Mary Avenue will no longer be a safe place to
o Drive
o Bicycle
o Walk or
o Exist
· The decrease in parking spaces will be detrimental to those who can now park
along Mary Avenue and, therefore, will create a problem for the adjacent
neighborhoods
· The health and welfare of the residents of Mary Avenue Villas will be compromised
by
o Air pollution from the adjacent freeway
o Soil pollution
o No where for fiire trucks and EMT vehicles to park during their assumed to
be frequently needed visits to these villas
It will not be possible to placate these false excuses for the supposed concerns of this NIMBY
group. Those spreading these lies choose not to listen to the facts that dispute them. They
simply do not want the Mary Avenue Villas project in their backyard or anywhere near it, and
they continue using these false claims as ammunition to defeat it.
This is sad because the people who need affordable housing like this are members of our
Cupertino community, many have family here, and may have grown up attending school here
as well. They will benefit from continuing to live near their supportive families and friends and
the local amenities that they use. It was also sad to hear one of the NIMBYs attempt to spread
to others his fear of living near the people who might live in the villas if they are developed.
Sad as well has been hearing the ignorant attempts of NIMBYs, who clearly lack familiarity
with people who have IDD, to inappropriatly characterize people with IDD, how impaired their
mobility is, and how dangerous it will be for others to live near people with IDD and how
dangerous for the villas residents it will be for them to live on Mary Ave due to the unsafe
traffic conditions this project will create.
People with IDD are members of our Cupertino Family at large. They attend our schools, live
in our neighborhood, shop at our stores, go to our library, our churches, and our colleges.
They walk our streets and ride our buses. As a representative of Cupertino, do you want to
take the position that our community members with IDD are dangerous and unworthy of
housing in this city? I find it hard to believe you want that, so please do not give in to this
vocal minority group of troublemakers!
Finding a way to create housing in Cupertino to meet the needs of people with IDD has been
an enormous task. Some of us began working on it for over 25 years! However, within the
last 5 years or so, many Cupertino community members have united together to meet this
challenge. The feasible plan they have developed has involved the cooperative efforts of the
Housing Choices Coalition, the Cupertino Rotary, and Charities Housing Developers, who
together have formed a leading partnership. They have received additional help and expertise
from West Valley Community Services, several past Cupertino mayors and past city managers,
several city staff members, and many other Cupertino citizens. The incredibly unique plan that
has been developed is designed to create affordable housing well-needed by people with IDD
and or with similar economic status in Cupertino. Our Cupertino community has worked
together to do this!
Not only have these community members and groups found a way to make the project
affordable, but they have identified a site that will meet other needs of Mary Avenue Villas'
future residents as well, many of whom cannot drive and do not own cars. The villas will be
near bus routes, grocery stores, drug stores, Quinlin Center, the Cupertino library, parklands,
the senior center, West Valley Community Services, DeAnza Community College, and a bus
route to The College of Adaptive Arts, located at West Valley Community College. In addition,
many of the people living in the Mary Ave Villas will be able to receive services from West
Valley Community Services and or the San Andreas Regional Center via the Housing Choices
programs, the Independent Living Skill programs, or the Supported Living Services programs.
This community project will benefit the community at large by housing some of its most
economically deprived residents. Please do not allow the very vocal, self-centered members
of our community to use their false claims to delay this project while they continue to seek
a way to kill it.
As Cupertino City Council members, you have shown your support for the IDD community by
your recent presentation of awards to both the Parents Helping Parents and The Friends of
Children with Special Needs organizations, and by awarding approximately 4 million dollars
toward the community’s Mary Avenue Villas project. Our community has very much
appreciated this support! As a community, we are also counting on you to keep this project
moving forward in a timely fashion.
Thank you for your support!
Most sincerely,
Janet and Harold Van Zoeren
From:Jordan Clancy Behmke
To:Public Comments
Subject:Additional Objections To Mary Avenue Project
Date:Friday, December 12, 2025 11:11:55 AM
Attachments:December 12 2025 Objection to Mary Ave Cupertino Project 12 12 25 jcb.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, and Councilmembers:
Please note this item was recently changed on today's agenda to allow comment thus
this submitted slightly after the meeting.
Jordan C. Behmke, Esq.
Attorney at Law
Mosaic Law
6203 San Ignacio Avenue
Suite 110
San Jose, CA 95119
Phone and Text: (408) 987-6399
Fax: 408-987-6397
email: 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 6
December 12, 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 2
Special Meeting on December 12, 2025 at 9:00 a.m.
