HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 03-03-2026 Item No. 8 Vacating a Portion of Public Right-of-Way on Mary Avenue_Written CommunicationsCC 3-3-2026
Vacating a Portion of
Public Right -of -Way on
Mary Avenue
Written Communications
From: Mark Zavislak
To: Public Comments
Date: Monday, March 2, 2026 3:10:13 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council Members,
In order to pass the resolution vacating a portion of Mary Avenue (APN 326-27-053), you
must make a finding that such portion is "unnecessary" for present use as well as prospective
use. However, as a resident of the neighborhood, I drive over that portion of the road several
times a day, as do countless other individuals. Cars are literally driving over Parcel 1 as you
consider this resolution. While long-term prospective use is under vigorous debate, presen use
is not. The proposed portion to be vacated is currently very much necessary for present use as
an active, integrated part of the traffic network whose removal cannot be safely evaluated on
paper.
Until such time as the street is reconfigured to entirely remove that portion of Mary Avenue
from active public use, you have no choice but to vote no on this resolution.
The resulting impacts after reconfiguration will be easier to understand, and all residents and
other road users will be fully informed about whether to make the change permanent.
Sincerely,
Mark
From: Walter Li
To: City Council; Tina Ka000r; City Clerk; Luke Connolly; Benjamin Fu; Public Comments
Cc: Lina; Shaun Fong; Brian Avery; Roberta Murai
Subject: Strong Objection to the Vacation of Mary Ave
Date: Sunday, February 22, 2026 2:47:32 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below in written communications for the upcoming city council meeting.
As a long time Cupertino resident (33+ years), I am very surprised by the poor attitude,
misguided actions and irresponsiveness of Cupertino City towards us, the residents who
elected them. Despite
... showing to the City Council that it has violated various city codes and state laws with
regards to vacation of Mary Ave. Right -of -Way, you insist on moving forward. You should stop
immediately and think about the consequences of your actions.
... hearing from ex -mayor Liang Chao and council member Ray Wang in recent council
meeting, publicly stating that they are very disappointed with their own city staff for insisting
on following the current path of vacation with ROW, and not providing alternatives.
... Cupertino so far, has not provided and shown to the residents of Cupertino any evidence
of why they do not have to adhere to ALL points of the City General Plan. Following some
parts of the General Plan is Not the same as following the General Plan.
Cupertino so far, has not provided clear and transparent evidence why ROW on Mary Ave
is not needed by residents, and can be vacated.
... Mary Ave Villas Project as proposed includes less parking spaces than legally required. Low
income and IDD residents have to live on housing built on grounds contaminated by lead and
chemicals, as well as living on housing with reduced offset spacing than legally required from
freeways.
I therefore urge the Council to not go through with the vacation process. Work with the
residents, not non city -associated organizations. It is us, Cupertino residents who elect and
provide payroll to you.
Sincerely
Walter Li
From: Santosh Rao
To: City Council; Floy Andrews; City Attorney"s Office; Tina Ka000r; Luke Connolly; City Clerk; Public Comments;
Chad Mosley
Subject: Informational Memo Clarifying Procedural Sequence in Right -of -Way Vacation and Surplus Land Processes
Date: Thursday, February 26, 2026 7:48:53 AM
Attachments: ontario-sla-nov-061825.odf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below in written communications for items not on the agenda for the
upcoming State of the City council meeting today. In addition please include as written
communications for the next upcoming city council meeting.
[Writing on behalf of myself only as Cupertino resident]
Subject: Request for Informational Memo Clarifying Procedural Sequence in Right -of -Way
Vacation and Surplus Land Processes
Dear Mayor Moore, City Manager Kapoor, Attorney Andrews, and Honorable Cupertino
City Council Members,
I am writing to respectfully request that the City publish an informational memorandum
clarifying the City's interpretation and procedural rationale regarding the sequencing of steps
involved in actions such as: vacation of public right-of-way, deeming of land as surplus,
notification to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), issuance of
an RFP, bid evaluation, selection of a proposal, or determination that a property is surplus -
exempt.
Specifically, I request that the memo address why the City believes it is not required under
state or local law to maintain sequentiality in these steps, and that it describe the criteria used
to determine surplus exemption and related procedural pathways.
In addition, I would appreciate clarification on how the City Council determined and signed
findings of General Plan conformance prior to the Planning Commission conducting its own
hearing on that matter. It would be helpful for residents and stakeholders to understand the
legal and procedural basis for Council's authority to certify such conformance before the
Commission's review occurred.
To avoid future misunderstandings and ensure transparency, I ask that this informational
memo include a detailed explanation and rebuttal of any suggestions of procedural
noncompliance with state -defined sequential steps.
Note that deeming land as exempt surplus is a very narrowly defined qualification criteria.
Please publish the state defined qualification criteria for exempt surplus and why the city
believes it qualifies to deem this land as exempt surplus. Further single parry negotiation must
not occur prior to deeming land as exempt surplus. A RFP must not occur on public right of
way land before the city has heard evidence that the land can be vacated and heard from the
community. Running a RFP prior to these steps indicated pre -biased positions by the city and
lack of a fair adjudication of the process to vacate, process to deem surplus, process to deem
exempt surplus as the city already ran a RFP and enacted next steps with a single party.
Council is expected to take no positions ahead of council hearings whereas the actions of this
RFP process indicate council assumes it is already acceptable to vacate land, deem surplus or
exempt surplus, assumes no interest from other HCD notification list parties and gives
preference unduly to a single party prior to any of those steps. If the RFP has a single bidder
the RFP must be rerun.
If the City identifies any curative measures that may be appropriate, I urge that they be
implemented proactively to maintain compliance and public confidence.
Given the City's fiscal constraints, prudence would suggest minimizing exposure to potential
litigation costs through full procedural transparency and adherence to defined statutory
processes. I believe that publishing such a memo will help reaffirm the public's trust in the
City's governance and procedural integrity.
Thank you for your attention to this request and for your continued service to the community.
I look forward to your response and the City's informational clarification on these important
matters.
Sincerely,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident)
Begin forwarded message:
On Tuesday, December 2, 2025, 11:46 PM, Santosh Rao <santo_a rao@yahoo.com> wrote:
[Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident, taxpayer, voter]
Dear City Clerk,
Please include this letter in written communications for agenda item 12 for
12/2/25 council meeting and for the next upcoming council meeting.
Subject: Request to Halt Negotiations or Disposition until SLA Process Is
Completed in Accordance with 2025 HCD Precedent
Dear Mayor Chao, Vice -Mayor Moore, Council Members, Attorney Andrews,
CAO, CM Kapoor,
Please note the precedent in the below and attached HCD notice of violation to
the city of Ontario dated June 18 2025. The precedent directly applies to the
actions in progress currently in the city of Cupertino attempting to move forward
with appointing a negotiator. take steps towards disposition and engaging in
exclusive negotiations with a pre -determined buyer without first completing the
SLA process and required notices and noticing period.
I write to respectfully urge the Council to pause any efforts to approve a
negotiator, enter into negotiation, or take any steps toward disposition or sale
of public land until the city has fully satisfied the notice, findings, and
waiting -period requirements of the Surplus Land Act (SLA), including providing
required documentation to HCD and observing the legally mandated
notice/negotiation windows.
Background — Relevant Legal Obligation
Under the SLA (Gov. Code §§ 54220-54234), a local agency must first declare
property "surplus" (not needed for public use), adopt a resolution to that effect,
and then issue a formal Notice of Availability (NOA) to: (1) HCD; (2) any local
public entities within the jurisdiction; and (3) developers on HCD's list of those
interested in surplus public land for affordable housing. California Housing
Dept.+213anning, CA+2 After that NOA is issued, the city must allow a minimum
statutory waiting period (60 days for responses) and, if any eligible entities
respond, a mandated 90-day good -faith negotiation period before disposing of the
land. Banning; CA+2California Housing Dept.+2
Furthermore, under recent amendments to the SLA (2024), if a local agency
receives a Notice of Violation (NOV) from HCD for noncompliance, the agency
is required to hold an open public meeting to evaluate the NOV and the agency
may not proceed with any disposal until that process is complete. Allen Matkins -
Allen Matkins+2California Housing Dept.+2
Precedent — HCD's 2025 Finding Against City of Ontario
In a September 22, 2025 Follow -Up Notice of Violation addressed to Ontario's
City Manager, HCD found that Ontario had violated the SLA by disposing of a
2.368-acre parcel (APN 0218-111-12-0000) without first declaring the land
surplus and without issuing the required notices. California Housing Dent.+l
HCD concluded that the disposition and the fact that the City had
"exclusively negotiated with the Developer" prior to complying with SLA
requirements —constituted a clear SLA violation. California Housing
Dent.+l HCD also invoked applicable statutory penalties under Gov. Code
§ 54230.5 for the first-time violation (30 % of the disposition value) and warned
that future violations would trigger even higher penalties (50 % of the disposition
value). California Housing Dept.+1
The Ontario case demonstrates that HCD is actively enforcing SLA compliance
including penalizing cities that attempt to circumvent the required surplus -land
process by negotiating in advance with a favored developer, or disposing of land
without the required surplus declaration and notice.
