Existing Conditions
The City of Cupertino has approximately 224 acres of park, trails, and sports fields.125 The project site includes Memorial Park, which contains recreational facilities such as tennis courts, a softball field, and playground areas. The Cupertino Sports Center, which includes tennis courts, basketball courts, and other recreational facilities, is located adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site. 125 City of Cupertino. Parks and Recreation System Master Plan – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. SCH # 2019109066. October 2019. Page 184.
5.16.1.2 1009
CC 04-03-2024
1009 of 1277
Memorial Park Specific Plan 138 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
5.16.2 Impact Discussion
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as Approved
Project
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility will occur or
be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
The 2019 IS/MND determined that implementation of the Master Plan would likely increase the number of visitors to City parks by increasing capacity of the parks and recreational facilities and attracting additional users with improved facilities. The 2019 IS/MND concluded that future project would be reviewed individually once design-level details were available, and that they would follow Master Plan goals to ensuring that appropriate level of maintenance occurs, consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies in the City’s General Plan. This would reduce impacts to parks to a less than significant level.126
As discussed in Section 5.15 Public Services, the project would construct various improvements on site consistent with the assumptions in the 2019 IS/MND. The improvements would not substantially change or increase the use of the park. The park would continue to host the same or similar events at the park as it does under current conditions. The project would not result in the any additional programming, nor is it meant to accommodate larger crowds for the events that are currently held in the park.
Consistent with General Plan Policies RPC-3.1, and RPC-7.3, the project would be designed to maintain existing, established natural features where possible to reduce the need for additional maintenance on new planted areas. In addition, the project is consistent with the Master Plan and would comply with Master Plan Objectives 1.C and 7.C by maintaining the established natural resources in the park where possible and evaluating maintenance needs on an ongoing basis to ensure adequate park maintenance in the future.
126 City of Cupertino. Parks and Recreation System Master Plan – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. SCH # 2019109066. October 2019. Pages 193 to 194.
□ □ □
□ □ □
1010
CC 04-03-2024
1010 of 1277
Memorial Park Specific Plan 139 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Adherence to these General Plan Policies and Master Plan Objectives would reduce the risk of substantial occurrence or acceleration of the physical deterioration of the facilities on-site, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The 2019 IS/MND determined that implementation of the Master Plan could include projects that would create new park and recreational facilities, as well as enhance existing park and recreation facilities. The 2019 IS/MND concluded that future projects under the Master Plan would be reviewed at the project-level, comply with City regulations and General Conditions, and implement the 2019 IS/MND programmatic mitigation measures. This would mitigate potentially significant impacts of future projects to less than significant levels.127 The improvements included in the project are consistent with the Master Plan, and would be designed to comply with all applicable regulations (including those in the General Plan, Specific Plan, Municipal Code, City General Conditions, and regional storm water runoff management requirements) and implement all programmatic mitigation measures identified in the 2019 IS/MND (including 2019 IS/MND Mitigation Measures AES-1, BIO-1, CULT-1) to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Based on this discussion, the project would result in the same impact as disclosed in the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)
127 Ibid. Page 194.
1011
CC 04-03-2024
1011 of 1277
Memorial Park Specific Plan 140 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Transportation
The following discussion is based on the Trip Generation Technical Memorandum completed by TJKM dated August 2023. A copy of the memorandum is included in Appendix F of this Initial Study/Addendum.
5.17.1 Environmental Setting
The regulatory framework and existing conditions have not changed substantially since the adoption of the 2019 IS/MND. Key regulations and project site conditions are described below.
Regulatory Framework
State
Senate Bill 743
SB 743 establishes criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts using a VMT metric intended to promote the reduction of GHG emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. Specifically, SB 743 requires analysis of VMT in determining the significance of transportation impacts. Local jurisdictions were required by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to implement a VMT policy by July 1, 2020.
SB 743 did not authorize OPR to set specific VMT impact thresholds, but it did direct OPR to develop guidelines for jurisdictions to utilize. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(1) describes factors that might indicate whether a development project’s VMT may be significant. Notably, projects located within 0.50 mile of transit should be considered to have a less than significant transportation impact based on OPR guidance.
Regional and Local
Cupertino General Plan: Community Vision 2015-2040
The proposed project is subject to General Plan policies including, but not limited to, the policies and strategies listed below pertaining to transportation.
Policy/Strategy Description
Policy LU-3.1 Ensure that project sites are planned appropriately to create a network of connected internal streets that improve pedestrian and bicycle access, provide public open space and building layouts that support city goals related to streetscape character for various Planning Areas and corridors.
Policy LU-27.4 Support pedestrian and bicycling improvements that improve access with neighborhoods to parks, schools and local retail, and between neighborhoods. Support traffic calming measures rather than blocking the street to reduce traffic impacts on neighborhoods.
5.17 5.17.1.1
1012
CC 04-03-2024
1012 of 1277
Memorial Park Specific Plan 141 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Policy/Strategy Description
Policy RPC-5.2 Develop a citywide network of pedestrian and bicycle pathways to connect employment centers, shopping areas and neighborhoods to services including parks, schools, libraries and neighborhood centers.
Strategy RPC-5.1.1 Implement recommendations in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan that link trails and open space to neighborhoods and special areas.
Policy M-1.2 Participate in the development of new multi-modal analysis methods and impact thresholds as required by Senate Bill 743. However, until such impact thresholds are developed, continue to optimize mobility for all modes of transportation while striving to maintain the following intersection Levels of Service (LOS) at AM and PM peak traffic hours:
• Major intersections: LOS D;
• Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard: LOS E+; • Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stelling Road: LOS E+; and • De Anza Boulevard and Bollinger Road: LOS E+
Policy M-2.3 Promote pedestrian and bicycle improvements that improve connectivity between planning areas, neighborhoods and services, and foster a sense of community.
Policy M-3.1 Adopt and maintain a Bicycle and Pedestrian master plan, which outlines policies and improvements to streets, extension of trails, and pathways to create a safe way for people of all ages to bike and walk on a daily basis, and as shown in Figure M-1 of the General Plan.
Policy M-3.6 Require parking lots to include clearly defined paths for pedestrians to provide a safe path to building entrances.
Policy M-3.7 Plan for improvements to pedestrian and bicycle facilities and eliminate gaps along the pedestrian and bicycle network as part of the City’s Capital Improvement Program.
Policy M-8.2 Support development and transportation improvements that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing per capita VMT, reducing impacts on the City’s transportation network and maintaining the desired levels of service for all modes of transportation.
Heart of the City Specific Plan
The Heart of the City Specific Plan guides development and redevelopment of the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor to implement the vision of “pedestrian‐inclusive gathering places” to support a sense of place for Cupertino residents and visitors. The Specific Plan also includes streetscape design guidelines that emphasize improving the pedestrian environment.
Cupertino 2020 Parks and Recreation System Master Plan
The City’s Master Plan was adopted in February 2020, and outlines the City’s comprehensive plan for parks and recreational facilities in the City through the year 2040. The Master Plan is organized around seven goals, which include conservation, connection, equitable access, enhancement, activity, quality, and sustainability. Each of the seven goals has associated objectives that reflect the City’s desired outcomes and actions that provide ideas or strategies that help achieve the broader goals. The Master Plan has several goals and objectives that are related to improved transportation facilities.
1013
CC 04-03-2024
1013 of 1277
Memorial Park Specific Plan 142 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
The City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan was adopted in June 2016 and includes an assessment of the bicycle environment in Cupertino by mapping existing bicycle facilities, bicycle-related collisions between 2009 and 2014, and bicycle network stress assessments. It also includes recommended improvements, including a loop trail. The Bicycle Transportation Plan also recommends constructing Class IV Separated Bike Lanes on Steven Creek Boulevard and Stelling Road, Class II Buffered Bike Lanes on Mary Avenue, and Class III Bike Routes within Memorial Park that would connect Christensen Drive with Mary Avenue and Alves Drive.
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan
The City of Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan was adopted in February 2018 and is the blueprint for the City to achieve its vision of an inviting, safe, and connected pedestrian network that enhances the quality of life for all community members and visitors.
Cupertino ADA Transition Plan (2015)
The City adopted an ADA Self‐Evaluation and Transition Plan in 2015 to review the programs, activities, and services provided by the City and identify and prioritize the removal of current barriers to accessibility in public facilities, including parks and recreational facilities.
City of Cupertino Municipal Code
The City outlines numerous policies relating to vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, parking, and traffic in Title 11 of the Municipal Code. Chapter 11.08 discusses bicycle use, Chapter 11.09 discusses pedestrians, Chapters 11.24 to 11.28 discusses parking regulations, Chapter 11.32 discusses truck traffic routes, and Chapter 11.34 discusses roadway design features.
Existing Conditions
Roadway Access
Regional access to the project site is provided by SR 85, Interstate 280 (I-280), De Anza Boulevard, and Stevens Creek Boulevard. Local roadway access to the project site is provided by Mary Avenue, Stelling Road, Alves Drive, and Anton Way.
5.17.1.2 1014
CC 04-03-2024
1014 of 1277
Memorial Park Specific Plan 143 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Existing Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Facilities
Bicycle Facilities
Bicycle facilities within the vicinity of the project site consist of Class II bike lanes, enhanced bike lanes, and Class III bike routes.128, 129 Stevens Creek Boulevard, which is adjacent to the southern border of the project site, is classified as an enhanced bike lane along the project frontage that is oriented in an east-west direction. Stelling Road is classified as a Class II bike lane, and it has additional enhancements south of the Stevens Creek Boulevard intersection. Stelling Road is oriented in a north-south direction. Mary Avenue, which is west of the project site, also provides Class II bike lanes in a general north-south direction. Greenleaf Drive, which is north of the project site, is a Class III bike route that intersects with both Mary Avenue and Stelling Road. Bicycle parking is provided on-site adjacent to the Senior Center and Quinlan Community Center.
Pedestrian Facilities
The site has sidewalks on the project frontages along Stevens Creek Boulevard, Alves Drive, Stelling Road, and Mary Avenue. There are designated pedestrian walkway entrances to the site on Stevens Creek Boulevard, Anton Way, Alves Drive, Stelling Road, Christensen Drive, and Mary Avenue. The site has pedestrian paths throughout the whole park that connect to the different on-site recreational facilities and features such as the amphitheater and Veterans Memorial.
The primary intersection, Mary Avenue/Stevens Creek Boulevard, is a signalized intersection that has striped crosswalks on three out of the four sides of the intersection. The Stelling Road/Alves Drive intersection has striped crosswalks on all four sides of the intersection and, and the two crosswalks that cross Stelling Road have pedestrian activated flashing lights to alert vehicles. 128 City of Cupertino. Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan. June 2016. Page 1-8. 129 Class II bike lanes are characterized as on-street bike lanes with a striped lane, pavement markings, and signage for one way bicycle traffic. Enhanced bike lanes are typically Class II bike lanes that have been enhanced with green paint and/or buffer striping to increase visibility or lateral separation from vehicular traffic. Class III bike routes are typically characterized as streets where the lanes are wide enough, and the number of vehicles is low enough for both bicycles and vehicles to share the road. 1015
CC 04-03-2024
1015 of 1277
Memorial Park Specific Plan 144 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Transit Facilities
The existing bus transit services in the vicinity of the project site are provided by VTA. There are two bus stops located along the project frontages, one is located on the northeast corner of the site in front of the Quinlan Community Center on Stelling Road and the second is located on the southwest corner of the site adjacent to the Senior Center on Stevens Creek Boulevard. The VTA services operating in the vicinity of the project area are listed below with information regarding their headways, or the frequency at which transit vehicles arrive at the transit stop during peak travel hours.
• Local Route 51 runs from West Valley College to the Ames Research Center via the Stevens Creek Boulevard/Stelling Road intersection with peak headways of 30 minutes. • Local Route 55 runs from the Old Ironsides Station to De Anza College with peak headways of 30 minutes.
• Frequent Route 23 runs from De Anza College to the Alum Rock Station with peak headways between 13 to 15 minutes.
• Frequent Route 25 runs from the Stevens Creek Boulevard/Stelling Road intersection to the Alum Roack Station with peak headways of 23 minutes.
• Rapid Route 523 runs from San José State University to Lockheed Martin via De Anza College with peak headways of 15 minutes.
5.17.2 Impact Discussion
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as Approved
Project
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadways, bicycle lanes, and
pedestrian facilities?
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible land
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle lanes, and pedestrian facilities? The 2019 IS/MND determined that the Master Plan included recommended projects that were consistent with recommendations in the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan, Pedestrian □
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
1016
CC 04-03-2024
1016 of 1277
Memorial Park Specific Plan 145 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Transportation Plan, General Plan, and Countywide Trails Master Plan. It was concluded that since the Master Plan was consistent with these plans and future projects would be reviewed at the project-level to determine if potential impacts were covered by the programmatic 2019 IS/MND, there would be no impacts.130
Roadway System
Section 17.08.030 of the Municipal Code provides screening guidelines for evaluating the transportation impacts of land use projects. As discussed further below, the project is consistent with General Plan Policies LU-3.1, LU-27.4, RPC-5.2, and M-2.3 because it would provide additional bicycle and pedestrian facilities that would improve local circulation and park accessibility. In addition, the project site is located within one-quarter mile of a High-Quality Transit Corridor or transit stop as defined by CEQA due to its location adjacent to Stevens Creek Boulevard and its proximity to nearby bus stops served by VTA. Therefore, the project would not be required to prepare a VMT analysis, consistent with Section 17.08.030 of the Municipal Code. In addition, parks (including the project site) are government/public facilities which are generally assumed to be local serving and are typically screened out of VMT requirements.
No changes are proposed to the surrounding streets as part of the project. The improvements to on-site parking would be consistent with the requirements listed in Chapters 11.24 to 11.28 of the Municipal Code, which outline the spacing, marking, and accessibility requirements for public parking areas. Based on this discussion, the project would not conflict with any program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the roadway system, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)
Bicycle Facilities
The proposed Class I Bike Paths within the park would be consistent with what was recommended in the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan. These Class I Bike Paths would link the existing bicycle facilities on Alves Drive, Stelling Road, Christensen Way, and Mary Avenue by providing dedicated bicycle paths on-site. In addition, the project would install short- and long-term bicycle parking throughout the site and at key entry points to the park. This would be consistent with the vision of the Special Area and General Plan Policies LU-3.1, LU-27.4, RPC-5.2, and M-2.3. None of the proposed improvements would interfere with the improvements recommended in the 2016 Bicycle Plan for Mary Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard. In addition, these improvements would be consistent with General Plan Policies M-2.3, M-3.1, and M-8.2 by improving connectivity between neighborhoods, implementing recommendations from the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan, and constructing improvements that help reduce per capita VMT. Based on this discussion, the project would not conflict with any program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the bicycle circulation system, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project) 130 City of Cupertino. Parks and Recreation System Master Plan – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. SCH # 2019109066. October 2019. Pages 201 to 202.