APN: 326-27-053 (the “Property”)
Dear Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, and Councilmembers:
Thank you for accepting my previous written and oral objections at the December 2, 2025 City Council
meeting on the Mary Avenue Project. I represent Garden Gate Community Neighbors (my “Clients”) and
file this objection on their behalf to the proposed Mary Avenue Villas project (the “Project”), located in
the Mary Avenue Right-of-Way, APN: 326-27-053 (the “Property”). While my Clients support the idea of
the Project (which is to provide affordable housing for the disabled), my Clients oppose this Project at this
site, for the reasons set forth below, and hereby request that the City vote no on this Project.
There are a couple of additional points I would like to highlight as the City Council considers voting on
continuing this project and potentially assigning someone to negotiate the sale or lease of the land.
This letter is submitted slightly late as the status of this item was only changed to allow comments early
this morning.
1.Negotiating the Sale or Lease of this Parcel Is Inappropriate at this time As The Right of Way
Issues Have Not Been Addressed
This should be done before a negotiator is appointed, as it will equip the negotiator with a precise
understanding of the parcel's boundaries, rights, and limitations—ensuring they can negotiate effectively
and transparently without overpromising or facing unforeseen obstacles that could derail the deal or
expose the City to legal risks.
Even the most skilled negotiator cannot succeed if placed in an untenable position, where the rights they
describe during negotiations do not align with what can ultimately be delivered. To prevent this, the City
must first complete the mandatory processes under Streets and Highways Code §8300 et seq., which
explicitly require public hearings and opportunities for public comment on any changes to rights of way.
Rushing to appoint a negotiator before fulfilling these steps not only violates procedural safeguards but
also undermines the integrity of the negotiation process itself.
This Project demands rigorous adherence to the City's own municipal code and applicable state laws
governing the vacation of public land (including the Surplus Land Act, Gov’t Code §§54220-54234),
alterations to rights of way (Streets and Highways Code §8300 et seq.), and the disposal of public
property (Brown Act). These changes involve public land, rights of way, and the potential sale or lease of
6203 San Ignacio Avenue, Suite 110, San Jose, Ca 95119
P: (408) 987-6399; jcb@mosaiclawusa.com
Page 2 of 6
City assets, making full compliance non-negotiable. Approving the Project or selecting a negotiator
prematurely reverses the logical sequence—putting the cart before the horse—and severely limits
meaningful public input, as the City would already be contractually committed, rendering subsequent
hearings perfunctory at best.
By prioritizing the completion of the right of way process, the City upholds transparency, protects
taxpayer interests, and maximizes the Project's long-term viability. Until these essential procedural
requirements are fully satisfied, my Clients strongly urge the City Council to vote no on proceeding
further, allowing time to conduct the necessary hearings, gather public feedback, and establish clear
parameters before any negotiation begins.
2. There are environmental risks to the disabled and the Community at this site which have not been
addressed by the City or the Applicant.
The site's documented contamination with hazardous substances renders it profoundly unsuitable for
development, particularly as a housing project targeted at individuals with disabilities, who are
disproportionately vulnerable to the insidious health effects of such toxins. Multiple expert reports confirm
elevated levels of lead—exceeding both Residential and Construction Worker Environmental Screening
Levels (ESLs)—along with arsenic above Construction Worker ESLs and detectable concentrations of
pesticides 4,4-DDE and 4,4-DDT. The Subsurface Investigation Report, prepared by Intertek PSI and dated
April 4 and 24, 2025 (collectively, the "Subsurface Investigation Report," attached as Exhibit A), explicitly
classifies the site's soil as hazardous waste under California standards, stating on page 8 that "the soil
represented by these samples would be classified as hazardous by the State of California." A subsequent
peer review Memorandum from Baseline Environmental Consulting, dated May 16, 2025 (the
"Memorandum," attached as Exhibit B), corroborates these findings, noting on page 2 that lead
concentrations surpass safe thresholds for both residential occupants and workers, while affirming the soil's
hazardous designation for disposal.
These contaminants pose severe, long-term risks that are amplified for people with disabilities, many of
whom already contend with compromised immune systems, neurological sensitivities, or other
vulnerabilities that heighten susceptibility to environmental toxins.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3033466/
Lead, for instance, has no safe exposure level and is notorious for causing permanent intellectual
disabilities, learning deficits, behavioral disorders, and IQ loss—even at low doses—through damage to the
brain and central nervous system.