Risk of Noncompliance and Fiscal/Legal Consequences
Given the recent Ontario finding:
• Proceeding with negotiations, designating a "negotiator," or otherwise
taking substantive steps toward disposition before completing the full SLA
process would risk very likely violation of state law.
• Noncompliance may expose the City to substantial financial penalties (per
SLA enforcement provisions) and reputational risk.
• Such action may also frustrate the primary public -purpose objective of the
SLA: to give first priority to affordable -housing proponents or other public
entities, rather than to private developers selected in advance.
Pause and Complete SLA Process Before Any Further Action
In light of the above, I respectfully request that the Council adopt a temporary
moratorium on any of the following steps until the SLA-required process has been
fully observed and documented, and until any required findings and waiting
periods have been completed:
• Appointment of a negotiator or negotiation team
• Entering into or approving formal negotiations with any private developer
• Any pre -disposition activity regarding sale or lease of the land (including
drafting term sheets, letters of intent, exclusivity agreements, or similar)
• Any vote toward approval of disposition, transfer, or sale of the land
At minimum, the city should first:
1. Declare the parcel "surplus" or exempt surplus after written findings with
evidence via a formal Council resolution;
2. Issue a NOA to HCD, local public entities, and certified developers per
SLA requirements;
3. Observe the 60-day notice period, await any responses, and if responses are
received allow full 90-day good -faith negotiations;
4. Submit documentation of the notice and negotiation process, and any
recorded restrictions or covenants, to HCD for review per SLA
guidelines. California Housing Dept.+213anning, CA+2
Conclusion
The state's recent 2025 decision in the Ontario case makes clear that SLA
compliance is no longer optional, and that state enforcement can and will
penalize cities that attempt to circumvent the process.
Given the potential legal and financial risks, and the public's interest in
transparent, fair, and affordable -housing —oriented land disposition, I strongly urge
the Council to suspend any further steps toward negotiation or sale until full
compliance with SLA has been completed and documented.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Respectfully,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident, taxpayer,
voter)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
651 Bannon Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.4ov
June 18, 2025
Scott Ochoa, City Manager
City of Ontario
303 E. B Street
Ontario, CA 91764
SENT VIA EMAIL TO: sochoa(a)-ontarioca.gov
Dear Scott Ochoa:
RE: City of Ontario's Surplus Land Disposition of a 2.368-Acre Portion of the
Property Located at the Southeast Corner of East Riverside Drive and
Ontario Avenue (APN 0218-111-12-0000) — Notice of Violation
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) hereby
issues this Notice of Violation, pursuant to Government Code sections 54230.5, 65585,
and 65585.1, to the City of Ontario (City) regarding the City's disposition of a 2.368-acre
portion of the property located at the southeast corner of East Riverside Drive and
Ontario Avenue in the City of Ontario, with Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 0218-111-
12-0000 (Property).
Pursuant to Government Code section 65585.1, subdivision (a), HCD must notify a local
agency if it finds that the local agency is in violation of the Surplus Land Act (SLA), and
HCD may notify the California Office of the Attorney General that a local agency is in
violation of the SLA.
The City has 60 days from receipt of this letter to cure or correct the violations noted
herein.' If the City does not cure or correct all such violations by August 18, 2025, a
penalty will be assessed to the City equal to 30 percent of the disposition value.2 In the
event of a sale, the disposition value is the greater of the final sale price of the land or
the fair market value of the surplus land at the time of the sale.3 HCD may also pursue
additional remedies authorized under Government Code sections 65585 and 65585.1.
1 Gov. Code, § 54230.5, subd. (a)(1).
2 Ibid.
3 Gov. Code, § 54230.5, subd. (a)(2).
SLA0001613
Scott Ochoa, City Manager
Page 2
Background
HCD initially received a Notice of Alleged Violation (enclosed) pursuant to Section 502
of the SLA Guidelines on March 14, 2025, from UNITE HERE Local 11 (Local 11)
regarding the City's approval of a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) for
sale of the Property. Local 11 provided prior correspondence, including a letter to the
City requesting information on how the action complied with the SLA, prior to the City
Council taking action to authorize the sale and disposition of the Property at a public
meeting on February 18, 2025.
On March 21, 2025, HCD requested a meeting with the City to discuss the alleged
violations. On April 8, 2025, HCD met with City staff, who asserted that disposition was
undertaken pursuant to the Economic Opportunity Law.4 The City is also in the process
of developing this Property in addition to 190 acres of adjacent City -owned lands for the
Ontario Regional Sports Complex. The City shared during the conversation that close of
escrow and disposition of the Property to Ontario Ranch Hotels, LLC (Developer) was
completed on April 4, 2025.
On April 10, 2025, the City provided HCD documentation regarding the disposition,
which includes the City Council's action to approve the DDA between the City and the
Developer at a public meeting on February 18, 2025. The documentation includes a
resolution describing the City's "exclusive negotiations" with the Developer for sale and
development of the Property as a "luxury 5-star hotel" with 227 guest rooms. The terms
and conditions of the DDA also require the Developer to convey to the City
approximately 25,489 square feet area of easements for right-of-way and temporary
construction purposes. While the documentation included a summary report of written
findings claiming that the disposition met the statutory requirements of the Economic
Opportunity Law, no such findings or statements were made with respect to meeting the
statutory requirements of the SLA. The City further confirmed details of the disposition
during a follow-up conversation with HCD on May 5, 2025 and by providing the close of
escrow documentation on May 13, 2025. The additional documentation notes an
approximate net payment of $979,219.51 to the City, based upon the easements value
and closing costs being credited against the Property's fair market value.
Analysis
Based on a review and analysis of the City's documentation and subsequent disposition
of the Property, HCD finds that the City violated the SLA, as discussed below.
4 Gov. Code, § 52201.
SLA0001613
Scott Ochoa, City Manager
Page 3
The City Did Not Make the Land Available Pursuant to the SLA
Government Code section 54221, subdivision (b)(1) states:
"`Surplus land' means land owned in fee simple by any local agency for
which the local agency's governing body takes formal action in a regular public
meeting declaring that the land is surplus and is not necessary for the agency's
use. Land shall be declared either `surplus land' or `exempt surplus land,'
as supported by written findings, before a local agency may take any action
to dispose of it consistent with an agency's policies or procedures. A local
agency, on an annual basis, may declare multiple parcels as `surplus land' or
`exempt surplus land."' (Emphasis added.)
In addition, Government Code section 54222 requires the following:
"[A]ny local agency disposing of surplus land... shall send, before disposing of
that property or participating in negotiations to dispose of that property
with a prospective transferee, a written notice of availability of the property
to all of the following: (a)(1) A written notice of availability for developing low -
and moderate -income housing shall be sent to any local public entity, as
defined in Section 50079 of the Health and Safety Code, that has jurisdiction
where the surplus land is located. Housing sponsors, as defined by Section
50074 of the Health and Safety Code, that have notified the Department of
Housing and Community Development of their interest in surplus land shall be
sent a notice of availability for the purpose of developing low- and moderate -
income housing. All notices shall be sent by electronic mail, or by certified mail,
and shall include the location and a description of the property." (Emphasis
added.)
Government Code section 54230.5, subdivision (b)(1) further states:
"Before agreeing to terms for the disposition of surplus land, a local
agency shall provide to the Department of Housing and Community
Development a description of the notices of availability sent, and
negotiations conducted with any responding entities, in regard to the
disposal of the parcel of surplus land and a copy of any restrictions to be
recorded against the property pursuant to Section 54222.5, 54233, or 54233.5,
whichever is applicable, in a form prescribed by the Department of Housing and
Community Development." (Emphasis added.)
The City's approval of a DDA between the City and the Developer for sale and
development of the Property as a hotel on February 18, 2025, and close of escrow on
SLA0001613
Scott Ochoa, City Manager
Page 4
April 4, 2025, qualify as a disposition of surplus land under the SLA. When the Property
qualifies as surplus land, then the City must send notices of availability (NOA) for
developing low- and moderate -income housing to all entities required under
Government Code section 54222 prior to disposing of or participating in negotiations to
dispose of the Property. The City must also provide to HCD a description of the NOAs
sent and negotiations conducted with any of the responding entities above, in addition
to a copy of any restrictions to be recorded against the property, pursuant to the above
requirements. Similarly, the SLA also requires that exempt surplus land determinations
be supported by written findings and documentation. All local agency reporting
requirements for surplus land and exempt surplus land are described further in Section
400 of the SLA Guidelines.5
However, the City has not provided any such documentation to HCD regarding this
transaction prior to exclusively negotiating with the Developer, entering into a
subsequent DDA with the Developer, and closing escrow. The documentation provided
to date, including the public meeting held on February 18, 2025, makes no reference of
the Property as surplus land or exempt surplus land and does not include any written
findings pursuant to the SLA. Thus, the City has not complied with these key provisions
of the SLA prior to disposing of the Property.