1017
CC 04-03-2024
1017 of 1277
Memorial Park Specific Plan 146 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities in the project area consist of sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian signals, and pedestrian pathways within Memorial Park. The project would maintain and realign existing pedestrian pathway entrances on each side of the park. All pedestrian pathways in the park would be resurfaced to ensure ADA compliance, and access points at the parking lots on-site would be updated with ADA compliant curb ramps. This would be consistent with the recommendations made in the City’s 2015 ADA Transition Plan. The project would also be consistent with General Plan Policies LU-3.1, LU-27.4, RPC-5.2, and M-2.3 because it would provide additional pedestrian facilities that would improve local circulation and park accessibility. Based on this discussion, the project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the pedestrian circulation system, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)
Transit Facilities
The project area is served by five VTA bus routes with stops within walking distance of the project site. The proposed project would result in the construction of various improvements within Memorial Park, but it is not expected to result in a substantial increase in use compared to existing conditions. Based on this discussion, the existing transit services in the area would continue to function adequately and the project would not obstruct the operation of the existing transit facilities, or conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the transit circulation system, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project) b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
The 2019 IS/MND determined that while individual park improvements may increase usage of that park (resulting in increased vehicle trips and VMT), this increase would not be significant because most of those trips were assumed to be generated within Cupertino and the distances to neighborhood and local parks would be relatively short. The 2019 IS/MND concluded that since future projects under the Master Plan would not alter existing land use patterns and would be consistent with adopted City transportation and multi-modal planning policies, implementation of the Master Plan would result in less than significant VMT impacts.131 The project would maintain the existing park land use on-site and include bicycle and pedestrian improvements consistent with the assumptions in the 2019 IS/MND. Furthermore, parks (including the project site), are government/public facilities which are generally assumed to be local serving and are typically screened out of VMT requirements. In addition, as discussed briefly in checklist question a) above, the project is consistent with applicable General Plan policies and is located 131 Ibid. Pages 202 to 203.
1018
CC 04-03-2024
1018 of 1277
Memorial Park Specific Plan 147 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
within one-quarter mile of a High-Quality Transit Corridor. Therefore, the project would not be required to prepare a VMT analysis, consistent with Section 17.08.030 of the Municipal Code, and is assumed to have a less than significant VMT impact.
Based on this discussion, the project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b), consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)
c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? The 2019 IS/MND concluded that future projects would be designed according to design and circulation policies for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians which would reduce hazards and traffic conflicts from incompatible uses to a less than significant level. 132
The project would consist of constructing minor improvements within Memorial Park, and would not introduce any incompatible land uses on-site. No physical changes are proposed to off-site public-right-of-way. The design of pedestrian pathways and bike lanes on-site would be consistent with City requirements as outlined in Chapter 11.08 of the Municipal Code. Changes to the existing parking lots on-site would be made consistent with requirements in the Municipal Code regarding driveway widths, site triangles, and drive aisle widths. The final site design of these improvements would be reviewed by the City to ensure that no hazards are created through project implementation. Therefore the project would have a less than significant impact related to geometric design hazards, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)
d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? The 2019 IS/MND concluded that implementation of the Master Plan would not include improvements that would alter the roadway system in a manner that would affect emergency access and future projects would be designed according to adopted City policies to ensure all standards for emergency access were met. Therefore, there would be no impact to emergency access.133
Consistent with the assumptions in the 2019 IS/MND, the project would not include development of structures within the public rights-of-way and no alteration to the geometry of adjacent roadways would occur. The project would maintain existing emergency access to the site and the proposed improvements would be reviewed for consistency with applicable California Building Code 132 Ibid. Page 203. 133 Ibid. Page 203.
1019
CC 04-03-2024
1019 of 1277
Memorial Park Specific Plan 148 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
and Fire Code requirements for access and safety at the time they are designed. As such, the proposed project would not have a significant emergency access impact, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project). 1020
CC 04-03-2024
1020 of 1277
Memorial Park Specific Plan 149 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Tribal Cultural Resources
5.18.1 Environmental Setting
The regulatory framework and existing conditions have not changed substantially since the adoption of the 2019 IS/MND. Key regulations and project site conditions are described below.
Regulatory Framework
State
Assembly Bill 52
AB 52, effective July 2015, established a new category of resources for consideration by public agencies called Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs). AB 52 requires lead agencies to provide notice of projects to tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area if they have requested to be notified. Where a project may have a significant impact on a TCR, consultation is required until the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect on a TCR or until it is concluded that mutual agreement cannot be reached.
Under AB 52, TCRs are defined as follows:
• Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are also either:
o Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historic Resources, or
o Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k).
• A resource determined by the lead agency to be a TCR.
Local
City of Cupertino Municipal Code
Section 17.04.050 of the City’s Municipal Code outlines standard environmental protection permit submittal requirements. Among other requirements, this section includes specific measures for development projects to protect archaeological resources and tribal cultural resources. These measures include providing contractors with basic archaeological site indicators, ceasing work activities if resources are discovered, and consulting with tribal representatives.
Cupertino General Conditions
The City of Cupertino maintains a list of general conditions that contractors must implement or comply with while working on municipal projects. The following General Condition relates to cultural resources.
5.18 5.18.1.1
1021
CC 04-03-2024
1021 of 1277
Memorial Park Specific Plan 150 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
General Condition 7.18: Historic or Archeological Items. (A) Contractor’s Obligations. Contractor must ensure that all persons performing Work at the Project site are required to immediately notify the Project Manager, upon discovery of any potential historic or archeological items, including historic or prehistoric ruins, a burial ground, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints or other archeological, paleontological or historical feature on the Project site (collectively, “Historic or Archeological Items”).
(B) Discovery; Cessation of Work. Upon discovery of any potential Historic or Archeological Items, Work must be stopped within an 85-foot radius of the find and may not resume until authorized in writing by the City. If required by City, Contractor must assist in protecting or recovering the Historic or Archeological Items, with any such assistance to be compensated as Extra Work on a time and materials basis under Article 6, Contract Modification. At the City’s discretion, a suspension of Work required due to discovery of Historic or Archeological Items may be treated as Excusable Delay pursuant to Article 5, or as a suspension for convenience under Article 13.
Existing Conditions
There are no known TCRs on-site. As discussed in Section 5.5 Cultural Resources, the site has a moderate sensitivity for pre-historic resources and a moderate sensitivity for historic-era archaeological resources.
5.18.1.2 1022
CC 04-03-2024
1022 of 1277
Memorial Park Specific Plan 151 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
5.18.2 Impact Discussion
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as Approved
Project
Would the project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section
21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in terms of
the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or
object with cultural value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider
the significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe.
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
The 2019 IS/MND determined that future projects under the Master Plan could have the potential to encounter native soils and uncover historic or prehistoric tribal cultural artifacts. The 2019 IS/MND concluded that compliance with federal, state, General Plan, and Municipal Code policies in addition to implementation of 2019 IS/MND Mitigation Measure CULT-1 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.134
The project site does not contain any known TCRs. As discussed in Section 5.5 Cultural Resources, the project shall conduct a subsurface investigation (Extended Phase I Study) prior to the start of ground disturbing activities on-site, consistent with the requirements of Municipal Code Section 134 City of Cupertino. Parks and Recreation System Master Plan – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. SCH # 2019109066. October 2019. Pages 207 to 208.
□ □ □
□ □ □
1023
CC 04-03-2024
1023 of 1277
Memorial Park Specific Plan 152 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
17.04.050. If any improvements on-site require ground-disturbing activities that reach a depth below four feet, an Extended Phase I Study shall be performed in the vicinity of those improvements to confirm the presence/absence of pre-colonial archaeological resources and/or TCRs.
Should any pre-colonial archaeological resources and/or TCRs be discovered during the subsurface testing, the project would comply with the requirements of 2019 IS/MND Mitigation Measure CULT1 and City General Condition 7.18 to ensure that appropriate treatment plans are prepared under consultation with a qualified archaeologist and the California Native American Heritage Commission. Based on this discussion, impacts to TCRs would be less than significant, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project) b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1?
As discussed under checklist question a), no TCRs were identified on the project site and compliance with Municipal Code Section 17.04.050 and implementation of 2019 IS/MND Mitigation Measure CULT-1 and City General Condition 7.18 would reduce impacts unknown, buried TCRs (if present onsite) to a less than significant level. As such, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a TCR, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)
1024
CC 04-03-2024
1024 of 1277
Memorial Park Specific Plan 153 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Utilities and Service Systems
5.19.1 Environmental Setting
The regulatory framework and existing conditions have not changed substantially since the adoption of the 2019 IS/MND, with the exception of the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) prepared by San José Water in 2020. Key regulations and project site conditions are described below.
Regulatory Framework
State
State Water Code
Pursuant to the State Water Code, water suppliers providing water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet (approximately 980 million gallons) of water annually must prepare and adopt a UWMP and update it every five years. As part of a UWMP, water agencies are required to evaluate and describe their water resource supplies and projected needs over a 20-year planning horizon, water conservation, water service reliability, water recycling, opportunities for water transfers, and contingency plans for drought events. The City of Cupertino adopted its most recent UWMP prepared by San José Water in 2020.
Senate Bill 1383
SB 1383 establishes targets to achieve a 50 percent reduction in the level of the statewide disposal of organic waste from the 2014 level by 2020 and a 75 percent reduction by 2025. The bill grants CalRecycle the regulatory authority required to achieve the organic waste disposal reduction targets and establishes an additional target that at least 20 percent of currently disposed edible food is recovered for human consumption by 2025. CalRecycle released an analysis titled “Analysis of the Progress Toward the SB 1383 Organic Wase Reduction Goals” in August of 2020, which recommended maintaining the disposal reduction targets set forth in SB 1383.135 California Green Building Standards Code
In January 2010, the State of California adopted the California Green Building Standards Code, establishing mandatory green building standards for all buildings in California. The code covers five categories: planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resources efficiency, and indoor environmental quality. These standards include 135 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. Analysis of the Progress Toward the SB 1383 Organic Wase Reduction Goals. August 18, 2020.
5.19 5.19.1.1
1025
CC 04-03-2024
1025 of 1277
Memorial Park Specific Plan 154 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
the following mandatory set of measures, as well as more rigorous voluntary guidelines, for new construction projects to achieve specific green building performance levels:
• Reducing indoor water use by 20 percent;
• Reducing wastewater by 20 percent; and
• Recycling and/or salvaging 50 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition debris.
Local
Cupertino General Plan: Community Vision 2015-2040
The proposed project is subject to General Plan policies including, but not limited to, the policies and strategies listed below pertaining to utilities and service systems.
Policy/Strategy Description
Policy INF-3.1 Coordinate with water providers and agencies in their planning and infrastructure process to ensure that the City continues to have adequate supply for current needs and future growth.
Policy INF-5.2 Look for ways to reduce demand on the City’s wastewater system through implementation of water conservation measures.
Policy INF-7.2 Ensure that public and private developments build new and on-site facilities and/or retrofit existing on-site facilities to meet the City’s waste diversion requirements.
Strategy INF-2.4.2 Require undergrounding of all utility lines in new developments and highly encourage undergrounding in remodels or redevelopment of major projects.
Strategy INF-7.3.2 Encourage recycling and reuse of building materials during demolition and construction of City, agency and private projects.
Strategy RPC-3.1.1 Maximize the use of native plants and drought-tolerant planting.
Cupertino Zero Waste Plan
The City included a Zero Waste Plan within the Climate Action Plan 2.0 that was adopted on August 16, 2022. This portion of the plan includes three zero waste measures and a series of corresponding actions that can be implemented to reduce solid waste in the City. • Measure W-1: Implement SB 1383 requirements and reduce communitywide landfilled organics 75 percent by 2025 and inorganic landfilled waste 35 percent by 2030. Reduce all landfilled waste 90 percent by 2040.
• Measure W-2: Reduce overall waste disposed to garbage, recycling, and compost per capita by 15 percent by 2035.
• Measure W-3: Meet or exceed the SB 1383 recycled organics products procurement requirements and sequester or avoid at least 0.018 MT CO2e per person by 2045. 1026
CC 04-03-2024
1026 of 1277
Memorial Park Specific Plan 155 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Cupertino Municipal Code
The Municipal Code includes the following provisions regarding utilities and service systems:
• Chapter 14.15, Landscaping Ordinance, establishes water-efficient landscaping standards to conserve water use on irrigation. The provisions of this chapter apply to landscaping projects that include irrigated landscape areas, exceeding 2,500 square feet when these projects are associated with new water service, subdivision improvements, grading and drainage improvements, a new construction subject to a building permit, or building additions or modifications subject to grading and drainage plan approval. • Chapter 15.20, Sewage Disposal Systems, establishes standards for the approval, installation, and operation of individual on-site sewage disposal systems consistent with the RWQCB standards. The chapter sets regulation for connecting to public sanitary sewer system.
• Chapter 16.58, Green Building Ordinance, includes the CALGreen requirements with local amendments for projects in the City. The City’s Green Building Ordinance codifies green building techniques, including measures affecting water use efficiency and water conservation. Section 16.58.220 includes Table 101.10 that identifies the green building requirements by type of building. Section 16.58.230 permits applicants to apply an alternate green building standard for a project in lieu of the minimum standards outlined in Section
16.58.220 that meet the same intent of conserving resources and reducing solid waste. • Chapter 16.72, Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition Waste, requires all projects within the City that involve construction, demolition, or renovation of 3,000 square feet or more to comply with the provisions of the chapter, and the compliance with the chapter will be attached as conditions of approval of any building or demolition permit issued. An applicant for a covered project is required to recycle or divert at least 60 percent of all generated construction and demolition (C&D) waste by salvage or by transfer to an approved facility. Prior to the permit issuance, the applicant is required to submit a properly completed Waste Management Plan, which includes the estimated maximum amount of C&D waste that can feasibly be diverted, which facility will handle the waste, and the total amount of C&D waste that will be landfilled.