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/lead-poisoning-and-health
Children and adults exposed to lead often experience exacerbated developmental disabilities, including
deficits in cognition, attention, memory, and executive function, with effects persisting into adulthood and
increasing the likelihood of lifelong impairments.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28257404/
Arsenic compounds this threat by inducing cognitive dysfunction, memory impairment, and intellectual
disabilities, with chronic exposure linked to reduced IQ, mental retardation, and a spectrum of
developmental anomalies encompassing physical, psychological, sensory, and speech impairments.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4321597/
6203 San Ignacio Avenue, Suite 110, San Jose, Ca 95119
P: (408) 987-6399; jcb@mosaiclawusa.com
Page 3 of 6
While they were present in smaller concentrations the pesticides 4,4-DDE and 4,4-DDT, persistent
breakdown products of banned insecticides, further endanger vulnerable groups by disrupting
neurodevelopment, impairing cognitive performance, and affecting the central nervous system, immune
function, and liver—potentially leading to increased infection susceptibility and chronic health adversities
in those with pre-existing conditions.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK590079/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11404404/
For individuals with disabilities, these risks are not abstract; compromised immune systems—prevalent in
many such populations—render them acutely susceptible to toxin-induced immunosuppression,
heightening vulnerability to infections, chronic inflammation, and even cancer.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8325494/
Heavy metals like lead and pesticides can directly impair white blood cell activity, disrupt hormonal
balance, and trigger autoimmune responses, transforming low-level exposures into cascading health crises
for those already managing fragile physiologies.
https://immusehealth.com/news/post/impact-environmental-toxins-immunity
The site's proximity to Highways 85 and 280 exacerbates this peril, as ongoing traffic emissions will likely
deposit additional airborne pollutants, including particulate matter and hydrocarbons, that accumulate in
soil and amplify toxin bioavailability—further straining residents' health and undermining any partial
remediation efforts.
The Memorandum underscores the inadequacy of superficial measures, recommending comprehensive
further testing and, at minimum, remedial actions such as soil capping and minimized excavation. Yet, as
detailed on page 3, these steps alone are insufficient without robust engineering controls, institutional
safeguards, and regulatory oversight to prevent exposure risks for future occupants. Critically, both reports
mandate the preparation of a Soil Management Plan (SMP) and Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan
(SSHSP) prior to redevelopment, alongside the Applicant's entry into a Remedial Action Agreement with
the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health to oversee remediation. The Subsurface
Investigation Report echoes this, emphasizing that "A SMP and a SSHSP should be prepared prior to site
redevelopment to mitigate exposure of construction workers to the lead and arsenic in the soil." Alarmingly,
none of these expert-recommended actions have been implemented, leaving construction workers,
neighboring residents, and future disabled occupants exposed to immediate and enduring hazards during
site disturbance and long-term habitation.
Given the project's emphasis on housing for people with disabilities—a group inherently more at risk from
environmental toxins due to immunological and physiological vulnerabilities—the City must exercise
utmost caution and mandate full compliance with these safeguards.
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/arsenic
Approving the lease and disposition agreement without first engaging the Department of Environmental
Health to evaluate remediation feasibility for sensitive residential use would be irresponsible, potentially
condemning residents to avoidable health deterioration. An environmental action plan must also address
highway-adjacent pollutant accumulation to ensure holistic protection. Since the Applicant has failed to
initiate these vital steps, my Clients implore the City to reject the agreement outright. At the very least,
6203 San Ignacio Avenue, Suite 110, San Jose, Ca 95119
P: (408) 987-6399; jcb@mosaiclawusa.com
Page 4 of 6
postpone the decision and direct the Applicant to secure the required Remedial Action Agreement, thereby
prioritizing public health over expediency and safeguarding this vulnerable community from preventable
harm.
The City has a solemn duty—both moral and legal—to ensure that housing intended for individuals with
disabilities is not only built on land that is demonstrably safe. Placing this vulnerable population on a site
already classified as California hazardous waste, where lead levels exceed residential screening thresholds
and remediation remains incomplete and unapproved, is the opposite of protective stewardship. Rather
than force a compromised project forward on contaminated ground, the responsible path is to reject the
current lease and disposition agreement and immediately redirect efforts toward identifying and securing
an alternative, uncontaminated parcel elsewhere in Cupertino. Suitable vacant or underutilized sites exist
within the City’s inventory that do not require multi-year hazardous-waste oversight, soil export as
hazardous material, or perpetual institutional controls. Prioritizing a clean site would allow the project to
deliver truly affordable, accessible housing to disabled residents without exposing them to lifelong health
risks, without burdening taxpayers with future remediation liabilities, and without undermining public
trust. The needs of Cupertino’s disabled community deserve a location that safeguards their health from
day one—not one that gambles with it.
3. There is a significant impact to traffic in the community which can lead to safety issues and a
reduced quality of life for its existing residents.