Economic Opportunity Law Does Not Relieve the City of SLA Requirements
During the meeting on April 8, 2025, the City claimed that it met statutory requirements
by disposing of the Property under the Economic Opportunity Law, or Government
Code section 52201. The City's documentation includes written findings, stating that the
disposition will "(i) [strengthen] the City's land use and social structure, (ii) [alleviate]
economic and physical blight on the Property and in the surrounding community, (iii)
generate property tax revenue, (iv) produce new jobs, (v) stimulate economic vitality
and (vi) continue to inspire additional investment within the Ontario Sports Empire."
The Economic Opportunity Law, in relevant part, states that "[a] city, county, or city and
county may sell or lease property to create an economic opportunity.116 (Emphasis
added.) The use of the word "may," instead of "shall," indicates that the City is not
required to utilize the Economic Opportunity statutes, whereas the SLA includes
mandatory requirements for local agencies, stating: "Land shall be declared either
`surplus land' or `exempt surplus land,' as supported by written findings, before a local
5 Updated Surplus Land Act Guidelines available at
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/final-updated-surplus-land-
act-guidelines-2024.pdf.
6 Gov. Code, § 52201, subd. (a)(1).
SLA0001613
Scott Ochoa, City Manager
Page 5
agency may take any action to dispose of it consistent with an agency's policies or
procedures."' (Emphasis added).
Notably, the City was aware of HCD's position on this precise issue before finalizing the
disposition of the Property. Local 11's March 14, 2025 Notice of Alleged Violation, which
was provided to the City, references a similar letter that HCD issued to the City of
Moreno Valley.$ As Local 11 points out, "HCD rejected the claims that the SLA conflicts
with the Economic Opportunity Law...." HCD reached out to the City just a week later,
on March 21, 2025, but the City disposed of the Property on April 4, 2025,just days
before meeting with HCD on April 8, 2025. The City should have paused and consulted
with HCD upon receipt of Local 11's letter and again when HCD reached out to
schedule a meeting. Instead, the City moved forward with the disposition.
Further, HCD is not aware of, nor has the City provided, any statutory or decisional
authorities standing for the proposition that disposition of the Property under Economic
Opportunity Law excuses or exempts the City from complying with SLA requirements.
As such, HCD finds that disposition of the Property and any surplus land under the
Economic Opportunity Law is in violation of the SLA.
Conclusion and Next Steps
Based on the information provided, HCD finds that the City's disposition of the Property
is in violation of the SLA because the City failed to make the surplus land available for
affordable housing, and the City has not provided any documentation demonstrating
compliance with, or exemption from, the SLA before disposing of the Property. The City
further violated the SLA by exclusively negotiating with the Developer and by
subsequently moving forward with a disposition and sale of the Property.
As discussed above, under Government Code section 542320.5, subdivision (a)(1), the
City has 60 days following receipt of this letter, or August 18, 2025, to cure or correct
the violations noted herein, or it will be assessed a penalty equal to 30 percent of the
disposition value. The City may have few options to cure or correct the violations, and
HCD invites the City to discuss further. Pursuant to Section 502 of the SLA Guidelines,
HCD has informed Local 11 of the violations noted herein.
Furthermore, should the City proceed to dispose of additional surplus land or exempt
surplus land that would constitute subsequent violations of the SLA, including under the
Economic Opportunity Law, the City will be assessed a penalty equal to 50 percent of
the applicable disposition values.9
' Gov. Code, § 54221, subd. (b)(1).
8 City of Moreno Valley Notice of Violation available at
httDS://www.hcd.ca.aov/sites/default/files/docs/Dlannina-and-communitv/HAU/moreno-vallev-nov-
101823.pdf.
9 Gov. Code, § 54230.5, subd. (a)(1).
SLA0001613
Scott Ochoa, City Manager
Page 6
If the City or its representatives have any questions or need additional technical
assistance regarding the SLA, please contact Linda Ly, Senior Housing Policy
Specialist, at Linda. Ly(o)-hcd.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
David Zisser
Assistant Deputy Director
Local Government Relations and Accountability
Enclosure
cc: Jennifer McLain Hiramoto, Executive Director, Economic Development Agency
Rudy Zeledon, Executive Director, Community Development Agency
Ruben Duran, City Attorney, Best Best & Krieger LLP
SLA0001613
LAW OFFICE OFJORDAN R. SISSON
LAND USE, ENVIRONMENTAL & MUNICIPAL LAW
3993 Orange Street, Suite 201 Office: (951) 405-8127 jordan@irsissonlaw.com
Riverside, CA 92501 Direct: (951) 542-2735 www.irsissonlaw.com
March 14, 2025
VIA U.S. MAIL, EMAIL & ONLINE PORTAL: https://calhcd.service-
now.com/csp?id=sc_cat_item&sys_id=91e1968ac31955109a97251ce0013105
Department of Housing and Community Development (HAUPortal@hcd.ca.gov)
Division of Housing Policy Development
Housing Accountability Unit
651 Bannon Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95811
RE: POTENTIAL VIOLATION OF SURPLUS LAND ACT;
ITEM 12, CITY OF ONTARIO CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 18, 2025;
DDA FOR 2.3-ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED AT E. RIVERSIDE DR./VINEYARD AVE.
Dear Housing Accountability & Enforcement Unit ("HAU"):
On behalf of UNITE HERE Local 11 ("Local 11"), this office respectfully writes to the
California Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD") requesting its
investigation of a potential violation of the Surplus Land Act (Gov. Code §§ 54220-54234) ("SLA")'
involving the City of Ontario ("City") disposition of a 2.368-acre property located at the corner of
East Riverside Drive and Vineyard Avenue (i.e., APN 0218-111-12-0000) ("Property").
On February 18, 2025, the City Council approved a Disposition and Development Agreement
("DDA") for the sale of the City -owned Property to Ontario Ranch Hotels, LLC ("Developer'), citing
the Economic Opportunity Law (Gov. Code §§ 52200-52201).2 Before the City approved the DDA,
Local 11 submitted written and verbal comments raising questions about whether the City
complied with the SLA. (See Local 11 letter dated February 18, 2025 [attached hereto].) As raised in
these comments, Local 11's research has not found any confirmation that the Property was first
made available to housing sponsors via a written notice of availability ("NOA"). (See e.g., Gov. Code
§ 54222; HCD SLA Guidelines § 201.) Nor has Local 11's research found any confirmation that the
City made appropriate exempt surplus land findings during a regular public meeting. (See e.g., Gov.
Code § 54221(b)(1); SLA Guidelines §§ 103(c), 400(e).) These types of SLA issues, if verified, have
been the subject of Notice of Violations ("NOV(s)") issued by HCD for other jurisdictions, including
1 Inclusive of SLA Guidelines (8/1/24) https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-
community/final-updated-surplus-land-act-guidelines-2024.pdf.
Z See City Council Agenda (2/18/25) Agenda, Item 12, https://granicus_production_attachments.s3.
amazonaws.com/ontarioca/8blc3laa587d3d63597574d77713d4830.pdf; Id., Agenda Report,
https://d2kbkoa27fdvtw.cloudfront.net/ontarioca/ccfc6d37ldb4ae6a268fdO28108a65OcO.pdf; Id.,
Resolution, https://Iegistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/
3152722/PH_13_Ontario_Ranch_Hotels_DDA_02_RESO_RM.pdf, Id., Summary Report, https://legistarweb-
production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/3096019/Ontario_Ranch_Hotels_LLC_52201_Sum
mary_Report_ED_Opp_03.pdf.
Notice of Potential Violation RE. City of Ontario (APN 0218111120000)
March 14, 2025
Page 2 of 2
an NOV issued to the City of Moreno Valley, where HCD rejected the claims that the SLA conflicts
with Economic Opportunity Law (Gov. Code §52200-52203).3
The City approved the DDA over objections made by the public, including Local 11's request
that the City stay its action until after seeking technical advice from HCD. To date, we have yet to
receive any legally sufficient explanation from the City of whether and how the City's DDA approval
has complied with the SLA requirements to make land available for housing development or
declared it properly exempt. Local 11 supports housing laws intended to promote genuine housing,
particularly affordable housing projects. Therefore. Local 11 respectfully requests that HCD review
our attached comment letter and investigate whether the QV s approval of the DDA complied with the
SLA and HCD Guidelines.
We thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter. Please do not hesitate to
contact me directly if you have any questions regarding this matter.
n
Jordon R. Sisson, Esq.