Existing Conditions
Water Supply Sources
Potable water in Cupertino is provided by the California Water Service Company (Cal Water) and the San José Water Company (SJWC), who both purchase their water from Valley Water.136 SJWC operates, maintains, and improves the Cupertino Municipal Water System (CMWS), which covers 136 City of Cupertino. Parks and Recreation System Master Plan – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. SCH # 2019109066. October 2019. Page 209.
5.19.1.2 1027
CC 04-03-2024
1027 of 1277
Memorial Park Specific Plan 156 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
the western portion of the City (including the project site). In 2020, the CMWS supplied 860 million gallon (MG) of potable water within its service area.137 Currently, the project site utilizes potable water for drinking fountains, restrooms, interior plumbing, and landscape irrigation on-site.
Wastewater
Wastewater collection and treatment are provided to most of the City, including the project site, by the Cupertino Sanitary District (CSD).
138 The limited amount of wastewater generated on-site flows to existing eight-inch main lines in Christensen Drive, Alves Drive, Stelling Road, and the parking lot north of the Senior Center.139 The wastewater collected by CSD is routed to the San José/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) for treatment, which has a capacity to treat 167 million gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater. In 2022, the WPCP’s average influent flow was 84.1 mgd.140 Stormwater Drainage
Stormwater in the City is captured by Cupertino’s storm drain system. Stormwater runoff from the project site is collected in storm drain inlets and routed to a 15-inch main line in Christensen Drive, a 45-inch main line in Stelling Road, a 12-inch main line in Alves Drive, a 22-inch to 27-inch line parallel to the western boundary of the site, an 18-inch main line in Mary Avenue, and a 24-inch main line in Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Solid Waste
Non-hazardous solid waste in Cupertino is sorted and disposed of at Newby Island Sanitary Landfill (NISL). As of January 2023, NISL had approximately 12.4 million cubic yards of capacity remaining and an estimated closure date of 2035.141 The project site currently generates limited amounts of waste (compared to other land uses like residential and commercial land uses).
Electric, Gas and Telecommunications Services
SVCE sources the electricity for properties in Cupertino and PG&E is responsible for delivering it through their existing utility lines. Electricity lines on-site are undergrounded. Electricity is used onsite for nighttime security lighting, operation of the community center and senior center buildings, and operation of the landscaping equipment.
137 San José Water Company. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021. Page 2-1. 138 Cupertino Sanitary District. “District Boundaries Map.” Accessed August 18, 2023. https://www.cupertinosanitarydistrict.org/services___service_area. 139 Cupertino Sanitary District. “Maps: Sheet 7.” Accessed August 18, 2023. https://www.cupertinosanitarydistrict.org/maps. 140 San José-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility. 2022 Self-Monitoring Annual Report. Page 5. Accessed September 27, 2023. Available at:
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/94789/638124181781530000. 141 Boccaleoni, Anthony. Division Manager, Republic Services. Personal Communication. May 12, 2023. 1028
CC 04-03-2024
1028 of 1277
Memorial Park Specific Plan 157 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
5.19.2 Impact Discussion
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as Approved
Project
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction
or relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
b) Have insufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it does not have adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the
attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e) Be noncompliant with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
The 2019 IS/MND determined that future projects under the Master Plan could require the installation of new water, stormwater drainage, and electric power facilities. However, these improvements would be done according to City policy and would include the implementation of □ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
1029
CC 04-03-2024
1029 of 1277
Memorial Park Specific Plan 158 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
construction BMPs and General Conditions that would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.142
The project would require the construction of new water, sanitary sewer, stormwater, and electric lines on-site and lateral connections to existing utility lines in surrounding streets to serve the relocated restrooms, power new lighting fixtures, and connect the new landscape irrigation equipment. The project would comply with the existing regulations, mitigation measures from the 2019 IS/MND, and City General Conditions identified throughout this Initial Study/Addendum to reduce potential environmental impacts during construction activities to a less than significant level, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project) b) Would the project have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Based on the 2015 UWMP prepared by Valley Water, the 2019 IS/MND concluded that the Cupertino service area would maintain adequate supplies of water in future Normal Year, Single Dry Year, and Multiple Dry Year conditions. In addition, as future projects are proposed, project-level information would be reviewed by the City in accordance with CEQA which would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.143
The 2020 UWMP that was prepared by SJWC subsequent to the adoption of the 2019 IS/MND discussed water supply reliability and drought risks within their service area, but since Valley Water supplies most of SJWC’s water supply, they also utilized the findings and analysis included in Valley Water’s 2020 UWMP.
144 As part of Valley Water’s 2020 UWMP, a Drought Risk Assessment was conducted and found that Valley Water would have sufficient supplies to meet SJWC’s demand through 2045 under normal year, single dry year, and five consecutive dry year conditions.145 To ensure that adequate water supply is maintained during dry and multiple dry years where there may be shortfalls in supply, SJWC prepared a Water Shortage Contingency Plan that would institute mandatory conservation measures, with escalating levels of conservation requirements as the shortages in water supply increase. These measures include limiting outdoor water use, installing flow restrictor devices, and prohibiting non-essential uses of water. 146
The project would prioritize the planting of drought tolerant landscaping and would install highefficiency irrigation equipment to limit water demand. The project would be required to comply with any conservation measures mandated by SJWC during future drought years. Compliance with 142 City of Cupertino. Parks and Recreation System Master Plan – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. SCH # 2019109066. October 2019. Page 215. 143 Ibid. Page 215. 144 San José Water Company. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021. Page 7-1. 145 San José Water Company. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021. Page 7-13. 146 San José Water Company. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021. Table 8-1. 1030
CC 04-03-2024
1030 of 1277
Memorial Park Specific Plan 159 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
these mandatory conservation measures and the limiting of water demand on-site through the use of drought tolerant landscaping and high-efficiency irrigation equipment would ensure that sufficient water supply is maintained in normal, dry, and multiple dry years, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project) c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? The 2019 IS/MND determined that most of the projects recommended under the Master Plan would be smaller projects related to improving park amenities, infrastructure, or landscaping and would not result in an increase in the generation of wastewater. Although some projects such as renovation of existing park buildings and adding restrooms could result in a small increase in wastewater generation, it was found that this would not result in the exceedance of wastewater treatment capacity in the system. Any larger projects in the Master Plan would be reviewed at the time that project-level plans become available to ensure that impacts to the wastewater treatment system are reduced to a less than significant level.147 The project would improve existing park amenities, upgrade two of the existing restrooms on-site, and would construct one new restroom south of the softball field. The proposed improvements would not substantially change or increase the use of the park. For this reason, the project would result in similar wastewater generation as under existing conditions. Given the existing, available treatment capacity at the WPCP (82.9 mgd) and the fact that the project would not result in substantially different wastewater treatment demand than under existing conditions, there would continue to be sufficient capacity at the WPCP to serve the project and future treatment demand, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project) d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
The 2019 IS/MND determined that although future projects under the Master Plan could potentially increase solid waste generation due to increased uses of recreational facilities, it would not result in substantial amounts that would be in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local landfills such as Newby Island Sanitary Landfill (NISL). Therefore, implementation of the Master Plan would result in less than significant impacts. 148
147 City of Cupertino. Parks and Recreation System Master Plan – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. SCH # 2019109066. October 2019. Pages 215 to 216. 148 Ibid. Page 216. 1031
CC 04-03-2024
1031 of 1277
Memorial Park Specific Plan 160 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
In compliance with CALGreen requirements and consistent with General Plan Strategy INF-7.3.2, the project would be required to recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition debris resulting from construction activities. In addition, contractors implementing the project would be required to prepare Waste Management Plans, consistent with Chapter 16.72 of the Municipal Code.
The proposed improvements would not substantially change or increase the use of the park; therefore, the project would result in similar solid waste generation as under existing conditions. In addition, as discussed further in checklist question e) below, the project would be designed in compliance with the City’s recycling requirements and Zero Waste Plan which would limit the amount of operational waste disposed of on-site. As of January 2023, NISL had approximately 12.4 million cubic yards of capacity remaining and an estimated closure date of 2035.149 Based on the remaining capacity at NISL and the fact that the project would not result in substantially different solid waste generation than under existing conditions, NISL would have sufficient capacity to serve the project.
Because the project can be served by a landfill with capacity and would be required to comply with existing local and state programs and regulations, the project’s impacts related to solid waste and landfill capacity and attainment of solid reduction goals would be less than significant, consistent with the findings of the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project) e) Would the project be noncompliant with federal, state, or local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
The 2019 IS/MND concluded that since future projects would comply with the City’s Zero Waste Policy and divert at least 65 percent of the construction waste from future projects, implementation of the Master Plan would not be noncompliant with any federal, state, or local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. 150
As discussed under checklist question d) above, the proposed project would comply with state and local regulations related to solid waste reduction. The project would be consistent with Municipal Code requirements and comply with CALGreen standards for construction waste recycling and divert at least 65 percent of construction waste resulting from construction activities on-site. In addition, contractors hired to construct these improvements would be required to prepare a Waste Management Plan consistent with Municipal Code requirements. Consistent with SB 1383 and the City’s Zero Waste Plan, organic waste collected on-site would continue to be diverted from landfills.
The project, therefore, would result in the same impact as disclosed in the 2019 IS/MND. (Same Impact as Approved Project)
149 Boccaleoni, Anthony. Division Manager, Republic Services. Personal Communication. May 12, 2023. 150 City of Cupertino. Parks and Recreation System Master Plan – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. SCH # 2019109066. October 2019. Page 216.
1032
CC 04-03-2024
1032 of 1277
Memorial Park Specific Plan 161 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Wildfire
5.20.1 Environmental Setting
The regulatory framework and existing conditions have not changed substantially since the adoption of the 2019 IS/MND. Key regulations and project site conditions are described below.
Regulatory Framework
State
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
CAL FIRE is required by law to map areas of significant fire hazards based on fuels, terrain, weather, and other relevant factors. Referred to as Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZs), these maps influence how people construct buildings and protect property to reduce risk associated with wildland fires.
FHSZs are divided into areas where the state has financial responsibility for wildland fire protection, known as state responsibility areas (SRAs), and areas where local governments have financial responsibility for wildland fire protection, known as local responsibility areas (LRAs). Homeowners living in an SRA are responsible for ensuring that their property is in compliance with California’s building and fire codes. Only lands zoned for very high fire hazard are identified within LRAs.
Existing Conditions
The project site is not classified as a very high fire hazard severity zone.151
5.20.2 Impact Discussion
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as Approved
Project
If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
151 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. FHSZ Viewer. Accessed October 1, 2023. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/.
5.20 5.20.1.1
5.20.1.2 □
□
□
□
□
□
1033
CC 04-03-2024
1033 of 1277
Memorial Park Specific Plan 162 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as Approved
Project
If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines
or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk
or that may result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
The 2019 IS/MND determined that implementation of the project would not exacerbate wildfire risks, and would not expose people or structures to significant risk from wildfire.152 The project site is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones; therefore, the project would not result in wildfire impacts. (Same Impact as Approved Project)
152 City of Cupertino. Parks and Recreation System Master Plan – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. SCH # 2019109066. October 2019. Pages 220 to 221.
□ □ □
□ □ □
1034
CC 04-03-2024
1034 of 1277
Memorial Park Specific Plan 163 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Section 6.0 References
The analysis in this Initial Study/Addendum is based on the professional judgement and expertise of the environmental specialists preparing this document, based upon review of the site, surrounding conditions, site plans, and the following references:
Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Plan Bay Area 2050. October 21, 2021.
---. Tsunami & Additional Hazards. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://abag.ca.gov/our-work/resilience/data-research/tsunami-additional-hazards.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. April 19, 2017. http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/air-quality-plans/current-plans.
California Air Resources Board. “Advanced Clean Cars II.” Accessed August 16, 2023. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/advanced-clean-cars-program/advanced-cleancars-ii ---. “Overview: Diesel Exhaust and Health.” Accessed August 16, 2023. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health.
California Building Standards Commission. “California Building Standards Code.” Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/Codes#@ViewBag.JumpTo.
California Department of Conservation. California Earthquake Hazards Zone. Webmap. Accessed August 15, 2023. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/. ---. “California Important Farmland Finder.” Accessed March 6, 2023. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/
----. “Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.” Accessed February 17, 2023. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Index.aspx. ---. “Williamson Act.” http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca.
California Department of Finance. “Estimate E-1: Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State — January 1, 2022 and 2023.” May 2023. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates-e1/.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. “FHSZ Viewer.” Webmap. Accessed August 15, 2023. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/.
1035
CC 04-03-2024
1035 of 1277
Memorial Park Specific Plan 164 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
---. “Fire and Resource Assessment Program.” Accessed February 17, 2023. http://frap.fire.ca.gov/.
California Department of Housing and Community Development. “Regional Housing Needs Allocation” Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-communitydevelopment/regional-housing-needs-allocation.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. Analysis of the Progress Toward the SB 1383 Organic Wase Reduction Goals. August 18, 2020.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/Details/1693#:~:text=Analysis%20of%20the% 20Progress%20Toward,(DRRR%2D2020%2D1693)&text=SB%201383%20establishes%20targ ets%20to,75%20percent%20reduction%20by%202025.
California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. “Net Taxable Gasoline Gallons.” Accessed August 16, 2023.
https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/dataportal/dataset.htm?url=VehicleTaxableFuelDist.
California Department of Transportation. ”Scenic Highways.” Accessed February 17, 2023. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-communitylivability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways California Energy Commission. “2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.” Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energyefficiency-standards/2019-building-energy-efficiency. ---. “Natural Gas Consumption by County.” Accessed August 16, 2023. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx.
---. Energy Consumption Data Management System. “Electricity Consumption by County.” Accessed August 16, 2023. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx.
California Environmental Protection Agency. “Cortese List Data Resources.” Accessed October 16, 2023. https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/.
California Gas and Electric Utilities. 2022 California Gas Report. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.socalgas.com/sites/default/files/Joint_Utility_Biennial_Comprehensive_Califor nia_Gas_Report_2022.pdf.
California Legislative Information. “Chapter 2.7. Modernization of Transportation Analysis for Transit-Oriented Infill Projects [21099- 21099.].” Accessed February 17, 2023. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=21099.&la wCode=PRC.
