CC 07-15-2025 Item No. 11 Study Session - ELI & BMR housing units_Written Communications_2CC 07-15-2025
Item No. 11
Study Session -
Application to develop
ELI and BMR housing
units
Written Communications
From:Trevor Lang
To:City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Public Comments
Subject:Public Comments on Application No.: ASA-2025-006 (Mary Avenue Housing Proposal)
Date:Tuesday, July 15, 2025 3:40:55 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.
Per "Notice of Public Hearing," regarding ASA-2025-006, please include my comments:
To Mr. Benjamin Fu, Director of Community Development, and to the Cupertino City Council:
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed development of 40 extremely
low-income and below-market-rate housing units for developmentally delayed individuals on
city-owned property along Mary Avenue. As a father of two young children and a resident
living near the proposed site, I am deeply concerned about the severe negative impacts this
project would have on our neighborhood, particularly regarding environmental health and
safety for our community's most vulnerable residents.
Mary Avenue is already a heavily burdened street, struggling to accommodate a significant
volume of traffic and activity. We currently contend with a busy city service center on Mary
Ave that generates constant truck and large service vehicle traffic carrying construction and
landscaping equipment throughout the day. This existing congestion is further exacerbated by
the newly-built townhomes and condominiums across from the heavily trafficked Memorial
Park. This summer alone, Memorial Park has hosted weekly large city-sponsored events
drawing hundreds of people, further straining the street's capacity. Beyond vehicular traffic,
Mary Avenue serves as a crucial bicycle thoroughfare, connecting communities north and
south of Highway 280 via the Mary Avenue bridge. Additionally, the popularity of the dog
park next to the proposed development site brings many pet owners and their animals to the
area, adding to the pedestrian activity.
Adding another 40 housing units, regardless of their specific purpose, will undeniably further
congest Mary Avenue, a small, two-lane residential street that is already acting as a funnel for
a large and diverse volume. This increase in traffic poses significant safety risks for
pedestrians, cyclists, and especially for the young children and developmentally delayed
individuals who would reside at the proposed site and who may have unique
vulnerabilities regarding street safety, spatial awareness, and response to traffic hazards.
Beyond traffic, my opposition is rooted in serious environmental and public health concerns
directly related to the site's proximity to Highway 280:
Air Quality and Elevated Health Risks for Vulnerable Populations: The proposed
site's adjacency to a major freeway (Highway 280) presents significant air quality
concerns. California Air Resources Board (CARB) and California Department of Public
Health (DPH) advisories strongly recommend a 500-foot buffer between freeways and
sensitive land uses like residential housing due to elevated levels of particulate matter
and other air pollutants. Exposure to these pollutants is associated with increased rates
of asthma, respiratory issues, cardiovascular disease, and impaired lung development in
children. For developmentally delayed individuals, who may already have compromised
health or specific sensitivities, these risks are amplified. While certain CEQA
exemptions aim to expedite affordable housing, these exemptions are not intended to
bypass critical health and safety assessments, especially when the proposed
residents are among the community's most vulnerable. The city has a moral and
legal obligation to ensure the proposed housing provides a healthy living environment. I
urge the city to provide a comprehensive Health Risk Assessment demonstrating how
these significant health impacts will be mitigated to acceptable levels for all residents,
and particularly for those with developmental disabilities who may experience
heightened susceptibility.
Noise Pollution and Impact on Well-being: The constant, high-level noise from
Highway 280 would significantly impact the quality of life for residents of this proposed
development and surrounding neighbors. The California Building Code (Title 24,
Section 1207) establishes an interior noise standard of 45 dBA Ldn/CNEL for
habitable rooms in multi-unit residential structures. For developments in noise-
critical areas like this one, an acoustical analysis is required to demonstrate
compliance. For individuals with developmental delays, excessive noise can be
particularly disruptive, affecting sleep, concentration, and potentially leading to sensory
overload and behavioral challenges. The city must ensure that the proposed building
design incorporates robust noise attenuation measures to meet, and ideally exceed, these
standards, recognizing the specific needs of the future occupants.
Cumulative Environmental Impacts and the Spirit of CEQA: While the project may
claim a CEQA exemption due to its unit count, the spirit of CEQA is to identify and
mitigate significant environmental impacts. The cumulative effect of this new
development, combined with the existing city service center, dense housing, heavily
trafficked park, and the proximity to a major freeway, will create unacceptable burdens
on Mary Avenue's environment. Exemptions are not meant to allow projects that
create significant health and safety hazards, especially for populations requiring
specialized care and consideration. The city has a responsibility to conduct a thorough
review that goes beyond a mere checklist, focusing on the real-world impacts on this
specific, vulnerable population and the already strained local infrastructure.
I urge the city to reconsider this proposal. The existing environmental burdens and safety
concerns on Mary Avenue make it an unsuitable location for a high-density residential
development, particularly one intended for a vulnerable population. The city has a
responsibility to ensure public safety and to prioritize the well-being of its most vulnerable
citizens. I request that the city explore alternative locations that can more appropriately
accommodate such a development without compromising the safety, health, and quality of life
for our community.
Sincerely,
Trevor
Cupertino Resident and Property Owner