Aq> ojney for UNIT ERE Local 11
ATTACHMENT: UNITE HERE Local 11 Letter (2/18/24)
CC: (email only)
Sheila Mautz, City Clerk (SMautz@ontarioca.gov)
Scott Ochoa, City Manager (sochoa@ontarioca.gov)
Jennifer McLain Hiramoto, Exec. Director Econ. Dev. (JHiramoto@ontarioca.gov)
3 City of Moreno Valley (10/18/2023) Notice of Violation RE Northwest Corner of Alessandro Boulevard and
Nason Street, https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/moreno-
valley-nov-101823.pdf; see also San Bernardino (5/24/2023) Notice of Violation RE 295 Carousel Mall,
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/ sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/San-Bernardino-Carousel-
Mall-Follow-Up-Letter-052423.pdf, Roseville (12/4/2023) Notice of Violation RE 6382 Phillip Road,
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/ default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/roseville-nov-sla-
120423.pdf; Anaheim (12/8/21) Notice of Violation RE 2000 East Gene Autry Way,
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/anaheim-surplus-land-act-
nov-120821.pdf.
LAW OFFICE OFJORDAN R. SISSON
LAND USE, ENVIRONMENTAL & MUNICIPAL LAW
3993 Orange Street, Suite 201 Office: (951) 405-8127 jordan@irsissonlaw.com
Riverside, CA 92501 Direct: (951) 542-2735 www.irsissonlaw.com
February 18, 2025
VIA EMAIL:
City Council, City of Ontario
303 East B Street, Ontario, CA 91764
publiccomments@ontarioca.gov
RE: Item 12, City Council Meeting February 18, 2025;
Disposition and Development Agreement for Land Sale and 227-Room Hotel;
UNITE HERE Local 11 Comments
Dear Mayor Leon and Honorable City Councilmembers:
On behalf of UNITE HERE Local 11 ("Local 11"), this office respectfully provides the
following comments' to the City of Ontario ("City") regarding the proposed Disposition and
Development Agreement ("DDA") between the City and Ontario Ranch Hotels, LLC ("Developer").
The DDA would allow for the sale of a 2.368-acre City -owned property located at the corner of East
Riverside Drive and Vineyard Avenue (i.e., APN 0218-111-12-0000) ("Site" or "Property") in
anticipation of a 227-room, 5-star luxury hotel (`Project"). According to the staff report for the
above -referenced item,z the Project was considered in the Ontario Regional Sports Complex
("ORSC") Environmental Impact Report (i.e., SCH No. 2023110328) ("EIR"),3 which was certified
and approved by the City Council on July 16, 2024. (Agenda Report, p. 2.)
Upon review of the relevant documents, Local 11 has several concerns with the DDA,
including several live issues with the DDA and the proposed 227-room hotel's compliance with the
Surplus Land Act ("SLA"), the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"),4 and the City's zoning
code. As further explained below, it is unclear if the City has complied with the SLA requirement to
make land available for housing development or declared it properly exempt. Additionally, it seems
that the prior EIR only considered a 100-room hotel in a different location. So too, the significantly
larger hotel is likely to exacerbate vehicle miles traveled ("VMT") and associated greenhouse gas
("GHG") impacts, which could be further mitigated through feasible mitigation measures not
considered. Furthermore, the staff report fails to provide and/or explain critical information about
key financial aspects of the DDA or explain why the City does not require a hotel -specific
conditional use permit ("CUP") at this time, as required under the City's zoning code.
For these reasons, Local 11 respectfully asks the City to stay action on the DDA until all SLA
requirements have been satisfied, a CEQA-compliant review has been conducted, a hotel -specific
mandatory commuter trip reduction program is added, and there is an opportunity for the public to
vet key financial studies associated with the DDA along with all entitlements for the hotel Project.
1 Herein, page citations are either the stated pagination (i.e., "p. #") or PDF-page location (i.e., "PDF p. #").
2 Inclusive of the "Agenda Report" dated 2/18/25, "Summary Report" regarding the DDA, "Exhibit A" Property
view, DDA, and the proposed "DDA Resolution".
3 Inclusive of the Draft EIR ("DEIR"), Final EIR ("FEIR"), and Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Program
("MMRP").
4 Including "CEQA Guidelines" codified at 14 Cal. Code. Regs. § 15000 et seq.
Council Comments RE: Ontario Ranch Hotels, LLC DDA
February 18, 2025
Page 2 of 7
LOCAL 11'S STANDING
Local 11 represents more than 25,000 workers employed in hotels, restaurants, airports,
sports arenas, and convention centers throughout Southern California and Phoenix —including
approximately 450 members who live and/or work in Ontario. The union has a First Amendment
right to petition public officials in connection with matters of public concern, including compliance
with applicable zoning rules and CEQA, just as developers, other community organizations, and
individual residents do. Protecting its members' interest in the environment, including advocating
for the environmental sustainability of development projects and ensuring the availability of
housing and hotels (in compliance with state and local rules), is part of Local 11's core function.
Recognizing unions' interest and union members' interest in these issues, California courts have
consistently upheld unions' standing to litigate land use and environmental claims. (See Bakersfield
Citizens v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.AppAth 1184,1198.) Furthermore, Local 11 has public
interest standing to challenge the Project Approvals given the City's public duty to comply with
applicable zoning and CEQA laws, which Local 11 seeks to enforce. (See e.g., Rialto Citizens for
Responsible Growth v. City of Rialto (2012) 208 Cal.AppAth 899, 914-916, n.6; La Mirada Avenue
Neighborhood Assn. of Hollywood v. City of Los Angeles (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1149, 1158-1159;
Weiss v. City of Los Angeles (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 194, 205-206; Save the Plastic Bag Coalition V. City
of Manhattan Beach (2011) 52 CalAth 155, 166, 169-170.)
II. SPECIFIC ISSUES WITH THE DDA & PROJECT
1. IT IS UNCLEAR IF THE CITY HAS COMPLIED WITH THE SURPLUS LAND ACT
The Surplus Land Act (Gov. Code §§ 54220-54234)("SLA"), inclusive of its guidelines ("SLA
Guidelines") prepared by the Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD"), aims
to make local public land that is no longer needed for government purposes available for building
affordable homes.5 The SLA applies to all cities, including charter cities. (See Anderson v. City of San
Jose (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 683.) Generally, before disposing of surplus land, a local agency must
send a written notice of availability ("NOA") of the property to HCD, any local public entity within
the jurisdiction where the surplus local land is located, and affordable housing sponsors who have
notified HCD. (See Gov. Code § 54222; HCD SLA Guidelines §201.) While there are exceptions to this
requirement, a local agency's determination that land is exempt surplus land must be supported by
written findings during a regular public meeting of the agency, with those findings sent to the HCD.
(See Gov. Code § 54221(b)(1); SLA Guidelines §§ 103(c) and 400(e).)
Here, the City is proposing the disposition of the City -owned Property, but the available
documentation reviewed by Local 11 does not mention whether the Property was subject to a NOA
or declared exempt. Nor is it clear whether the Property falls within any of the categories of
"exempt surplus land" under Gov. Code § 54221(f)(1). While subdivision (c) notes an exemption for
land exchanged for "another property necessary for the agency's use", it is unclear how and
whether that exemption would apply to the DDA, which references a proposed exchange of 25,489
square feet (0.585 acres) non-exclusive, right-of-way remained owned by the land owner (i.e., 7-25
s See HCD Public Lands for Affordable Housing Development (identifying land acquisition as one of the
biggest challenges to new affordable housing, and outlining several actions taken by the state to enhance the
SLA, such as Executive Order N-06-19 [Gov. Newsom, 2019], AB 1486 [Ting, 2019], AB 1255 [Robert Rivas,
2019]), https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/public-lands-affordable-housing-
development.
Council Comments RE. Ontario Ranch Hotels, LLC DDA
February 18, 2025
Page 3 of 7
feet adjacent to dirt sidewalk area) and temporary construction easement would apply.6 The
sidewalk is less than one-fourth the size of the 2.368-acre Property,7 and there appears to be ample
space within existing rights -of -way (i.e., dirt side walk and road) to access existing utility lines
along Riverside Drive.$ Furthermore, future street improvements (e.g., street, sewer, traffic signal,
utility lines, etc. ) are already anticipated along Vineyard right-of-way (i.e., five -lane with 8-foot
multi -use trail) as subject to the previously approved ORSC.9
In sum, it is unclear how this significantly smaller temporary construction easement is
necessary here to qualify as exempt, which would nevertheless have to be declared exempted at a
regular public meeting.