1036
CC 04-03-2024
1036 of 1277
Memorial Park Specific Plan 165 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Region. Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order No. R2-2022-0018, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008. May 11, 2022
---. San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit. November 2015. ---. “2020-2022 California Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List and 305(b) Report).” May 11, 2022. Accessed September 2, 2022.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/water_quality_assessment/2020 _2022_integrated_report.html.
City of Cupertino. Cupertino General Plan Community Vision 2040. October 15, 2015. --- “Fire Department.” Accessed August 16, 2023.
https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/public-safety-programs/fire-department. ---. “Schools.” Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/schools. ---. “Sheriff’s Office.” Accessed August 16, 2023.
https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/public-safety-programs/sheriff-s-office. ----. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Thresholds and Guidance. April 29, 2022.
---. Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan. June 2016. . ---. Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning Project (SCH# 2014032007). December 4, 2014. ---. Parks and Recreation System Master Plan – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. SCH # 2019109066. October 2019.
Cornerstone Earth Group, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment - Cupertino Memorial Park, 10185 North Stelling Road, and 21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino. October 13, 2022.
County of Santa Clara. Geologic Hazards Zones. Maps 2 and 10. Map. October 2012. ---. “Williamson Act and Open Space Easement.” September 17, 2018. Accessed March 6, 2023. https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/programs/wa/pages/wa.aspx.
Cupertino Sanitary District. “District Boundaries Map.” Accessed August 18, 2023. https://www.cupertinosanitarydistrict.org/services___service_area. 1037
CC 04-03-2024
1037 of 1277
Memorial Park Specific Plan 166 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
---. “Maps: Sheet 7.” Accessed August 18, 2023. https://www.cupertinosanitarydistrict.org/maps.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 06085C0208H.
National Ocean Service. What is a Seiche? Accessed August 16, 2023. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/seiche.html.
Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants. Geotechnical Evaluation.
November 3, 2022
San José Water Company. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021.
San José-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility. 2022 Self-Monitoring Annual Report. Accessed September 27, 2023. Available at:
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/94789/638124181781530000.
Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission. Moffett Federal Airfield Comprehensive Land Use Plan. December 2018.
Santa Clara County Fire Department. 2022 Annual Report. April 26, 2023. Page 4. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.sccfd.org/about-sccfd/key-reports-and-documents/.
Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2021 Groundwater Management Plan. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://s3.us-west2.amazonaws.com/assets.valleywater.org/2021_GWMP_web_version.pdf.
Silicon Valley Clean Energy. “Frequently Asked Questions.” Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.svcleanenergy.org/faqs.
United States Department of Energy. Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007. Accessed August 16, 2023. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/laws/eisa.
United States Department of the Interior. Potential Fossil Yield Classification System. July 2016.
Accessed August 15, 2023. https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/uploads/IM2016- 124_att1.pdf
United States Department of Transportation. USDOT Announces New Vehicle Fuel Economy Standards for Model Year 2024-2026.” Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/usdot-announces-new-vehicle-fuel-economystandards-model-year-2024-2026 United States Energy Information Administration. “Natural Gas Consumption by End Use. 2021.” Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-2. 1038
CC 04-03-2024
1038 of 1277
Memorial Park Specific Plan 167 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
---. “Petroleum & Other Liquids, California Field Production of Crude Oil.” February 28, 2023. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcrfpca1&f=a. ---. “State Profile and Energy Estimates, 2020.” Accessed August 4, 2023. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-2.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. “EPA Actions to Protect the Public from Exposure to Asbestos.” Accessed April 19, 2022. https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/epa-actions-protectpublic-exposure-asbestos ---. “Summary of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.” Accessed October 16, 2023. https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-resource-conservation-and-recovery-act. ---. “Superfund: CERCLA Overview.” Accessed May 11, 2020. https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-cercla-overview. ---. “The 2022 EPA Automotive Trends Report: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Fuel Economy, and Technology since 1975.” December 2022.
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P1010U68.pdf Personal Communication
• Boccaleoni, Anthony. Division Manager, Republic Services. 1039
CC 04-03-2024
1039 of 1277
Memorial Park Specific Plan 168 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Section 7.0 Lead Agency and Consultants
Lead Agency
City of Cupertino
Public Works Department
Susan Michael, CIP Manager
Consultants
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.
Environmental Consultants and Planners
Kristy Weis, Vice President/Principal Project Manager
Nick Towstopiat, Project Manager
Albion Environmental, Inc.
Archaeological Consultants
Jennifer M. Farquhar, Principal
Stella D’Oro, Senior Archaeologist, GIS Specialist
Cornerstone Earth Group, Inc.
Hazardous Materials Consultant
Ron L. Helm, Senior Principal Geologist
Stason Foster, Senior Project Engineer
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
Biological Resources Consultant
Brenda Wong, Consulting Arborist and Urban Forester
Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.
Acoustic & Air Quality Consultants
Michael Thill, Principal
Heather Bruce, Senior Consultant
Ninyo & Moore
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
Ransom H. Hennefer, Principal Engineer
TJKM
Transportation Consultants
Mark Doty, Senior Planner
Renee Reavis, Transportation Engineer
7.1 7.2
1040
CC 04-03-2024
1040 of 1277
Memorial Park Specific Plan 169 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
Section 8.0 Acronyms and Abbreviations
AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ACM Asbestos-Containing Material
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
ALUC Airport Land Use Commission
AMSL Above Mean Sea Level
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
ATCM Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Bay Area San Francisco Bay Area
Basin Plan Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin bgs Below Ground Surface
Btu British Thermal Unit
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standard
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Cal/OSHA California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health
CalARP California Accidental Release Prevention
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CALGreen California Green Building Standards
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Standards Code
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CFC Chlorofluorocarbon
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CGS California Geological Survey
CH4 Methane
1041
CC 04-03-2024
1041 of 1277
Memorial Park Specific Plan 170 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System CLUP Comprehensive Land Use Plan
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CO Carbon Monoxide
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalents
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency
dBA A-weighted decibel
DNL Day/Night Average Sound Level
DOLA Dog Off Leash Area
DPM Diesel Particulate Matter
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EO Executive Order
EOP Emergency Operations Plan
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAR Federal Aviation Regulations
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zone
FIRMs Flood Insurance Rate Maps
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
FTA Federal Transit Administration
FUHSD Fremont Union High School District
GHG Greenhouse Gases
GHGRS Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy
GWh Gigawatt Hour
GWMP Groundwater Management Plan
GWP Global Warming Potential
1042
CC 04-03-2024
1042 of 1277
Memorial Park Specific Plan 171 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons
HSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
Leq Energy-Equivalent Sound/Noise Descriptor
LHMP Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
LID Low Impact Development
Lmax Maximum A-weighted noise level during a measurement period LOS Level of Service
LRA Local Responsibility Area
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MG million gallons
MMTCO2e Million Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
mpg Miles per Gallon
MRP Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit
MSL Mean Sea Level
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
N2O Nitrous Oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standard
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NCP National Contingency Plan
NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
NISL Newby Island Sanitary Landfill
NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide
NOA Naturally Occurring Asbestos
NOD Notice of Determination
NOI Notice of Intent
NOx Nitrogen Oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
O3 Ozone
1043
CC 04-03-2024
1043 of 1277
Memorial Park Specific Plan 172 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PCF Perfluorocarbon
PDA Priority Development Areas
PFCs Perfluorocarbons
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company
PM Particulate Matter
PM10 Particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less PM2.5 Particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less PPV Peak Particle Velocity
R&D Research and Development
RAP Removal Action Plan
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RECs Recognized Environmental Conditions
ROG Reactive Organic Gases
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB State Bill
SCCFD Santa Clara County Fire Department
SCCSO Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SCVHP Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan
SF6 Sulfur Hexafluoride
SFHA Special Flood Hazard Areas
SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
SHMA Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
SMGB State Mining and Geology Board
SMP Site Management Plan
SOx Sulfur Oxides
SR State Route
SRA State Responsibility Area
1044
CC 04-03-2024
1044 of 1277
Memorial Park Specific Plan 173 Initial Study/Addendum
City of Cupertino January 2024
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC Toxic Air Contaminants
TCR Tribal Cultural Resources
Title 24 Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
Valley Water Santa Clara Valley Water District
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VTA Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Williamson Act California Land Conservation Act
WPCP San José/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant WUI Wildland-Urban Interface
ZNE Zero Net Carbon Emission
1045
CC 04-03-2024
1045 of 1277
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PARKS AND RECREATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
INITIAL STUDY -
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
ADDENDUM
APPENDICES B - F • ATTACHMENT D •
Attachment D
1046
CC 04-03-2024
1046 of 1277
Tree Inventory Report. Memorial Park, Cupertino. Page 1 David J. Powers & Associates November 2022
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company 2550 Ninth Street Suite 112, Berkeley, CA, 94710, 925.484.0211 ● www.hortscience.com Tree Inventory Report
Memorial Park
Cupertino, CA
PREPARED FOR:
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.
1871 The Alameda, Suite 200
San Jose, CA 95126
PREPARED BY:
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
2250 Ninth St. Suite 112
Berkeley, CA 94710
November, 2022
• ATTACHMENT D • APPENDIX B •
- HORT SCIENCE
w BARTLETT CON SU LT I N G
1047
CC 04-03-2024
1047 of 1277
Tree Inventory Report. Memorial Park, Cupertino. Page 2 David J. Powers & Associates November 2022
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company 2550 Ninth Street Suite 112, Berkeley, CA, 94710, 925.484.0211 ● www.hortscience.com Tree Inventory Report
Memorial Park
Cupertino, CA
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction and Overview 1
Assessment Methods 1
Description of Trees 2
Suitability for Preservation 9
Tree Preservation Guidelines 11
List of Tables
Table 1. Tree condition and frequency of occurrence 3
Table 2. Tree suitability for preservation 10
Attachments
Tree Inventory Map
Tree Assessment Form
1048
CC 04-03-2024
1048 of 1277
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Tree Inventory Report
Memorial Park
Cupertino, CA
Introduction and Overview
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. in conjunction with Gates+Associates are developing a Master Plan for Memorial Park in Cupertino, CA. HortScience | Bartlett Consulting (Divisions of The F.A. The Bartlett Expert Tree Company) was asked to prepare a Tree Inventory Report for trees at this location to assist with planning and future development.
This report provides the following information:
1. An assessment of the health and structural condition of the trees within the park’s boundary area based on a visual inspection from the ground.
2. Preliminary guidelines for tree preservation during the design, construction, and maintenance phases of development.
Assessment Methods
Trees were assessed on September 2, 14, and 28, 2022. Tree assessment included trees with diameters of 4 inches or greater located within the boundaries provided by the client. The assessment procedure consisted of the following steps:
1. Identifying the tree species.
2. Tagging trees and recording locations on a map.
3. Measuring the trunk diameter at a point 54 inches above grade.
4. Evaluating the health and structural condition using a scale of 1 – 5:
5 - A healthy, vigorous tree, reasonably free of signs and symptoms of disease, with good structure and form typical of the species.
4 - Tree with slight decline in vigor, small amount of twig dieback, minor structural defects that could be corrected.
3 - Tree with moderate vigor, moderate twig and small branch dieback, thinning of crown, poor leaf color, moderate structural defects that might be mitigated with regular care.
2 - Tree in decline, epicormic growth, extensive dieback of medium to large branches, significant structural defects that cannot be abated. 1 - Tree in severe decline, dieback of scaffold branches and/or trunk; most of foliage from epicormics; extensive structural defects that cannot be abated.
5. Rating the suitability for preservation as “high”, “moderate” or “low”. Suitability for preservation considers the health, age and structural condition of the tree, and its potential to remain an asset to the site for years to come.
High: Trees with good health and structural stability that have the potential for longevity at the site.
Moderate: Trees with somewhat declining health and/or structural defects than can be abated with treatment. The tree will require more intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter life span than those in ‘high’ category.
Low: Trees in poor health or with significant structural defects that cannot be mitigated. Tree is expected to continue to decline, regardless of treatment. The species or individual may have characteristics that are undesirable for landscapes, and generally are unsuited for use areas. 1049
CC 04-03-2024
1049 of 1277
Tree Inventory Report. Memorial Park, Cupertino. Page 2 David J. Powers & Associates November 2022
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Description of Trees
Five hundred sixty (560) trees representing thirty-four species were assessed (Table 1). Overall, 357 trees were in good condition, 148 were in fair condition, 53 were in poor condition, and two were dead. In general species were ornamental, non-native and commonly observed in the region. While coast redwood, coast live oak, and western sycamore are native to the area, trees were not indigenous to the site. Trees #340, 370 and 371 were located off-site but were included because their canopy overhung the western park boundary. Descriptions of each tree can be found in the Tree Assessment Form and approximate locations are shown on the Tree Inventory Map (see Attachments).
Memorial Park is a 28-acre public park with open grass fields, sports courts, pedestrian pathways, playground, amphitheater, picnic areas, and other public amenities including Quinlan Community Center and Cupertino Sports Center. The landscape varied from irrigated turf with lush redwoods to dry non-irrigated hillsides.
Coast redwood was the most common species with
191 trees (34% of the population). One hundred
eleven (111) trees were in good condition (58%) with a
full healthy crown. The remaining redwoods (42%)
were in fair (63 trees) and poor (15 trees) condition,
and trees #399 and 429 were dead. Age and size
ranged from young to mature and from 5 to 60 inches
in diameter. In general, the trees in good condition
were growing in irrigated turf (PPhoto 1). Many of the
trees in fair and poor condition were suffering from
drought stress with moderate to extreme canopy
dieback (PPhoto 2). Coast redwoods are not drought
tolerant and will show signs of water stress if
supplemental irrigation is not provided. Redwoods in
fair condition may recover from drought if adequate
irrigation is applied.
Photo 1. (above) Redwood #445
was growing in irrigated turf and was
in good condition with a full healthy
crown.
Photo 2. (right) Redwoods #360 –
364 (pictured left to right) were water
stressed and had sparse crowns.
1050
CC 04-03-2024
1050 of 1277
Tree Inventory Report. Memorial Park, Cupertino. Page 3 David J. Powers & Associates November 2022
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Table 1: Tree condition and frequency of occurrence.
Memorial Park. Cupertino, CA.