The City cannot responsibly approve this Project when the Transportation Assessment we are relying
on—prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants and submitted November 13, 2025 (attached as
Exhibit C)—is fundamentally inaccurate, outdated, and materially incomplete. That document entirely
fails to analyze the imminent and dramatic change in parking behavior that will occur on January 6, 2026,
when De Anza College eliminates free visitor parking and begins charging for all spaces (see
https://www.deanza.edu/parking/#oneday and the College’s official announcement at
https://www.instagram.com/p/DPsXkeTERd-/). For decades, Mary Avenue and surrounding residential
streets have served as the primary overflow parking area for thousands of De Anza students, staff, and
visitors who currently park for free on campus. Once paid parking is enforced, the a non-negligible
number of those vehicles will be displaced directly onto Mary Avenue and adjacent neighborhood
streets—exactly the location where the Project now proposes to narrow the roadway, shrink the bike lane,
and eliminate existing on-street parking spaces.
Although the Transportation Assessment was finalized while this policy change was publicly confirmed,
it contains no modeling, no data, and no mitigation measures whatsoever for the thousands of additional
vehicles that will soon compete for the very parking and roadway capacity the Project intends to remove.
The Assessment’s brief mention of “festival days” at De Anza is irrelevant and grossly inadequate; the
new paid-parking regime will create festival-level congestion every single weekday and weekend alike.
The result will potentially be chronic gridlock, illegal parking on sidewalks and lawns, blocked
driveways, compromised emergency-vehicle access, and a sharply elevated risk of pedestrian and cyclist
collisions—precisely in a neighborhood that is about to add dozens of new residents, many of whom rely
on wheelchairs, walkers, or other mobility aids.
Approving the lease or sale of the lot on the strength of a traffic study that is already demonstrably
obsolete would be indefensible. It would expose the City to legitimate claims of arbitrary and capricious
decision-making, violate basic principles of CEQA and the City’s own General Plan circulation policies,
and place existing residents and future disabled tenants in harm’s way. My clients therefore urge the
Council to reject the Project outright until a revised, post-January 2026 traffic impact analysis—
6203 San Ignacio Avenue, Suite 110, San Jose, Ca 95119
P: (408) 987-6399; jcb@mosaiclawusa.com
Page 5 of 6
incorporating actual observed parking displacement from the new De Anza policy—has been prepared,
publicly circulated, and independently peer-reviewed. Anything less is not caution; it is recklessness.
Residents who use wheelchairs, power scooters, or have severe mobility, visual, or cognitive impairments
typically require far more frequent paratransit shuttles (such as VTA ACCESS and Outreach), private
accessible vans, non-emergency medical transport, ride-hailing vehicles equipped with ramps, and
delivery services for groceries, medical supplies, and oxygen tanks. Each of these vehicles requires
extended curbside dwell time—often 10–20 minutes or more—to safely load and unload passengers and
equipment. The Project’s proposal to eliminate existing on-street parking and narrow Mary Avenue will
leave zero legal space for these essential vehicles can use without blocking travel lanes, bike lanes, or
neighboring driveways.
4. We Again Urge the City to Consider Any Appearance of Self-Dealing and Recuse Themselves if
Necessary
Finally, out of an abundance of caution and to avoid the appearance of impropriety and self-dealing, council
members who are part of the Rotary Association, 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.
5. Council member should vote No on this Project
While affordable housing with reserved spaces for the disabled is a celebrated project for the City, this
Project at this site is not the right place for this neighborhood. The City must vote no on approving the
lease and disposition agreement with the Applicant. The City and the Applicant should find a better site
with less impact to the health and safety of neighbors, construction workers, and its future residences and
a site that improves, not hurts, the quality of life of its surrounding neighborhood.
If the City is not willing to vote no at this time, then the City must delay the vote at this meeting and set a
future meeting and require in the interim that the Applicant:
1. Enter into a Remedial Action Agreement with the Department of Environmental Health;
2. Conduct a further traffic assessment to determine the impact to traffic and parking on this street
due to incoming parking changes at De Anza College
3. Consider finding an alternative and safer site for this project.
Additionally, in the interim, the City must initiate the procedural requirements for vacationing the right of
way and public land, and disposition of public land so that these requirements are met and open for public
comment before the Project is approved. The City must also investigate whether there is a better suited
site in the City that won't pose an environmental danger to its constituents or decrease the quality of life
of the neighborhood by increasing traffic and reducing the safety.
All of this must be completed before we consider appointing a negotiator to sell or lease this parcel.
Based on the foregoing, my Clients respectfully and vehemently urge the councilmembers to vote no or
implement an alternative action plan as set forth above.
6203 San Ignacio Avenue, Suite 110, San Jose, Ca 95119
P: (408) 987-6399; jcb@mosaiclawusa.com
Page 6 of 6
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