2. THE DDA's PROPOSAL OF A 227-ROOM HOTEL WAS NOT ANALYZED UNDER THE PRIOR EIR
Under CEQA, once an EIR has been prepared, a subsequent or supplement EIR is required
for granting a later discretionary approval when there have been: (i) substantial changes to the
project, (ii) substantial changes in the circumstances involving the project, or (iii) significant new
information involving the project. (See Pub. Res. Code § 21166; CEQA Guidelines § 15162.) Projects
not contemplated or not within the geographic area may require additional CEQA analysis.10 Here,
the DDA contemplates a 227-room hotel, which the staff report suggests was covered by the
previously certified EIR.11 However, the EIR does not mention the DDA or the proposed 227-room
hotel Project. Instead, the EIR contemplated a mere 100-room hotel located in planning area ("PA")
3, and anticipated retail uses within PA2 (i.e., where the City -owned Property is located).12 It is
unclear if the City is now contemplating a single larger hotel in a different location (i.e., a 227-room
hotel in PA2) or is considering two hotels (i.e., 227-rooms in PA2 plus the 100-room hotel in PA3).
As disucssed below, even a single larger hotel would likely have exacerbated impacts not analyzed
or mitigated under the certified EIR. Therefore, the proposed 227-room hotel development appears
6 See Agenda Report, p. 2; Exhibit A (area generally located along sidewalk area); DDA, PDF p. 7, 59, 78
(section 1.1.49, Exhs. A-1 & D-1).
7 For example, this SLA exemption has been cited by other agencies exchanging relatively comparable
properties. (See e.g., Capitola Planning Commission Agenda Report (4/4/24), p. 1 [5,592-sf property [Soquel
Union Elementary School District] in exchange for 4,284-sf property [City of Capitola]),
https://mccmeetingspublic.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/capitolaca-meet-
7a1699cfde7f4d0f8d2bce5df22a5e22/ITEM-Attachment-003-fa130eb7dab849dOaO7fab4d3f57eaa1.pdf.
8 See GoogleMaps, https://www.google.com/maps/place/S+Vineyard+Ave+o/o26+E+Riverside+ Dr,+Ontario,
+CA+91761/@34.019553,-117.6108423,3a,60y,275.55h,90.32t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5! 1sg62gK6vh1vo5
oTVRp1St-w!2eO!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2 Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%
3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-0.31853410523336834% 26panoid%3Dg62g
K6vh1vo5oTVRp1St-w%26yaw%3D275.5462992542434! 7i16384!8i8192!4m6!3m5!1sOx8Oc334cd1f399d7
b:Ox14ca414b23038095!8m2!3d34.0195981!4d-117.610924! 16s%2Fg%2F11gdzt7tpb?entry=ttu&g_ep=
EgoyMDI1MDIxMi4wIKXMDSoJLDEwMj ExNDU1 SAFQAw%3D%3D.
9 See DEIR, PDF p. 101, 117, 127-136, 151-159, 692; see also Agenda Report (7/16/24, Item 20, p. 4.
10 See e.g., Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v 32nd Dist. Agric. Assn (1986) 42 C3d 929, 937 (plans for
approved amphitheater project changed to increase seating significantly, expand the site, and reorient the
stage to face nearby residences); Save Berkeley's Neighborhoods v Regents of Univ. of Cal. (2020) 51 CA5th
226, 237 (claim that university changed project described in campus long-range development plan by
approving increases in student enrollment well beyond development plan and EIR projections, without
considering whether further CEQA review was required, alleged violation of CEQA).
11 See Summary Report, p. 1; Agenda Report, p. 2; DDA, PDF p. 60 [Exh. B Scope of Development].
12 DEIR, PDF pp. 32, 41-43, 114-117 (project components and planning areas), 176-178 (listing the project
approvals); MMRP, PDF p. 7.
Council Comments RE: Ontario Ranch Hotels, LLC DDA
February 18, 2025
Page 4 of 7
to reflect substantial changes to the project, meaning that further CEQA review should be required
before the City approves the DDA.
3. EXACERBATED GHG/VMT IMPACTS CAN BE FURTHER MITIGATED
As mentioned above, the staff report suggests the proposed action was covered by the prior
FEIR, including the Council finding that "all environmental impacts" have been addressed within the
prior EIR and that "no new or additional mitigation measures or alternatives are required."
(Proposed Resolution, p. 3.) However, the prior EIR contemplated only a 100-room hotel, including
assessing VMTs and GHGs associated with the hotel use.13 By more than doubling that size, the
anticipated Project would possibly significantly increase the amount of VMTs and GHGs (including
those deriving from mobile emissions) associated with the hotel use (i.e., new or exacerbated
impacts). These are impacts going above and beyond those previously found significant and
unavoidable.14 As it relates to hotel -related development within PAs 2 and 3, the EIR largely relies
on mitigation measures GHG-4 (i.e., point system under City's Community Climate Action Plan
("CCAP")) and TRAF-la (development of Transportation Demand Management ("TDM")).15 (See
excerpts below.)
GHG-4 The City of Ontario shall require applicants to design and construct buildings in
Planning Areas 2, 3, and 4 to achieve a 100-point score with the 2022 Community
Climate Action Plan (CCAP), Table 6, "Screening Table for Implementing GHG
Performance Standards for Commercial, Office, Medical, Hotel, Industrial, and Retail
Development, 2030." Alternatively, the analysis of development projects can be done
through emissions calculations to demonstrate equivalent reductions using CalEEMod
or a similar tool. Projects that do not use the CCAP Screening Tables to demonstrate
consistency with the 2022 CCAP must demonstrate that they will generate annual GHG
emissions that do not exceed the following emission screening thresholds from the CCAP:
1. For residential development completed between 2020 and 2030, the project
shall not produce GHG emissions greater than 5.85 MTCO 2e/dwelling unit.
2. For residential development completed after 2030, the project shall not produce
GHG emissions greater than 1.53 MTCO 2e/dwelling unit.
3. For nonresidential developments of all types completed between 2020 and 2030,
the project shall not produce GHG emissions greater than 8.84 MTCO2e/2,500
square feet of conditioned space.
4. For nonresidential developments of all types completed after 2030, the project
shall not produce GHG emissions greater than 3.61 MTCO 2e/2,500 square feet
of conditioned space.
For projects that include both residential and nonresidential space, the residential and
nonresidential components must be assessed separately against their respective
applicable thresholds
13 DEIR, Appendix D1 (Air Quality GHG Modeling), PDF pp. 4, 31, 683; DEIR, Appendix L1 (VMT
Memorandum), PDF pp. 9, 34; FEIR, PDF p. 171.
14 See e.g., CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, pp. 105-109, 115-119, 137,
141-142.
15 Ibid., see also MMRP, pp. 23, 30,
Council Comments RE: Ontario Ranch Hotels, LLC DDA
February 18, 2025
Page 5 of 7
TRAF-la Commercial/Hospitality TDM Measures. Applicants for commercial and hotel
development in Planning Areas 2, 3, and 4 shall prepare Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) measures analyzed under a VMT-reduction methodology
consistent with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association's (CAPCOA)
Final Handbook forAnalyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate
Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity (2021) and approved by the City of
Ontario. Measures shall include but are not limited to:
• Implement a voluntary commute trip reduction program for employees.
• Implement an employee parking cash -out program for employees.
• Collaborate with the City to support transit service expansion.
• Comply with requirements detailed in the Parking Management Plan, including
providing parking validation for retail and hospitality visitors.
(See ORSC EIR, MMRP, pp. 23, 30.)
While the ORSC EIR stated there were no other feasible mitigation measures,16 additionally
feasible mitigation measures do seem available to reduce the impacts exacerbated by the larger
hotel Project17—especially measures that can minimize VMTs and associated GHG mobile emissions
recommended by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association ("CAPCOA") and other
public agencies (e.g., Governor's Office of Planning and Research ("OPR"), the Southern California
Association of Governments ("SCAG"), South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD"),
and the California Air Resources Board ("CARB")).18 For example, the City could require a
mandatory rather than merely voluntary commute trip reduction program ("CTRP"), provide
subsidized transit passes, include bike/scooter-share facilities, and other strategies.19 CAPCOA
estimates that a mandatory CTRP is more than six times more effective at reducing GHG impacts
(i.e., up to 26%) as compared to a voluntary CTRP (i.e., up to 4%).20 Furthermore, it is unclear why
some of the 227 rooms could not accommodate some form of on -site housing, such as affordable or
16 Ibid., 109,119
17 To the extent impacts are part of the existing baseline conditions, it is nevertheless proper to evaluate a
development's exacerbating effects on existing impacts. (See Clews Land & Livestock, LLC v. City of San Diego
(2017) 19 Cal.App.5th 161, 194 [quoting California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management
Dist. (2015) 62 CalAth 369, 377, 388].)