Common Name Scientific Name Condition Total
Dead
(0)
Poor
(1-2)
Fair
(3)
Good
(4-5)
Red maple Acer rubrum - - - 19 19
African fern-pine Afrocarpus falcatus - - 11 9 20
Silk tree Albizia julibrissin - - - 3 3
Blue atlas cedar Cedrus atlantica 'Glauca' - - - 1 1
Deodar cedar Cedrus deodara - - 3 18 21
Red ironbark Eucalyptus sideroxylon - - 1 - 1
Raywood ash Fraxinus angustifolia 'Raywood' - - 1 4 5
Evergreen ash Fraxinus uhdei - - - 8 8
Honey locust Gleditsia triacanthos - 7 7 - 14
Leyland cypress x Hesperotropis leylandii - - 1 - 1
California black walnut Juglans hindsii - 14 2 - 16
Hollywood juniper Juniperus chinensis 'Kaizuka' - 2 3 - 5 Crape myrtle Lagerstroemia indica - - - 2 2
Crabapple Malus sylvestris - - 1 - 1
Photinia Photinia fraseri - - 2 - 2
Canary Island pine Pinus canariensis - - 2 22 24
Italian stone pine Pinus pinea - - 8 3 11
Monterey pine Pinus radiata - 1 - - 1
Scot's pine Pinus sylvestris - 2 2 - 4
Chinese pistache Pistacia chinensis - - 4 21 25
Tobira Pittosporum tobira - - 2 - 2
Western sycamore Platanus racemosa - - 1 3 4
London plane Platanus x hispanica - - 1 6 7
Purpleleaf plum Prunus cerasifera - - - 12 12
Jap. flowering cherry Prunus serrulata - 7 1 18 26
Callery pear Pyrus calleryana - - 14 46 60
Evergreen pear Pyrus kawakamii - 2 8 2 12
Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia - - 6 32 38
Holly oak Quercus ilex - - - 1 1
Southern live oak Quercus virginiana - 2 1 2 5
Coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 2 15 63 111 191
Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia - - 2 9 11
Mexican fan palm Washingtonia robusta - - - 1 1
Sawleaf zelkova Zelkova serrata - 1 1 4 6
Total 2 53 148 357 560
1051
CC 04-03-2024
1051 of 1277
Tree Inventory Report. Memorial Park, Cupertino. Page 4 David J. Powers & Associates November 2022
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Callery pear was the next most common species with 60 trees representing 10% of the population. Trees were in good (46 trees) and fair (14) condition. Most of the pears (40 trees) were located along the perimeter of a grassy field with the remainder in parking lot planting strips and scattered throughout the park. Pears were young to semi-mature in development with an average diameter of 14 inches.
Thirty-two of 38 coast live oaks
were in good condition and six
trees were fair. Age and size
ranged from young to mature
with diameters from 7 to 59
inches. Tree #338 was the
largest and most mature of the
oaks. It had a full healthy crown
and areas of decay on the trunk
and branches (Photo 3).
Japanese flowering cherries
comprised approximately 4% of the
population (26 trees). Trees were
young with an average diameter of
four inches. The cherries were in
good (18 trees) and poor (7 trees)
condition with tree #331 in fair.
Many of the cherries had marginal
leaf burn from a period of recent
high temperatures (Photo 4).
Of 26 Chinese pistaches, 21 were in good condition with four in fair condition. Trees were young to semi-mature in development with an average diameter of seven inches. In general, trees had good structure and a full round crown.
Most (91%) of the 24 Canary Island pines were in good condition (22 trees), with two in fair condition. Age and size ranged from young to mature with diameter from 8 to 28 inches. Trees had good structure and upright columnar form typical of the species.
Photo 3. (right) Coast live oak
#338 was a striking mature
tree. Despite areas of decay in
the trunk and branches, it had a
full healthy crown.
Photo 4. A recent period of high
temperatures caused leaf burn
in many of the Japanese
flowering cherries (tree #274).
1052
CC 04-03-2024
1052 of 1277
Tree Inventory Report. Memorial Park, Cupertino. Page 5 David J. Powers & Associates November 2022
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Twenty-one (21) deodar
cedars were located around
the Sports Center tennis
courts. Trees were young to
semi-mature in development.
Size ranged from four to 26
inches in diameter. Most of
the cedars were in good
condition (18 trees) with three
trees in fair condition.
African fern-pines comprised
approximately 3% of the
population (20 trees). Half
(10 trees) were located
around Quinlan Community
Center and half (10 trees)
were located in the Sports
Center parking lot (Photo 5).
Trees were young to semimature with an average
diameter of 14 inches. Nine
(9) trees were in good
condition with 11 trees fair.
Nineteen (19) red maples were
located around the Veteran’s
Memorial. The maples were
young with an average diameter
of eight inches. All trees were in
good condition with a full
healthy crown.
Sixteen (16) California black
walnuts were located around the
playground. Most (14 trees)
were in poor condition with
moderate to severe twig and
branch dieback. Two trees
were in fair condition (Photo 6).
Age and size ranged from semimature to mature with diameter from 12 to 38 inches.
Honey locusts (14 trees) were
located around a group picnic
area. Trees were young with an
average diameter of seven
inches. Half (7 trees) were in
fair condition and half (7 trees)
were in poor condition with
extensive trunk wounds and
basal decay.
Photo 5. (above) African fern-pines #102 – 104 (pictured left to right) were located around Quinlan Community Center.
Tree #104 had a slightly chlorotic but full crown, while trees #102 & 103 had thinner crowns.
Photo 6. California black walnut #449 was in poor
condition with significant twig and branch dieback.
1053
CC 04-03-2024
1053 of 1277
Tree Inventory Report. Memorial Park, Cupertino. Page 6 David J. Powers & Associates November 2022
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Purpleleaf plums (12 trees) were in a semi-circle west of the Community Center building. The plums were in good condition with a full healthy crown. Trees were young in development with an average diameter of six inches.
Twelve (12) evergreen pears were present. Trees were young to semi-mature, and diameter ranged from five to 14 inches. Most pears were in fair (8 trees) condition with two trees in fair and poor condition respectively.
Italian stone pines were in
fair (8 trees) and good (3
trees) condition. Trees
were semi-mature to
mature in development with
an average trunk diameter
of 25 inches. Seven pines
had large codominant
stems. Tree #421 had
large heavy lateral
branches that extended
over the baseball field’s
bleachers (Photo 7).
Eleven (11) Chinese elms were located
around the west entrance to the
Community Center and along Anton
Way. Trees were in good (9 trees) and
fair (2 trees) condition. The young
trees had an average trunk diameter of
six inches.
Evergreen ashes were in good (8 trees)
condition with a vigorous full crown
(Photo 8). Trees were semi-mature to
mature in development with diameters
ranging from 14 to 38 inches. Ashes
were located around the newly filled-in
pond (6 trees) and adjacent to the
playground (2 trees).
Photo 8. Evergreen ash #276 was in
good condition and had a full
vigorous crown.
Photo 7. Italian stone
pine #421 was a
mature tree with
codominant trunks and
large lateral branches
that hung over the
baseball bleachers.
1054
CC 04-03-2024
1054 of 1277
Tree Inventory Report. Memorial Park, Cupertino. Page 7 David J. Powers & Associates November 2022
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Six of seven London planes were in good condition with a full healthy crown. Tree #479 was fair condition with a slightly sparse crown. Trees were semi-mature in development with an average diameter of 14 inches.
Four (4) sawleaf zelkova were in
good condition, tree #262 was
fair, and tree #345 was poor.
Trees were semi-mature to
mature in development with
diameters ranging from 13 to 25
inches. Multiple branch
attachments arose between 5
and 8 feet on the trees. Tree
#263 was an especially beautiful
tree with a dense widespreading crown (Photo 9).
Hollywood junipers were in fair (3 trees) and
poor (2 trees) condition. The average trunk
diameter was 13 inches. Trees were small in
stature with an average height of 13 feet.
Four (4) Raywood ash were in good condition
with a full healthy crown. Tree #309 was fair
with dieback on the north side. Age and size
ranged from young to semi-mature and from 4
to 11 inches in diameter.
Southern live oaks (5 trees) were located
along Stevens Creek Boulevard. Trees were
in good (2 trees) and poor (2 trees) condition,
and tree #504 was fair. Oaks were young to
semi-mature with an average diameter of 10
inches.
Scot’s pines (4 trees) were located along
Anton Way. The average diameter was 10
inches. Trees were in fair (2 trees) and poor
(2 trees) condition and were water stressed
with small to significant needle dieback.
Four (4) western sycamore were growing in
parking lot planters. Age and size ranged
from young to semi-mature and from seven to
24 inches in diameter. Three (3) trees were
in good condition with a fully healthy crown.
Tree #353 was fair with a thin sinuous central
leader. The sycamores had large surface
roots typical of unsuitable soil conditions
(Photo 10).
Photo 9. (right) Sawleaf
zelkova #263 was a striking
tree with a dense widespreading crown.
Photo 10. Western sycamore #353 was
growing in a parking lot planter. It had a thin
sinuous central leader and large surface
roots.
1055
CC 04-03-2024
1055 of 1277
Tree Inventory Report. Memorial Park, Cupertino. Page 8 David J. Powers & Associates November 2022
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Three (3) silk trees were growing in a parking lot planting strip. Trees were in good condition with a full healthy crown. They were young with an average diameter of seven inches (Photo 11).
The remaining species were represented by two trees or fewer:
• Blue Atlas cedar #521 measured 12 inches in diameter and was in good condition. • Crabapple #299 was in fair condition with basal and root decay. It was 12 inches in diameter.
• Crape myrtles #322 and 323 were young and in good condition. • Holly oak #546 was in good condition with a fully healthy crown. It was semi-mature with multiple stems arising from the base.
• Leyland cypress #119 was in fair condition with small twig and branch dieback. It was semi-mature and measured 21 inches in diameter.
• Mexican fan palm #380 was mature in development. It was in good condition with a full healthy crown.
• Monterey pine #370 was in poor condition with significant twig and branch dieback. It was semi-mature with a diameter of 17 inches.
• Photinias #348 and 350 were in fair condition. The young trees had an average diameter of 5 inches.
• Red ironbark #530 was mature in development with a diameter of 31 inches. The tree was in fair condition with a history of branch failures.
Photo 11. Silk trees #19 – 21 (pictured right to left) were good young trees with a dense vigorous crown.
1056
CC 04-03-2024
1056 of 1277
Tree Inventory Report. Memorial Park, Cupertino. Page 9 David J. Powers & Associates November 2022
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company • Tobiras #351 and 352 were in fair condition. The young trees had a diameter of 7 inches.
The City of Cupertino protects private trees that meet certain criterion (Chapter 14.18.050), and all public trees (Chapter 14.12). According to City Ordinance 14.12, public tree is defined as park trees and street trees collectively; and park trees are defined as all woody vegetation in public parks owned by the City, or to which the public has access as a park. Based on this definition, all trees in Memorial Park are Protected.
Additionally, City Ordinance Chapter 14.18.050 protects Heritage trees in all zoning districts.
Heritage trees have an identification tag on them which designates their status (Chapter
14.18.090). Based on this designation, no tree in Memorial Park has Heritage status.
Suitability for Preservation
Before evaluating the impacts that will occur during development, it is important to consider the quality of the tree resource itself, and the potential for individual trees to function well over an extended length of time. Trees that are preserved on development sites must be carefully selected to make sure that they may survive development impacts, adapt to a new environment and perform well in the landscape. Our goal is to identify trees that have the potential for longterm health, structural stability, and longevity within the proposed development.
Evaluation of suitability for preservation considers several factors:
Tree health
Healthy, vigorous trees are better able to tolerate impacts such as root injury, demolition of existing structures, changes in soil grade and moisture, and soil compaction than are non-vigorous trees. For example, coast redwoods with a full healthy crown will tolerate impacts from construction better than redwoods that are drought stressed. Structural integrity
Trees with significant amounts of wood decay and other structural defects that cannot be corrected are likely to fail. Such trees should not be preserved in areas where damage to people or property is likely. For example, honey locust #238 had extensive trunk wounds and basal decay and had low suitability for preservation. Species response
There is a wide variation in the response of individual species to construction impacts and changes in the environment. Coast redwood, Canary Island pine, and coast live oak are tolerant of root severance and general construction impacts while California black walnut is intolerant. Callery pear and Chinese pistache are moderate in response. Tree age and longevity
Old trees, while having significant emotional and aesthetic appeal, have limited physiological capacity to adjust to an altered environment. Young to semi-mature coast live oaks would be better able to generate new tissue and to respond to change than mature oak #338.
Invasiveness
Species that spread across a site and displace desired vegetation are not always appropriate for retention. This is particularly true when indigenous species are displaced.
The California Invasive Plant Inventory Database (http://www.cal-ipc.org/paf/) lists species identified as being invasive. Cupertino is part of the Central West Floristic 1057
CC 04-03-2024
1057 of 1277
Tree Inventory Report. Memorial Park, Cupertino. Page 10 David J. Powers & Associates November 2022
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Province. Of the assessed species, Mexican fan palm is moderately invasive and purpleleaf plum has limited invasiveness.
Each tree was rated for suitability for preservation based upon its age, health, structural condition, and ability to safely coexist within a development environment (Table 2). We consider trees with high suitability for preservation to be the best candidates for preservation. We do not recommend retention of trees with low suitability for preservation in areas where people or property will be present. Retention of trees with moderate suitability for preservation depends upon the intensity of proposed site changes.
Table 2: Tree suitability for preservation
Memorial Park. Cupertino, CA
High Trees in this category had good health and structural stability that have the potential for longevity at the site. Two hundred ninety-three (293) trees had high suitability for preservation: 114 coast redwoods, 34 coast live oaks, 24 Chinese pistaches, 19 red maples, 13 Japanese flowering cherries, 12 purpleleaf plums, African fern-pines #16, 17, 52, 56, 65, and 102 – 104; evergreen ashes #176, 382 – 386, 447, and 448; London planes #297, 298, 314, 329, 337, and 339; western sycamores #354 – 357; Callery pears #305 and 537, Chinese elms #488 and 489, crape myrtles #322 and 323, evergreen pears #315 and 534, Italian stone pine #484, sawleaf zelkova #261 and 263, Leyland cypress #119, Mexican fan palm #380, and Raywood ash #336.
Moderate Trees in this category have fair health and/or structural defects that may be abated with treatment. Trees in this category require more intense management and monitoring and may have shorter lifespans than those in the “high” category. One hundred seventy-two (172) trees had moderate suitability for preservation: 58 coast redwoods, 47 Callery pears, 10 African fern-pines, 10 Italian stone pines; Chinese elms #57 – 64 and 73; evergreen pears #341 – 343, 346, 347, and 349; Japanese flowering cherries #332, 375, 376, 485, and 486; sawleaf zelkovas #262, 275, and 344; silk trees #19 – 21; coast live oaks #434 and 442; Scot’s pines #469 and 487; Chinese pistache #12, London plane #479, and tobira #351.
Low Trees in this category are in poor health or have significant defects in structure that cannot be abated with treatment. These trees can be expected to decline regardless of management. The species or individual tree may possess either characteristics that are undesirable in landscape settings or be unsuited for use areas. Ninety-five (95) trees had low suitability for preservation: 19 coast redwoods, 16 California black walnuts, 14 honey locusts, 11 Callery pears, Japanese flowering cherries #69 – 72, 260, 300, 330, and 331; Hollywood junipers #473 - 475, 477, and 478; evergreen pears #547 – 550; African fern-pines #556 and 558; coast live oaks #369 and 441; photinias #348 and 350; Scots’ pines #467 and 468; crabapple #299, Monterey pine #370, Raywood ash #309, sawleaf zelkova #345, tobira #352, and western sycamore #353.
1058
CC 04-03-2024
1058 of 1277
Tree Inventory Report. Memorial Park, Cupertino. Page 11 David J. Powers & Associates November 2022
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Tree Preservation Guidelines
The goal of tree preservation is not merely tree survival during development but maintenance of tree health and beauty for many years. Trees retained on sites that are either subject to extensive injury during construction or are inadequately maintained become a liability rather than an asset.
The response of individual trees depends on the amount of excavation and grading, care with which demolition is undertaken, and construction methods. Coordinating any construction activity inside the TREE PROTECTION ZONE can minimize these impacts.
The following recommendations will help reduce impacts to trees from development and maintain and improve their health and vitality through the clearing, grading and construction phases.
Tree Protection Zone
1. A TREE PROTECTION ZONE shall be identified for each tree to be preserved on the Tree Protection Plan prepared by the project arborist.
a. Fence all trees to be retained to completely enclose the TREE PROTECTION ZONE prior to demolition, grubbing or grading. Fences shall be 6 ft. chain link with posts sunk into the ground or equivalent as approved by the City.
b. Fences must be installed prior to beginning demolition and must remain until construction is complete.
c. No grading, excavation, construction, or storage or dumping of materials shall occur within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE.
d. No underground services including utilities, sub-drains, water, or sewer shall be placed in the TREE PROTECTION ZONE.
Design recommendations
1. Plot accurate locations of all trees to be preserved on all project plans. Identify the TREE PROTECTION ZONE for each tree. Focus on preserving trees that have high suitability for preservation.
2. Plan for tree preservation by designing adequate space around trees to be preserved. This is the TREE PROTECTION ZONE: No grading, excavation, construction, or storage of materials should occur within that zone. Route underground services including utilities, sub-drains, water, or sewer around the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. For design purposes, the TREE PROTECTION ZONE trees shall be defined as the tree dripline.
3. Consider the vertical clearance requirements near trees during design. Avoid designs that would require pruning more than 20% of a tree’s canopy.
4. All plans affecting trees shall be reviewed by the Consulting Arborist with regard to tree impacts. These include, but are not limited to, demolition plans, grading plans, drainage plans, utility plans, and landscape and irrigation plans.
5. Tree Preservation Guidelines prepared by the Consulting Arborist, which include specifications for tree protection during demolition and construction, should be included on all plans.
6. Do not lime the subsoil within 50’ of any tree. Lime is toxic to tree roots.
7. As trees withdraw water from the soil, expansive soils may shrink within the root area.
Therefore, foundations, footings, and pavements on expansive soils near trees should be designed to withstand differential displacement.
1059
CC 04-03-2024
1059 of 1277
Tree Inventory Report. Memorial Park, Cupertino. Page 12 David J. Powers & Associates November 2022
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Pre-demolition and pre-construction treatments and recommendations
1. The demolition and construction superintendents shall meet with the Consulting Arborist before beginning work to review all work procedures, access routes, storage areas, and tree protection measures.
2. Fence all trees to be retained to completely enclose the TREE PROTECTION ZONE prior to demolition, grubbing or grading. Fences shall be 6 ft. chain link with posts sunk into the ground or equivalent as approved by the City.
3. Fences are to remain until all grading and construction is completed.
4. Tree(s) to be removed that have branches extending into the canopy of tree(s) or located within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE of tree(s) to remain shall be removed by a Certified Arborist or Certified Tree Worker and not by the demolition contractor. The Certified Arborist or Certified Tree Worker shall remove the trees in a manner that causes no damage to the tree(s) and understory to remain. Stumps shall be ground below grade.
Summary
Five hundred sixty (560) trees representing thirty-four species were assessed. Coast redwood was the most common species with 191 trees (34% of the population). Tree condition varied by species. Overall, 357 trees were in good condition, 148 were in fair condition, 53 were in poor condition, and two were dead. Trees age ranged from young to mature in development. Tree size ranged from 4 inches to 60 inches in diameter with an average of 17 inches.
In general, trees that are the best candidates for preservation are those in good condition with good to moderate suitability for preservation (354 trees). Trees in poor health with low suitability for preservation (55 trees) should be considered for removal. If trees are to be retained, it is imperative to provide sufficient irrigation to relieve the current water-stress of the coast redwoods.
Maintenance of impacted trees
Preserved trees will experience a physical environment different from that pre-development. As a result, tree health and structural stability should be monitored. Occasional pruning, fertilization, mulch, pest management, replanting and irrigation may be required. In addition, provisions for monitoring both tree health and structural stability following construction must be made a priority.
Inspect trees annually and following major storms to identify conditions requiring treatment to manage risk associated with tree failure.
Our procedures included assessing trees for observable defects in structure. This is not to say that trees without significant defects will not fail. Failure of apparently defect-free trees does occur, especially during storm events. Wind forces, for example, can exceed the strength of defect-free wood causing branches and trunks to break. Wind forces coupled with rain can saturate soils, reducing their ability to hold roots, and blow over defect-free trees. Although we cannot predict all failures, identifying those trees with observable defects is a critical component of enhancing public safety.
Furthermore, trees change over time. Our inspections represent the condition of the tree at the time of inspection. As trees age, the likelihood of failure of branches or entire trees increases.
Annual tree inspections are recommended to identify changes to tree health and structure. In addition, trees should be inspected after storms of unusual severity to evaluate damage and structural changes. Initiating these inspections is the responsibility of the client and/or tree owner.
1060
CC 04-03-2024
1060 of 1277
Tree Inventory Report. Memorial Park, Cupertino. Page 13 David J. Powers & Associates November 2022
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
Brenda Wong
Consulting Arborist and Urban Forester
ISA Certified Arborist WE12933A
ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
1061
CC 04-03-2024
1061 of 1277
If you have any questions regarding my observations or recommendations, please contact me.
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
Attachments
Tree Inventory Map
Tree Assessment Form
1062
CC 04-03-2024
1062 of 1277
7UHH,QYHQWRU\
0HPRULDO3DUN
&XSHUWLQR&$
3UHSDUHG)RU
'DYLG-3RZHUV
$VVRFLDWHV,QF
7KH$ODPHGD6XLWH
6DQ-RVH&$
2FWREHU
1LQWK6WUHHW6XLW
%HUNHOH\&DOLIRUQLD
3KRQH
)D[
$QQ$UERU&W
&KULVWHQVHQ' U
&KULVWHQVHQ' U
&KULVWHQVHQ' U
(VUL&RPPXQLW\0DSV&RQWULEXWRUV&LW\RI&XSHUWLQR&LW\RI6DQ-RVH&RXQW\RI6DQWD&ODUD&DOLIRUQLD6WDWH3DUNVŒ2SHQ6WUHHW0DS0 +(5(*DUPLQ6DIH*UDSK*HR7HFKQRORJLHV,QF0(7,1$6$86*6%XUHDXRI/DQG0DQDJHPHQW(3$13686&HQVXV%XUHDX86'$6DQWD&ODUD &RXQW\0D[DU0LFURVRIW
k )HHW
7UHHV
1RWHV
%DVHPDSSURYLGHGE\(65,
7UHHORFDWLRQVDUHDSSUR[LPDWH
1063
7UHH,QYHQWRU\
0HPRULDO3DUN
&XSHUWLQR&$
3UHSDUHG)RU
'DYLG-3RZHUV
$VVRFLDWHV,QF
7KH$ODPHGD6XLWH
6DQ-RVH&$
2FWREHU
1LQWK6WUHHW6XLW
%HUNHOH\&DOLIRUQLD
3KRQH
)D[
0HPRULDO3DUN
$QWRQ: D\ $QWRQ: D\
(VUL&RPPXQLW\0DSV&RQWULEXWRUV&LW\RI&XSHUWLQR&LW\RI6DQ-RVH&RXQW\RI6DQWD&ODUD&DOLIRUQLD6WDWH3DUNVŒ2SHQ6WUHHW0DS0 +(5(*DUPLQ6DIH*UDSK*HR7HFKQRORJLHV,QF0(7,1$6$86*6%XUHDXRI/DQG0DQDJHPHQW(3$13686&HQVXV%XUHDX86'$6DQWD&ODUD &RXQW\0D[DU0LFURVRIW
k )HHW
7UHHV
1RWHV
%DVHPDSSURYLGHGE\(65,
7UHHORFDWLRQVDUHDSSUR[LPDWH
1064
7UHH,QYHQWRU\
0HPRULDO3DUN
&XSHUWLQR&$
3UHSDUHG)RU
'DYLG-3RZHUV
$VVRFLDWHV,QF
7KH$ODPHGD6XLWH
6DQ-RVH&$
2FWREHU
1LQWK6WUHHW6XLW
%HUNHOH\&DOLIRUQLD
3KRQH
)D[
0DU\
$YH
6HQLRU&HQWHU
$QWRQ: D\
$QWRQ: D\ $QWRQ: D\ $QWRQ: D\
(VUL&RPPXQLW\0DSV&RQWULEXWRUV&LW\RI&XSHUWLQR&LW\RI6DQ-RVH&RXQW\RI6DQWD&ODUD&DOLIRUQLD6WDWH3DUNVŒ2SHQ6WUHHW0DS0 +(5(*DUPLQ6DIH*UDSK*HR7HFKQRORJLHV,QF0(7,1$6$86*6%XUHDXRI/DQG0DQDJHPHQW(3$13686&HQVXV%XUHDX86'$6DQWD&ODUD &RXQW\0D[DU0LFURVRIW
k )HHW
7UHHV
1RWHV
%DVHPDSSURYLGHGE\(65,
7UHHORFDWLRQVDUHDSSUR[LPDWH
1065
7UHH,QYHQWRU\
0HPRULDO3DUN
&XSHUWLQR&$
3UHSDUHG)RU
'DYLG-3RZHUV
$VVRFLDWHV,QF
7KH$ODPHGD6XLWH
6DQ-RVH&$
2FWREHU
1LQWK6WUHHW6XLW
%HUNHOH\&DOLIRUQLD
3KRQH
)D[
&KULVWHQVHQ' U
)HQZD\
&W
&KULVWHQVHQ' U
$OYHV' U
&RQJUHVV3O
/DXUHWW
&KULVWHQVHQ' U
4XLQODQ
&RPPXQLW\
&HQWHU
$OYHV' U
$OYHV' U
(VUL&RPPXQLW\0DSV&RQWULEXWRUV&LW\RI&XSHUWLQR&LW\RI6DQ-RVH&RXQW\RI6DQWD&ODUD&DOLIRUQLD6WDWH3DUNVŒ2SHQ6WUHHW0DS0 +(5(*DUPLQ6DIH*UDSK*HR7HFKQRORJLHV,QF0(7,1$6$86*6%XUHDXRI/DQG0DQDJHPHQW(3$13686&HQVXV%XUHDX86'$6DQWD&ODUD &RXQW\0D[DU0LFURVRIW
k )HHW
7UHHV
1RWHV
%DVHPDSSURYLGHGE\(65,
7UHHORFDWLRQVDUHDSSUR[LPDWH
1066
7UHH,QYHQWRU\
0HPRULDO3DUN
&XSHUWLQR&$
3UHSDUHG)RU
'DYLG-3RZHUV
$VVRFLDWHV,QF
7KH$ODPHGD6XLWH
6DQ-RVH&$
2FWREHU
1LQWK6WUHHW6XLW
%HUNHOH\&DOLIRUQLD
3KRQH
)D[
&RQJUH
)UHHGRP ' U
$QWRQ: D\
3DWULRW: D\
6SRUWVDQG
7HHQ&HQWHU
$QWRQ: D\
6WHYHQV&UHHN%OYG
6WHYHQV&UHHN%OYG
8QLWHG3O
6HQDWH: D\
3DWULRW: D\
6WHYHQV&UHHN%OYG
6WHYHQV&UHHN%OYG
(VUL&RPPXQLW\0DSV&RQWULEXWRUV&LW\RI&XSHUWLQR&LW\RI6DQ-RVH&RXQW\RI6DQWD&ODUD&DOLIRUQLD6WDWH3DUNVŒ2SHQ6WUHHW0DS0 +(5(*DUPLQ6DIH*UDSK*HR7HFKQRORJLHV,QF0(7,1$6$86*6%XUHDXRI/DQG0DQDJHPHQW(3$13686&HQVXV%XUHDX86'$6DQWD&ODUD &RXQW\0D[DU0LFURVRIW
k )HHW
7UHHV
1RWHV
%DVHPDSSURYLGHGE\(65,
7UHHORFDWLRQVDUHDSSUR[LPDWH
1067
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
1 Callery pear 20 Yes 3 25 45 Moderate Surface roots; poor structure; multiple attachments @ 6’; 25.
2 Coast redwood 25 Yes 3 70 22 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; small leaf dieback.
3 Coast redwood 22 Yes 3 70 24 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; small leaf dieback.
4 Coast redwood 23 Yes 3 70 24 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; small leaf dieback.
5 Coast redwood 22 Yes 2 70 24 Low Surface roots; good upright form & structure; significant canopy dieback.
6 Coast redwood 21 Yes 3 70 25 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; small leaf dieback.
7 Coast redwood 25 Yes 3 70 26 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; small leaf dieback.
8 Coast redwood 24 Yes 3 70 26 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; small leaf dieback.
9 Coast redwood 24 Yes 3 70 26 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; small leaf dieback.
10 Callery pear 18 Yes 3 25 28 Moderate Surface roots; poor structure; multiple attachments @ 6’.
11 Coast redwood 11 Yes 4 30 18 Moderate Surface roots; good upright form & structure; small leaf dieback.
12 Chinese pistache 8 Yes 4 20 30 Moderate Large surface roots; good structure; full healthy crown.
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
1068
CC 04-03-2024
1068 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
13 Chinese pistache 7 Yes 4 15 28 High Large surface roots; good structure; full healthy crown.
14 Chinese pistache 6 Yes 4 15 20 High Multiple attachments @ 6’; full healthy crown.
15 African fern-pine 15 Yes 3 30 25 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 6’; chlorotic crown; good form & structure.