1a See CAPCOA (Dec. 2021) Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate
Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity, pp. 31-32, 73, 76, 80-96, https://www.airquality.org/
ClimateChange/Documents/Final0/020Handbook_AB434.pdf, CAPCOA (Aug. 2010) Quantifying GHGs and
Mitigation, pp. 64-74, https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/34123/CAPCOA-2010-GHG-
Quantification-PDF; OPR (Dec. 2018) Technical Advisory, pp. 27, https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743-
Technical-Advisory.pdf; SCAG (Dec. 2019) Final Program EIR, pp. 2.0-18 - 2.0-71 (see project -level mitigation
measures for air quality, GHG, and transportation impacts), https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/fpeir_Connectsocal_complete.pdPl607981618; SCAG (Apr. 2024), Program EIR, pp. A-7 - A-48,
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/exhibit_a_mmrp_508_final.pdf21712003625; CARB
2022 Scoping Plan, 4, 7, 24, 29 & Appendix D, pp. 23, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-
climate-change-scoping-plan/2022-scoping-plan-documents; CARB's 2017 Scoping Plan, Appendix B-Local
Action, pp. 1-8, 7-9 & Appendix D, p. 2, https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/app_b_local_action_final.pdf.
19 See e.g., CAPCOA (Dec. 2021), supra fn. 16, pp. 83; CAPCOA (Aug. 2010), supra fn. 16, p. 66.
20 CAPCOA (Dec. 2021), supra fn. 16, at pp. 83, 86.
Council Comments RE. Ontario Ranch Hotels, LLC DDA
February 18, 2025
Page 6 of 7
work -force housing. Therefore, we urge the City to consider a more robust, hotel -specific
mandatory commuter reduction program that could include:
• Specific performance level to be reached (e.g., specific VMT or average daily trip reduction
or both);
• Specified participation level (e.g., 100% of employees);
• Participation in guaranteed ride programs for employees who need to respond to
emergencies arising when normal public transit is infeasible;
• Incentivize employee carpool/vanpool access to preferential parking spaces or hotel valet
service or both;
• Subsidized transit passes for hotel workers and patrons;
• Provide end -of -trip facilities; and
• Dedicated shuttle service for hotel patrons toward nearby destinations.21
4. MISSING INFORMATION AND PROJECT PIECEMEALING
The staff report also fails to explain and/or provide other key information. For example, the
staff report cites a Thompson & Thompson Real Estate Valuation and Consulting, Inc. appraisal,
which is not included. (See Summary Report, p. 3.) This is significant because the staff report does
not explain to the public numerous key issues with the DDA, for example: (1) how was the fair
market value of the City -owned property determined to be 114.00 per square foot"; (2) what is the
difference between the City's purchase price (i.e., $1.4 million) and the estimated reuse value of the
Property to the Developer, which is admittedly valued "significantly higher"; and (3) how much
increased "revenue" is the City expecting from the new hotel (e.g., property tax, TOT, etc.). (Id.)
Furthermore, as part of the City's action in July 2024, the Property was rezoned CCS,22 which
requires a hotel CUP under section 5.03.250 of the City's Development Code, which requires
(among other things) a market feasibility study23—also not mentioned or provided in the staff
report.
Additionally, the increased hotel component and failure to consider the CUP here raises the
concern of whether the City is improperly piecemealing the Project and project approvals. Under
CEQA, the City must assess "the whole of an action" and not improperly piecemeal a project's
analysis whereby the full impacts of a development are masked by chopping up the overall project
into smaller development projects. (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15003(h), 15378(a).24) This analysis must
include all phases of the project and all reasonably foreseeable consequences of the project. (Id., §
15126.25) This analysis should be prepared as early as feasible in the planning process and before
the City commits to any action. (Id., § 15004(b).) Here, the prior EIR looked at only a 100-room
hotel —not a 227-room hotel —and the City seems to be considering committing to the larger hotel
Project without conducting a subsequent CEQA analysis and evaluating a CUP.
21 See e.g., Santa Monica Municipal Code § 9.5.130(8)(2)(b); https://www.octa.net/getting-around/
rideshare/oc-rideshare/employers/guaranteed-ride-home-program/; https://www.ci.healdsburg.ca.us/
AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/3098?filelD=21731.
22 see July Resolution, PDF pp. 1-2.
23 Dev. Code, PDF p. 17, 44, 54, 130-132.
24 See also Santee v. County of San Diego (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1438, 1454; San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife
Rescue Center v. Cnty. of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 730.
25 See also Laurel Heights Improvement Assn v Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 396-398; City of
Santee v County of San Diego (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1438, 1454.
Council Comments RE: Ontario Ranch Hotels, LLC DDA
February 18, 2025
Page 7 of 7
III. CONCLUSION
In sum, Local 11 is concerned that the City may not be following normal SLA rules that
would make the City Parcels available to housing developers. Local 11 is also concerned about the
City's reliance on an inadequate CEQA review and mitigation that seems to have never
contemplated the DDA or a 227-room hotel at the Property (among other concerns). Local 11
respectfully urges the City to stay action on the DDA until the issues mentioned above are
adequately addressed.
Local 11 reserves the right to supplement these comments at future hearings and
proceedings for this Project. (See Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist.
(1997) 60 Cal.AppAth 1109, 1120 [CEQA litigation not limited only to claims made during EIR
comment period].) This office requests, to the extent not already on the notice list, all notices of
CEQA actions and any approvals, Project CEQA determinations, or public hearings to be held on the
Project under state or local law requiring local agencies to mail such notices to any person who has
filed a written request for them. (See Pub. Res. Code §§, 21092.2, 21167(f) and Gov. Code § 65092.)
Please send notice by electronic and regular mail to the address identified on page one of this letter.
Thank you for consideration of these comments. We ask that this letter is placed in the
administrative record for the Project.
Jor+d n R. Sisson, Esq)
At�o ney for UNITI�-iiERE Local 11
From: Santosh Rao
To: City Council; Public Comments; Tina Kapoor; City Attorney"s Office; Luke Connolly; Benjamin Fu; Chad Mosley;
City Clerk
Subject: Fw: Request to Halt Negotiations or Disposition until SLA Process Is Completed in Accordance with 2025 HCD
Precedent
Date: Friday, February 20, 2026 9:31:39 AM
Attachments: ontario-sla-nov-061825.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below in written communications for council.
[Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident]
Dear Mayor Moore, Vice -Mayor Chao, Council, CM Kapoor, CAO,
I am re -submitting the below previously submitted. Please carefully study the cited case
precedents.
The HCD notification has not occurred. Claims that a RFP was run are questionable since the
city cannot run a RFP on right of way. That is public land. The land needs to be vacated and
deemed surplus and await interest from notified parties before deeming exempt surplus. The
conditions to deem exempt surplus are very narrow and do not apply here.
If a RFP got a single response the city needs to re -run the RFP. Further the RFP and the
response need to be included as staff attachments. Did it describe the offering as a ground
lease or disposition. What were the terms. Is that still the same now.
Any vacation requires written evidence that the land can be vacated and has no use. The PC
was not allowed to seek or examine such written evidence. Gal conformance absent the same
and absent any other findings other than a named housing element project raise the question of
whether such a project can be cited in a finding when the negotiation cannot be entered while
land is public right of way.
Please ensure you slow down and evaluate impact to the city due to any potential exposure.
All of you have a duty to be fiscally responsible with taxpayer dollars and ensure the city
avoids any actions that may not be legally defensible.
I implore you to set aside your personal positions and act solely and wholly on the basis of
legal correctness and sequentiality of actions as expected by state law in the matter of
vacation, HCD notification, bids from interested parties, deeming surplus, deeming exempt
surplus, basis for each of the prior steps and noticing, hearings and required written
evidence at each step as defined by state law.
Thank you for maintaining full fidelity to state law and expected ordering of actions implied
by state law and conformed by past case precedent cited below.
Thanks,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident)
Begin forwarded message:
On Tuesday, December 2, 2025, 11:46 PM, Santosh Rao <santo_a rao@yahoo.com> wrote:
[Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident, taxpayer, voter]
Dear City Clerk,
Please include this letter in written communications for agenda item 12 for
12/2/25 council meeting and for the next upcoming council meeting.
Subject: Request to Halt Negotiations or Disposition until SLA Process Is
Completed in Accordance with 2025 HCD Precedent
Dear Mayor Chao, Vice -Mayor Moore, Council Members, Attorney Andrews,
CAO, CM Kapoor,
Please note the precedent in the below and attached HCD notice of violation to
the city of Ontario dated June 18 2025. The precedent directly applies to the
actions in progress currently in the city of Cupertino attempting to move forward
with appointing a negotiator. take steps towards disposition and engaging in
exclusive negotiations with a pre -determined buyer without first completing the
SLA process and required notices and noticing period.
I write to respectfully urge the Council to pause any efforts to approve a
negotiator, enter into negotiation, or take any steps toward disposition or sale
of public land until the city has fully satisfied the notice, findings, and
waiting -period requirements of the Surplus Land Act (SLA), including providing
required documentation to HCD and observing the legally mandated
notice/negotiation windows.