16 African fern-pine 14 Yes 3 30 25 High Multiple attachments @ 6’; good form & structure; small twig dieback.
17 African fern-pine 22 Yes 4 40 36 High Multiple attachments @ 6’; good form & structure; full healthy crown.
18 Coast redwood 22 Yes 4 40 28 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy crown.
19 Silk tree 6 Yes 4 12 14 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 6’; healthy crown.
20 Silk tree 7 Yes 4 12 24 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 6’; healthy crown.
21 Silk tree 8 Yes 4 12 20 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 6’; full healthy crown.
22 Callery pear 15 Yes 4 20 36 Moderate Surface roots; poor structure; multiple attachments @ 6’.
23 Callery pear 18 Yes 4 25 40 Moderate Surface roots; poor structure; multiple attachments @ 6’; healthy crown.
24 Coast redwood 17 Yes 3 40 20 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; small twig & leaf dieback.
1069
CC 04-03-2024
1069 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
25 Coast redwood 23 Yes 3 40 25 Low Surface roots; dead central leader; otherwise healthy crown.
26 Coast redwood 24 Yes 4 60 30 High Group of 5; surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy crown.
27 Coast redwood 25 Yes 4 60 22 High Group of 5; surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy crown.
28 Coast redwood 22 Yes 4 60 24 High Group of 5; good upright form & structure; full healthy crown.
29 Coast redwood 28 Yes 5 60 30 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
29 Coast redwood 25 Yes 4 65 28 High Group of 5; good upright form & structure; small top dieback; otherwise
full healthy crown.
30 Coast redwood 23 Yes 5 60 24 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
30 Coast redwood 28 Yes 4 65 34 High Group of 5; good upright form & structure; full healthy crown.
31 Callery pear 8 Yes 4 15 12 Low 5’ parking lot planter; surface roots; poor structure; multiple attachments @
6’; healthy crown.
32 Callery pear 10 Yes 4 15 18 Low 5’ parking lot planter; surface roots; poor structure; multiple attachments @
6’; healthy crown.
1070
CC 04-03-2024
1070 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
33 Callery pear 11 Yes 4 20 28 Low 5’ parking lot planter; surface roots; poor structure; multiple attachments @
6’; healthy crown.
34 Callery pear 10 Yes 3 20 25 Low 5’ parking lot planter; poor structure; multiple attachments @ 6’; sparse
crown.
35 Chinese pistache 7 Yes 4 15 30 High Surface roots; good structure; full healthy crown.
36 Chinese pistache 7 Yes 4 20 15 High Surface roots; suppressed; small twig dieback.
37 Coast redwood 5 Yes 4 15 14 High Surface circling roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
38 Coast redwood 26 Yes 4 65 26 High Group of 4; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
39 Coast redwood 18 Yes 4 50 22 High Group of 4; surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
40 Coast redwood 27 Yes 4 65 30 High Group of 4; surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
41 Coast redwood 24 Yes 4 65 28 High Group of 4; surface roots; good upright form & structure; small top dieback;
otherwise full healthy canopy.
1071
CC 04-03-2024
1071 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
42 Coast redwood 26 Yes 4 65 30 High Group of 8; surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
43 Coast redwood 31 Yes 4 65 30 High Group of 8; surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
44 Coast redwood 29 Yes 4 65 32 High Group of 8; surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
45 Coast redwood 25 Yes 4 65 28 High Group of 8; surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
46 Coast redwood 24 Yes 4 65 28 High Group of 8; surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
47 Coast redwood 26 Yes 4 65 32 High Group of 8; surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
48 Coast redwood 25 Yes 4 65 30 High Group of 8; surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
49 Chinese pistache 6 Yes 4 15 26 High Surface roots; suppressed; good structure; small twig dieback.
50 Chinese pistache 8 Yes 4 15 30 High Surface roots; codominant trunks @ 6’; small twig dieback.
1072
CC 04-03-2024
1072 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
51 Chinese pistache 5 Yes 4 15 25 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; full healthy crown.
52 African fern-pine 18 Yes 4 35 28 High Multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow attachments; full healthy canopy.
53 Chinese pistache 6 Yes 3 15 18 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; suppressed.
54 Chinese pistache 5 Yes 3 15 20 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; suppressed.
55 Chinese pistache 8 Yes 4 20 22 High Surface roots; codominant trunks @ 7’; healthy crown.
56 African fern-pine 15 Yes 4 35 32 High Multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow attachments; full slightly chlorotic
canopy.
57 Chinese elm 4 Yes 3 12 18 Moderate Codominant trunks @ 5’; small twig dieback.
58 Chinese elm 5 Yes 3 12 18 Moderate Codominant trunks @ 5’; small twig dieback.
59 Chinese elm 7 Yes 4 15 26 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 6’; healthy crown.
60 Chinese elm 6 Yes 4 15 20 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 6’; healthy crown.
61 Chinese elm 7 Yes 4 15 25 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 6’; healthy crown.
62 Chinese elm 5 Yes 4 12 24 Moderate Codominant trunks @ 5’; healthy crown.
1073
CC 04-03-2024
1073 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
63 Chinese elm 6 Yes 4 12 20 Moderate Codominant trunks @ 5’; small twig dieback.
64 Chinese elm 6 Yes 4 12 25 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 6’; small twig dieback.
65 African fern-pine 16 Yes 4 25 24 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; full crown.
66 Chinese pistache 9 Yes 4 20 22 High Large surface roots; codominant trunks @ 6’; full crown.
67 Chinese pistache 7 Yes 3 15 22 High Large surface roots; codominant trunks @ 6’; small twig dieback.
68 African fern-pine 16 Yes 3 25 26 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; narrow unions; slightly chlorotic
crown.
69 Japanese flowering cherry 5 Yes 2 10 12 Low Multiple attachments @ 3’; significant branch dieback.
70 Japanese flowering cherry 4 Yes 2 10 8 Low Codominant trunks @ 3’; significant branch dieback.
71 Japanese flowering cherry 4 Yes 2 10 6 Low Codominant trunks @ 3’; significant branch dieback.
72 Japanese flowering cherry 4 Yes 2 10 6 Low Codominant trunks @ 3’; significant branch dieback.
73 Chinese elm 6 Yes 4 15 24 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 6’; healthy crown.
74 Coast redwood 27 Yes 4 70 28 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy crown.
1074
CC 04-03-2024
1074 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
75 Coast redwood 22 Yes 4 70 24 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy crown.
76 Coast redwood 24 Yes 4 70 28 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy crown.
77 Coast redwood 24 Yes 4 70 40 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy crown.
78 Coast redwood 24 Yes 4 70 28 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy crown.
79 Coast redwood 23 Yes 4 70 20 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy crown.
80 Coast redwood 19 Yes 3 70 20 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; moderate leaf discoloration.
81 Coast redwood 17 Yes 3 70 20 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; small leaf
discoloration/dieback.
82 Coast redwood 23 Yes 3 70 22 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; small leaf
discoloration/dieback.
83 Coast redwood 22 Yes 2 70 24 Low Mostly dead.
84 Coast redwood 24 Yes 2 70 24 Low Severe canopy dieback. 85 Coast redwood 27 Yes 3 70 22 Moderate Good form & structure; moderate canopy dieback.
86 Coast redwood 22 Yes 3 70 22 Moderate Good upright form & structure; moderate canopy dieback.
1075
CC 04-03-2024
1075 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
87 Coast redwood 23 Yes 3 70 26 Moderate Good upright form & structure; moderate canopy dieback.
88 Coast redwood 22 Yes 3 70 26 Moderate Good upright form & structure; small canopy dieback.
89 Coast redwood 17 Yes 2 70 20 Low Good upright form & structure; moderate canopy dieback.
90 Coast redwood 21 Yes 2 70 24 Low Good upright form & structure; moderate canopy dieback.
91 Coast redwood 17 Yes 2 70 24 Low Good upright form & structure; significant canopy dieback.
92 Coast redwood 22 Yes 3 70 28 Moderate Good upright form & structure; moderate canopy dieback.
93 Coast redwood 19 Yes 2 70 20 Low Good upright form & structure; moderate canopy dieback.
94 Coast redwood 23 Yes 3 70 28 Moderate Good upright form & structure; moderate canopy dieback.
95 Coast redwood 17 Yes 3 70 22 Moderate Good upright form & structure; top dieback & moderate canopy dieback.
96 Chinese pistache 6 Yes 4 25 15 High Multiple attachments @ 6’; suppressed; healthy crown.
97 Chinese pistache 8 Yes 4 25 26 High Codominant trunks @ 6’; surface roots; suppressed; healthy crown.
98 Chinese pistache 8 Yes 4 20 28 High Multiple attachments @ 6’; full healthy canopy.
1076
CC 04-03-2024
1076 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
99 Chinese pistache 6 Yes 3 30 15 High Codominant trunks @ 7’; slight trunk lean; small twig dieback.
100 Chinese pistache 11 Yes 4 25 38 High Codominant trunks @ 6’; full healthy canopy.
101 Chinese pistache 7 Yes 4 20 30 High Codominant trunks @ 6’; full healthy canopy.
102 African fern-pine 15 Yes 3 30 30 High Multiple attachments @ 7’; full slightly chlorotic canopy.
103 African fern-pine 15 Yes 3 25 30 High Multiple attachments @ 4’; sparse canopy; moderate twig dieback.
104 African fern-pine 18 Yes 3 40 34 High Multiple attachments @ 6’; sparse canopy; moderate twig dieback.
105 Callery pear 7 Yes 3 12 12 Low Parking lot planting strip; multiple attachments @ 6’; poor structure;
sparse canopy.
106 Callery pear 7 Yes 3 15 18 Low Parking lot planting strip; multiple attachments @ 6’; poor structure;
healthy canopy.
107 Callery pear 9 Yes 3 15 16 Low Parking lot planting strip; multiple attachments @ 6’; poor structure;
healthy canopy.
108 Callery pear 20 Yes 4 30 40 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 7’; poor structure; full healthy canopy.
109 Coast redwood 26 Yes 4 60 24 High Group of 8; good upright form & structure; full healthy crown.
1077
CC 04-03-2024
1077 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
110 Coast redwood 25 Yes 4 70 25 High Group of 8; good upright form & structure; full healthy crown.
111 Coast redwood 25 Yes 4 70 30 High Group of 8; good upright form & structure; full healthy crown.
112 Coast redwood 25 Yes 4 70 28 High Group of 8; good upright form & structure; full healthy crown.
113 Coast redwood 24 Yes 3 70 28 High Group of 8; good upright form & structure; top dieback otherwise full
healthy crown.
114 Coast redwood 24 Yes 3 70 28 High Group of 8; good upright form & structure; top dieback otherwise full
healthy crown.
115 Callery pear 14 Yes 3 25 18 Low Multiple attachments @ 7’; poor structure; slight trunk lean; suppressed.
116 Coast redwood 26 Yes 4 70 30 High Group of 8; good upright form & structure; full healthy crown.
117 Coast redwood 29 Yes 4 70 28 High Group of 8; good upright form & structure; full healthy crown.
118 Callery pear 17 Yes 3 30 30 Low Multiple attachments @ 7’; poor structure; slight trunk lean.
119 Leyland cypress 21 Yes 3 35 30 High Surface roots; small branch flagging & leaf dieback; poor structure.
120 Callery pear 13 Yes 3 30 25 Low Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 8’; poor structure.
1078
CC 04-03-2024
1078 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
121 Coast redwood 26 Yes 3 60 28 Moderate Group of 7; good upright form & structure; small twig dieback.
122 Coast redwood 19 Yes 3 60 28 Moderate Group of 7; good upright form & structure; small twig dieback.
122 Coast redwood 21 Yes 3 60 26 Moderate Group of 7; good upright form & structure; sparse canopy.
124 Coast redwood 20 Yes 3 60 26 Moderate Group of 7; good upright form & structure; moderate twig & leaf
dieback.
125 Coast redwood 22 Yes 3 60 26 High Group of 7; good upright form & structure; moderate twig & leaf
dieback.
126 Coast redwood 22 Yes 3 60 24 Moderate Group of 7; good upright form & structure; moderate twig & leaf
dieback.
127 Coast redwood 25 Yes 3 60 28 Moderate Group of 7; good upright form & structure; moderate twig & leaf
dieback.
128 Coast redwood 24 Yes 5 60 28 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
131 Coast redwood 25 Yes 5 60 28 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy; displacing hardscape.
132 Coast redwood 18 Yes 5 50 28 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
1079
CC 04-03-2024
1079 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
133 Coast redwood 17 Yes 5 50 26 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
134 Coast redwood 18 Yes 5 50 22 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
135 Coast redwood 17 Yes 5 50 20 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
136 Coast redwood 17 Yes 5 50 22 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
137 Coast redwood 15 Yes 5 50 20 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
138 Coast redwood 16 Yes 5 50 20 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
139 Coast redwood 18 Yes 5 50 20 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
140 Coast redwood 18 Yes 5 50 22 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
141 Coast redwood 18 Yes 5 50 22 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
142 Coast redwood 16 Yes 5 50 20 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
143 Coast redwood 15 Yes 5 50 20 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
144 Coast redwood 18 Yes 5 50 20 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
1080
CC 04-03-2024
1080 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
145 Coast redwood 16 Yes 5 50 18 High Surface root; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
146 Coast redwood 17 Yes 5 50 18 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
147 Coast redwood 22 Yes 5 50 18 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy; displacing hardscape.
148 Coast redwood 24 Yes 5 50 28 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
149 Coast redwood 18 Yes 2 50 18 Low Good upright form & structure; sparse canopy; significant dieback.
150 Coast redwood 26 Yes 4 60 22 High Good upright form & structure; small twig dieback.
151 Coast redwood 29 Yes 4 60 24 High Good upright form & structure; roots displacing sidewalk; small growing
space 4’; small twig dieback.