Background — Relevant Legal Obligation
Under the SLA (Gov. Code § § 54220-54234), a local agency must first declare
property "surplus" (not needed for public use), adopt a resolution to that effect,
and then issue a formal Notice of Availability (NOA) to: (1) HCD; (2) any local
public entities within the jurisdiction; and (3) developers on HCD's list of those
interested in surplus public land for affordable housing. California Housing
Dept.+2Banning, CA+2 After that NOA is issued, the city must allow a minimum
statutory waiting period (60 days for responses) and, if any eligible entities
respond, a mandated 90-day good -faith negotiation period before disposing of the
land. Banning CA+2Califomia Housing Dept.+2
Furthermore, under recent amendments to the SLA (2024), if a local agency
receives a Notice of Violation (NOV) from HCD for noncompliance, the agency
is required to hold an open public meeting to evaluate the NOV and the agency
may not proceed with any disposal until that process is complete. Allen Matkins -
Allen Matkins+2California Housinc Dent.+2
Precedent — HCD's 2025 Finding Against City of Ontario
In a September 22, 2025 Follow -Up Notice of Violation addressed to Ontario's
City Manager, HCD found that Ontario had violated the SLA by disposing of a
2.368-acre parcel (APN 0218-111-12-0000) without first declaring the land
surplus and without issuing the required notices. California Housing Dept.+l
HCD concluded that the disposition and the fact that the Cites
"exclusively negotiated with the Developer" prior to complying with SLA
requirements —constituted a clear SLA violation. California Housing
Dent.+l HCD also invoked applicable statutory penalties under Gov. Code
§ 54230.5 for the first-time violation (30 % of the disposition value) and warned
that future violations would trigger even higher penalties (50 % of the disposition
value). California Housing Dept.+1
The Ontario case demonstrates that HCD is actively enforcing SLA compliance
including penalizing cities that attempt to circumvent the required surplus -land
process by negotiating in advance with a favored developer, or disposing of land
without the required surplus declaration and notice.
Risk of Noncompliance and Fiscal/Legal Consequences
Given the recent Ontario finding:
• Proceeding with negotiations, designating a "negotiator," or otherwise
taking substantive steps toward disposition before completing the full SLA
process would risk very likely violation of state law.
• Noncompliance may expose the City to substantial financial penalties (per
SLA enforcement provisions) and reputational risk.
• Such action may also frustrate the primary public -purpose objective of the
SLA: to give first priority to affordable -housing proponents or other public
entities, rather than to private developers selected in advance.
Pause and Complete SLA Process Before Any Further Action
In light of the above, I respectfully request that the Council adopt a temporary
moratorium on any of the following steps until the SLA-required process has been
fully observed and documented, and until any required findings and waiting
periods have been completed:
. Appointment of a negotiator or negotiation team
. Entering into or approving formal negotiations with any private developer
• Any pre -disposition activity regarding sale or lease of the land (including
drafting term sheets, letters of intent, exclusivity agreements, or similar)
• Any vote toward approval of disposition, transfer, or sale of the land
At minimum, the city should first:
1. Declare the parcel "surplus" or exempt surplus after written findings with
evidence via a formal Council resolution;
2. Issue a NOA to HCD, local public entities, and certified developers per
SLA requirements;
3. Observe the 60-day notice period, await any responses, and if responses are
received allow full 90-day good -faith negotiations;
4. Submit documentation of the notice and negotiation process, and any
recorded restrictions or covenants, to HCD for review per SLA
guidelines. California Housing Dept.+213anning, CA+2
Conclusion
The state's recent 2025 decision in the Ontario case makes clear that SLA
compliance is no longer optional, and that state enforcement can and will
penalize cities that attempt to circumvent the process.
Given the potential legal and financial risks, and the public's interest in
transparent, fair, and affordable -housing —oriented land disposition, I strongly urge
the Council to suspend any further steps toward negotiation or sale until full
compliance with SLA has been completed and documented.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Respectfully,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident, taxpayer,
voter)
From: Paul Krupka
To: City Council; City Clerk; Public Comments
Cc: Lina Meng; Brian Avery
Subject: Public Comment 1 03-03-26 1 Mary Avenue Villas
Date: Tuesday, February 24, 2026 2:42:01 PM
Attachments: krupka Georgia t 50.png
Public Comment 02-10-26 Item #4 Mary Avenue Public Right -of -Way rev 1 021526.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:
I am sharing the attached revised public comment letter to the Planning Commission for the
public record and your consideration during your deliberations on March 3, 2026.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Paul Krupka
Paul J. Krupka, PE
(he/him/his)
KRUPKA CONSULTING
Trusted Advisor I Transportation
650.504.2299
paul@pkrupkaconsulting.com
krupka,
krupka.
February 10, 2026
by email only > planningcommission@cupertino.gov
Planning Commission Members
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
RE: Public Comment - February 10, 2026 - Item #4: Mary Avenue Public Right -of -Way
Dear Planning Commission Members:
am supporting Brian Avery, owner of the Glenbrook Apartments, Lina Meng, a neighbor, and
the Garden Gate Neighborhood Group in providing transportation advisory services and a
professional opinion on the Mary Avenue Villas Project. This letter documents my opinion that
1) the vacation of the Mary Avenue public right-of-way and the disposition of the Mary Avenue
project site are not consistent with the General Plan, and 2), regarding Environmental Impact,
certain Project impacts contradict finding d) "approval of the project would not result in any
significant effects relating to traffic... ".
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 45 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. Finally, I have
authored and managed dozens of transportation and circulation studies supporting
development and disposition agreements and environmental impact reports for transportation
improvements and development projects of all sizes and types.
Preparation
I have visited the Project site and surroundings, observed traffic and parking activities,
surveyed peak parking occupancy on Mary Avenue and at Memorial Park, reviewed recent
photographic evidence of related parking conditions during Memorial Park events, developed
parking estimates, and read many comments and concerns expressed by Garden Gate
Neighborhood Group members and other residents. 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.
KRUPKA CONSULTING
431 Yale Drive I San Mateo, CA 194402
650.504.2299 1 paul@pkrupkaconsulting.com I pkrupkaconsulting.com
Planning Commission Members, City of Cupertino, February 10, 2026, Page 2
Comments
Mary Avenue Is Not Underutilized Right -of -Way - The Mobility Element of the General Plan
defines Mary Avenue as a Neighborhood Connector. The street is actively used, as set forth in
the Mobility Element of the General Plan, providing parking, access, and circulation for the
residential neighborhood and serving as a crucial linkage to Memorial Park in line with these
Goals.
• M-2 Promote improvements to city streets that safely accommodate all transportation
modes and persons of all abilities
• M-3 Support a safe pedestrian and bicycle street network for people of all ages and abilities
• M-5 Ensure safe and efficient pedestrian and bicycle access to schools while working to
reduce school -related congestion
• M-6 Promote innovative strategies to provide efficient and adequate vehicle parking
Therefore, the vacation of the Mary Avenue right-of-way is inconsistent with the General Plan,
and it follows that the location, purpose, and extent of the disposition of the Mary Avenue
project site are not consistent with the General Plan.
Approval of the Project Will Create a Deficiency -These comments from my February 3,
2026, letter to the City Council (attached) established my opinion that the Project's impact -
reduction in parking supply - creates an unsustainable deficiency that affects residents and
visitors alike.
The parking evaluation (in the Transportation Study) describes typical conditions on
Mary Avenue during three weekdays and one weekend day in April 2025. It documents
the Project's parking impact on Mary Avenue - a net loss of 89 spaces of public on -
street parking, plus the recommended removal of six additional spaces to address a
deficiency in driveway sight distance, resulting in a total net loss of 95 spaces on Mary
Avenue. This 39% reduction in on -street parking supply will directly affect residents
who rely on it, spreading parking demand further into residential neighborhoods. It is
surprising to me that the analyst simply notes that there "...would still be enough
spaces to meet the anticipated parking demand along the Project frontage."
The parking evaluation does not address the parking conditions on Mary Avenue during
a major festival at Memorial Park, when the street is effectively inundated with festival
parking. This is insufficient, given that six major festivals and numerous other events are
held at Memorial Park each year, and affected residents have voiced significant
concerns to City staff and officials about the Project's impact in this light. Additional
study is required to provide findings that inform the reader, City staff, other review
agencies, and decision -makers about the Project's impact on parking and potential
improvements to address it.
I reviewed photographic evidence of parking conditions on Mary Avenue during major
festivals and events at Memorial Park on Saturday, August 23, 2025 (Summer Concert
Ser+esKids 'N Fun Festival), Friday, August 29, 2025 (Movies in the Park), September
13, 2025 (Silicon Valley Fall Festival) Saturday, September 20, 2025 (Heritage India Faire
Festival), and Saturday, October 29, 2025 (Bay Area Diwali Festival). The sample photos
below provide drivers' views of vehicles parked end -to -end on Mary Avenue, from
Stevens Creek Boulevard to Lubec Street, during the Saturday, August 23, 2025 event.
Planning Commission Members, City of Cupertino, February 10, 2026, Page 3
Planning Commission Members, City of Cupertino, February 10, 2026, Page 4
A major festival at Memorial Park has a dramatic effect on parking conditions on Mary
Avenue without the Project. The Project's impact - reduction in parking supply - creates
an unsustainable deficiency that affects residents and visitors alike. Further study and
development of alternative improvements are necessary to enable a fully informed
decision on the Project.
I developed estimates of parking occupancy during two festivals cited in my above comments
- August 23, 2025, and September 13, 2025, which found between 140 and 229 vehicles
parked on Mary Avenue. The following tables present these estimates, along with the existing
parking conditions from the Transportation Study and the with -Project conditions. It is clear
that festival parking inundates Mary Avenue under existing conditions, and the Project's impact
- reduction in parking supply by 95 spaces - overloads the system with demand meeting and
exceeding supply and creates an unsustainable deficiency.
ESTIMATED PROJECT PARKING IMPACT
TYPICAL AND FESTIVAL CONDITIONS
FESTIVAL: SUMMER CONCERT SE KIDS'N FUN FESTIVAL, SATURDAY,
AUGUST 23, 2025
CONDITION
TYPICAL EXISTING
TYPICAL EXISTING WITH PROJECT
FESTIVAL EXISTING
FESTIVAL WITH PROJECT
Sources:
Typical Conditions - Transportation Study
Festival Condition - Krupka Consulting
PARKING
PARKED
SUPPLY
VEHICLES
[OCCUPANCY
241
37
15%
146
37
25%
241
229
95%
146
229
ESTIMATED PROJECT PARKING IMPACT
TYPICAL AND FESTIVAL CONDITIONS
FESTIVAL: SILICON VALLEY FALL FESTIVAL, SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2025
CONDITION
TYPICAL EXISTING
TYPICAL EXISTING WITH PROJECT
FESTIVAL EXISTING
FESTIVAL WITH PROJECT
Sources:
Typical Conditions - Transportation Study
Festival Condition - Krupka Consulting
PARKING PARKED OCCUPANCY
SUPPLY VEHICLES
241 37 15%
146 37 25%
241
146
58%
Planning Commission Members, City of Cupertino, February 10, 2026, Page 5
The Transportation Study did not consider large, wide vehicles, which frequent Mary Avenue to
and from the Service Center and provide routine waste and recycling services. The vehicles
involved are '^�28 to 10 feet wide and often encroach on adjacent travel and parking lanes,
as shown in the photo below. This reduces safety and is especially critical to the northbound
lane, which is currently 11.5 feet wide. The southbound lane, which is 14 feet wide,
accommodates these larger vehicles with less encroachment. The Project calls for two 11-foot
lanes, which will create additional conflicts with large vehicles and exacerbate safety issues.
Similarly, the Transportation Study did not consider the necessary door swing required for
access to parked vehicles, which encroaches on the adjacent travel lane, causes conflicts, and
reduces safety. The photo below is an example. The Project calls for 11-foot lane widths, which
will create additional conflicts with street traffic and exacerbate safety issues.
These Project impacts contradict finding d) "approval of the project would not result in any
significant effects relating to traffic... " and require further study and development of alternative
improvements to enable a fully informed decision on the Project.
Other Approved and Planned Developments Will Exacerbate this Project Deficiency: The
following nearby projects will increase parking demand, affecting Mary Avenue.
Planning Commission Members, City of Cupertino, February 10, 2026, Page 6
• Memorial Park enhancements, intended to serve existing and new patrons, will increase
parking demand in the neighborhood and on Mary Avenue. The following observations
underscore parking conditions at the park.
• Observations on Novembe September 13, 2025, during the Silicon Valley Fall Festival,
indicated that only 34 of the 256 off-street parking spaces (13%) at Memorial Park were
available to festival visitors, given that most parking areas were used for food vendors
(including loading and unloading, portable restrooms, handwashing, and preferential
parking).
• The only other Park -adjacent residential streets (Christensen Drive, Lauretta Drive, and
Ann Arbor Court) are not accessible to Park visitors as they require permits from 7:00 a.m.
to 10:00 p.m. daily.
• Notably, the Memorial Park Parking Study (for the Memorial Park Specific Plan) did not
include Mary Avenue, even though it provides parking for Memorial Park, and it cited
"Maintain Current Parking Configuration Along Mary Avenue" as a recommended
management strategy.
• Three phases of work are involved in implementing the Park Concept, and the suggested
timeline, depending on available funding, is as follows: Phase 1 can be completed in 0 to
5 years, Phase 2 in 6 to 10 years, and Phase 3 in 11 to 15 years.
• Completion of the Westport Mixed -Use Project, which involves a 36-month buildout
period, will reduce residential and retail areas, associated vehicle trips, and the total parking
supply, but will require accommodating the resulting retail parking demand off -site along
Mary Avenue. As a condition of approval, the applicant must update the site plan to add at
least 20 on -site parking spaces before building permits are issued.
• 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. This Foothill -De Anza Community College District Measure G project is
generally defined below based on publicly available information.
• Uses: College events, performing arts I cultural events, and community rentals I regional
events.
• Spaces: Primary performance/event space with approximately 1,000 seats; Secondary
performance/meeting space with approximately 300 seats.
• Expected Parking Demand: 1 parking space per 4 fixed seats. For 1,000 seats, 250
parking spaces. The idea is to use the existing on -site parking supply and improve parking
and circulation to suit the project.
• Cost: $30 million.
• Development Program and Timeline: Not stated.
I appreciate your consideration.
Sincerely,
KRUPKAlCONSULTING
10Cu,�� /lUrA2,
Paul Krupka, P.E.
Owner
Planning Commission Members, City of Cupertino, February 10, 2026, Page 7
Attachment
Cc (with Attachment): Brian Avery, Lina Meng
Mary & Gary Tietz
10520 Castine Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
March 1, 2026
Mayor Kitty Moore
City Council member Liang-Fang Chao
City Council member Sheila Mohan
City Council member J.R. Fruen
City Council member R. Wang
We are writing in hopes that on March 3rd you will vote against the
vacation of the right of way along the westerly edge of Mary Avenue (APN 326-
27-053). The narrowing of that section of Mary Avenue will result in a very
dangerous situation and possible death of pedestrians and cyclists. Years ago, the
city spent a small fortune on the Mary Avenue bike bridge and then added a
protected bike lane in order to provide a safe route between Sunnyvale and
DeAnza College. We feel that building those units in that location is a very poor
decision for the following reasons.
1. If units are placed there, there will be many Amazon, Fed Ex, US Post Office,
Uber, food and medical equipment delivery vehicles blocking the roadway. There
is a blind corner there and cars trying to get around those vehicles are at risk of
head on crashes.
2. This is currently a protected route for pedestrians and cyclists making their
way to the many festivals and special events at Memorial Park as well as the
monthly flea market and the weekly farmers' market at De Anza. Families are
often traveling this way with young children walking or riding bikes.
3. The number of allotted parking spaces for the planned development is not
nearly enough for the number of units, so people coming and going will often end
up having to wait in the street blocking traffic.
4. This is the route that track and cross country teams run from Homestead High
School while training.
5. In case of an emergency, police, fire and other vehicles would either be
blocked or block the roadway. That doesn't happen now because there are no
homes along that side.
6. After the death of a Monta Vista student cycling to school on McClellan, the
city did a good job developing a protected route to school in that area. Please
don't take away an already existing protected route.
7. Cupertino currently has vacant properties along Stevens Creek Boulevard
where the old Fontanas, Staples and Party City businesses were located. Clearly,
those are being considered by developers and the city could require part of that
space to be used for something like what is planned for Mary Avenue. That
location is much better because safe and convenient access could be included
with ample parking and residents would have easy walking and wheel chair access
to grocery stores and other shopping.
8. Another potential location with far better access is the underutilized parking
area around DeAnza College. The shift to online learning and zoom DeAnza
classes has created an opportunity to build this project in the freed up (empty)
space in the parking lot. There are significant advantages to this DeAnza location.
It would provide convenient and safe access for the proposed project residents to
attend classes and activities at the college. The Mary Avenue location is
dangerous for those project residents to access educational or cultural
opportunities. Crossing both Mary Avenue and Stevens Creek to access DeAnza
College in a wheelchair, using a walker or at diabled/senior citizen walking pace
is a major problem/liability of the Mary Avenue location.
These issues are things the city planning department and the group pushing this
project should have looked at months ago when many of us residents expressed
them at meetings at the Quinlin Center a long time ago. We always felt that our
concerns were being lightly dismissed in the push to put the project forward.
Respectfully,
Mar7and Gr y Tietz