152 Coast redwood 21 Yes 4 60 22 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; small twig dieback.
153 Coast redwood 24 Yes 4 60 22 High Good upright form & structure; multiple attachments; small twig dieback.
154 Callery pear 22 Yes 4 35 25 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; full healthy canopy.
155 Callery pear 18 Yes 4 35 25 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; full healthy canopy.
1081
CC 04-03-2024
1081 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
156 Callery pear 14 Yes 4 35 25 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; full healthy canopy.
157 Callery pear 17 Yes 4 35 30 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; history of branch failure.
158 Callery pear 18 Yes 4 35 30 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; healthy canopy.
159 Callery pear 18 Yes 4 35 30 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; history of branch failure.
160 Callery pear 18 Yes 4 35 25 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; healthy canopy.
161 Callery pear 15 Yes 4 35 25 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; healthy canopy.
162 Callery pear 15 Yes 4 35 25 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; healthy canopy.
163 Callery pear 18 Yes 4 35 30 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; healthy canopy.
164 Callery pear 17 Yes 4 35 30 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow branch unions; healthy
canopy.
165 Callery pear 16 Yes 4 35 25 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow branch unions; healthy
canopy.
166 Callery pear 11 Yes 3 35 22 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow branch unions; suppressed.
1082
CC 04-03-2024
1082 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
167 Callery pear 15 Yes 4 35 25 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow branch unions.
168 Callery pear 17 Yes 4 35 25 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow branch unions; healthy
canopy.
169 Purpleleaf plum 5 Yes 4 18 12 High Multiple attachments @ 5’; full healthy canopy.
170 Purpleleaf plum 6 Yes 4 18 20 High Small surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; full healthy canopy.
171 Purpleleaf plum 6 Yes 4 18 16 High Small surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; full healthy canopy.
172 Purpleleaf plum 6 Yes 4 18 20 High Small surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; full healthy canopy.
173 Purpleleaf plum 6 Yes 4 18 16 High Small surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; full healthy canopy.
174 Purpleleaf plum 7 Yes 4 18 18 High Small surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; full healthy canopy.
175 Purpleleaf plum 6 Yes 4 18 18 High Small surface roots; small trunk wound; multiple attachments @ 6’; full healthy
canopy.
1083
CC 04-03-2024
1083 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
176 Purpleleaf plum 7 Yes 4 18 14 High Small surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow branch
union; full healthy canopy.
177 Purpleleaf plum 7 Yes 4 18 14 High Small surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow branch
unions; full healthy canopy.
178 Purpleleaf plum 7 Yes 4 18 16 High Small surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow branch
unions; full healthy canopy.
179 Purpleleaf plum 6 Yes 4 18 12 High Small surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow branch
unions; full healthy canopy.
180 Purpleleaf plum 7 Yes 4 18 14 High Small surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow branch
unions; full healthy canopy.
181 Chinese pistache 14 Yes 5 20 34 High Surface roots; good structure; multiple attachments @ 6’; full healthy canopy.
182 Chinese pistache 10 Yes 4 20 25 High Surface roots; good structure; multiple attachments @ 6’; small twig & branch
dieback.
183 Coast redwood 16 Yes 4 40 10 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
184 Coast redwood 30 Yes 5 65 24 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
1084
CC 04-03-2024
1084 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
185 Coast redwood 30 Yes 5 65 25 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
186 Coast redwood 30 Yes 5 65 25 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
187 Coast redwood 30 Yes 5 65 24 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
188 Coast redwood 15 Yes 4 45 16 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; small twig & branch dieback.
189 Coast redwood 26 Yes 5 65 22 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
190 Coast redwood 31 Yes 5 65 25 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
191 Coast redwood 29 Yes 5 65 26 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
192 Coast redwood 25 Yes 5 65 28 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
193 Coast redwood 30 Yes 5 65 28 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
194 Coast redwood 23 Yes 5 65 24 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
195 Coast redwood 20 Yes 5 55 22 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
196 Coast redwood 13 Yes 5 45 20 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
1085
CC 04-03-2024
1085 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
197 Coast redwood 25 Yes 5 65 26 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
198 Coast redwood 27 Yes 5 65 30 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
199 Coast redwood 23 Yes 3 65 26 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; small twig & branch top
dieback.
200 Coast redwood 23 Yes 5 65 28 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
201 Coast redwood 24 Yes 5 65 28 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
202 Callery pear 9,5 Yes 3 25 25 Low Surface roots; codominant trunks @ base & 6’; fire blight.
203 Chinese pistache 8 Yes 5 20 20 High Surface roots; good form & structure; multiple attachments @ 6’; full healthy
canopy.
204 Chinese pistache 7 Yes 5 20 10 High Surface roots; good form & structure; multiple attachments @ 6’; full healthy
canopy.
205 Coast redwood 22 Yes 5 65 28 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
206 Coast redwood 26 Yes 5 65 22 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
1086
CC 04-03-2024
1086 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
207 Callery pear 18 Yes 4 35 30 Moderate Surface roots; slight trunk lean S.; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow
branch unions; history of branch failure;
healthy canopy.
208 Callery pear 16 Yes 4 35 25 Moderate Surface roots; slight trunk lean S.; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow
branch unions; healthy canopy.
209 Callery pear 13 Yes 4 35 25 Moderate Surface roots; slight trunk lean S.; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow
branch unions; healthy canopy.
210 Callery pear 17 Yes 4 35 30 Moderate Surface roots; slight trunk lean S.; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow
branch unions; healthy canopy.
211 Callery pear 12 Yes 3 35 22 Moderate Surface roots; slight trunk lean S.; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow
branch unions; sparse canopy.
212 Callery pear 13 Yes 4 35 24 Moderate Surface roots; slight trunk lean S.; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow
branch unions; healthy canopy.
213 Callery pear 17 Yes 4 35 26 Moderate Surface roots; slight trunk lean S.; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow
branch unions; healthy canopy.
214 Callery pear 14 Yes 4 35 26 Moderate Surface roots; slight trunk lean S.; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow
branch unions; healthy canopy.
1087
CC 04-03-2024
1087 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
215 Callery pear 17 Yes 4 35 28 Moderate Surface roots; slight trunk lean S.; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow
branch unions; healthy canopy.
216 Callery pear 18 Yes 4 40 30 Moderate Surface roots; slight trunk lean S.; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow
branch unions; healthy canopy.
217 Callery pear 17 Yes 4 40 30 Moderate Surface roots; slight trunk lean S.; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow
branch unions; healthy canopy.
218 Callery pear 17 Yes 4 40 30 Moderate Surface roots; slight trunk lean S.; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow
branch unions; healthy canopy.
219 Callery pear 16 Yes 4 40 30 Moderate Surface roots; slight trunk lean S.; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow
branch unions; healthy canopy.
220 Callery pear 17 Yes 4 40 30 Moderate Surface roots; slight trunk lean S.; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow
branch unions; healthy canopy.
221 Callery pear 18 Yes 4 40 24 Moderate Surface roots; slight trunk lean S.; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow
branch unions; healthy canopy.
222 Callery pear 17 Yes 4 40 20 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow branch unions; healthy
canopy.
1088
CC 04-03-2024
1088 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
223 Callery pear 14 Yes 4 40 18 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow branch unions; healthy
canopy.
224 Callery pear 14 Yes 4 40 18 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow branch unions; healthy
canopy.
225 Callery pear 11 Yes 3 40 18 Moderate Surface roots; slight trunk lean SW.; codominant trunks @ 7’; narrow branch
union.
226 Callery pear 15 Yes 4 40 22 Moderate Surface roots; slight trunk leans S.; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow
branch unions; healthy canopy.
227 Callery pear 15 Yes 4 40 26 Moderate Surface roots; slight trunk leans S.; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow
branch unions; healthy canopy.
228 Callery pear 15 Yes 4 40 28 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow branch unions; healthy
canopy.
229 Callery pear 14 Yes 4 40 20 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow branch unions; healthy
canopy.
230 Callery pear 15 Yes 4 40 18 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow branch unions; healthy
canopy.
1089
CC 04-03-2024
1089 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
231 Callery pear 15 Yes 4 40 20 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow branch unions; healthy
canopy.
232 Honey locust 8 Yes 3 12 20 Low Codominant trunks @ 6’; poor structure; small twig dieback.
233 Honey locust 7 Yes 3 12 20 Low Small trunk wound; multiple attachments @ 5’; poor structure; small
twig dieback.
234 Honey locust 8 Yes 3 12 20 Low Codominant trunks @ 6’; poor branch structure; small twig dieback.
235 Honey locust 8 Yes 2 12 15 Low Multiple attachments @ 5’; poor structure; significant twig & branch
dieback.
236 Honey locust 7 Yes 3 12 14 Low Multiple attachments @ 5’; poor structure; small twig & branch dieback.
237 Honey locust 9 Yes 3 12 18 Low Multiple attachments @ 5’; poor structure; moderate twig & branch
dieback.
238 Honey locust 8 Yes 2 12 14 Low Codominant trunks @ 5’; extensive trunk wounds; basal decay.
239 Honey locust 8 Yes 2 12 12 Low Codominant trunks @ 5’; extensive trunk wounds; basal decay.
240 Honey locust 7 Yes 2 12 12 Low Codominant trunks @ 5’; extensive trunk wounds; basal decay.
1090
CC 04-03-2024
1090 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
241 Honey locust 7 Yes 2 12 16 Low Multiple attachments @ 5’; extensive trunk wounds; basal decay.
242 Honey locust 5 Yes 3 12 10 Low Multiple attachments @ 5’; small trunk wounds; sparse canopy.
243 Honey locust 8 Yes 3 12 16 Low Multiple attachments @ 5’; small trunk wounds; sparse canopy.
244 Honey locust 6 Yes 1 12 10 Low Multiple attachments @ 5’; extensive trunk wounds & dieback.
245 Honey locust 8 Yes 2 12 14 Low Multiple attachments @ 5’; extensive trunk wounds.
246 Coast redwood 12 Yes 4 35 18 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy; water-stressed.
247 Coast redwood 14 Yes 4 35 20 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
248 Coast redwood 16 Yes 4 35 20 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
249 Coast redwood 46 Yes 3 85 36 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; sparse canopy W.
250 Coast redwood 47 Yes 5 85 40 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
251 Coast redwood 25 Yes 5 85 32 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
252 Coast redwood 27 Yes 3 85 30 Moderate Surface roots; good upright form & structure; sparse twiggy canopy.
1091
CC 04-03-2024
1091 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
253 Coast redwood 54 Yes 3 85 60 Moderate Surface roots; good upright form & structure; sparse twiggy canopy.
254 Coast redwood 42 Yes 4 85 40 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; thin upper canopy.
255 Coast redwood 43 Yes 3 85 36 Moderate Surface roots; codominant in upper canopy; sparse canopy.
256 Coast redwood 43 Yes 4 85 34 Moderate Surface roots; good upright form & structure; healthy canopy.
257 Coast redwood 19 Yes 4 45 24 Moderate Surface roots; good upright form & structure; healthy canopy.
258 Coast redwood 5 Yes 4 15 12 High Good young tree.
259 Coast redwood 15 Yes 4 30 18 High Good upright form & structure; thin canopy.
260 Japanese flowering cherry 8 Yes 2 10 14 Low Multiple attachments @ 5’; root decay; suppressed.
261 Sawleaf zelkova 15 Yes 5 35 32 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; full healthy canopy.
262 Sawleaf zelkova 25 Yes 3 45 60 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; small twig & branch dieback;
Ganoderma fruiting body on N.
263 Sawleaf zelkova 21 Yes 5 45 60 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; full healthy canopy.
264 Japanese flowering cherry 5 Yes 5 10 20 High Multiple attachments @ 4’; full healthy canopy.
1092
CC 04-03-2024
1092 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
265 Japanese flowering cherry 5 Yes 4 10 16 High Multiple attachments @ 4’; full canopy; small leaf margin burn.
266 Japanese flowering cherry 4 Yes 4 10 14 High Multiple attachments @ 4’; full canopy; small leaf margin burn.
267 Japanese flowering cherry 5 Yes 4 10 16 High Multiple attachments @ 4’; full canopy; small leaf margin burn.
268 Japanese flowering cherry 4 Yes 4 10 14 High Multiple attachments @ 4’; full canopy; small leaf margin burn.
269 Japanese flowering cherry 4 Yes 4 10 14 High Multiple attachments @ 4’; full canopy; small leaf margin burn.
270 Japanese flowering cherry 5 Yes 4 10 16 High Multiple attachments @ 4’; full canopy; small leaf margin burn.
271 Japanese flowering cherry 4 Yes 4 10 14 High Multiple attachments @ 4’; full canopy; small leaf margin burn.
272 Japanese flowering cherry 4 Yes 4 10 10 High Multiple attachments @ 4’; full canopy; small leaf margin burn.
273 Japanese flowering cherry 4 Yes 4 10 12 High Multiple attachments @ 4’; full canopy; small leaf margin burn.
274 Japanese flowering cherry 4 Yes 4 10 14 High Multiple attachments @ 4’; full canopy; small leaf margin burn.
275 Sawleaf zelkova 13 Yes 4 25 24 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; small twig dieback; water-stressed.
276 Evergreen ash 32 Yes 5 60 42 High Surface roots; codominant trunks @ 8’; full dense crown.
1093
CC 04-03-2024
1093 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
277 Red maple 7 Yes 5 30 20 High Multiple attachments @ 5’; full healthy canopy.
278 Red maple 8 Yes 5 30 22 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; full healthy canopy.
279 Red maple 9 Yes 5 30 22 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; full healthy canopy.
280 Red maple 9 Yes 5 30 22 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; full healthy canopy.
281 Red maple 7 Yes 5 30 22 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; narrow unions; full healthy canopy.
282 Red maple 9 Yes 5 30 24 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; narrow unions; full healthy canopy.
283 Red maple 10 Yes 5 35 24 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; narrow unions; full healthy canopy.
284 Red maple 10 Yes 5 35 24 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; narrow unions; full healthy canopy.
285 Red maple 9 Yes 5 35 24 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; narrow unions; full healthy canopy.
1094
CC 04-03-2024
1094 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
286 Red maple 10 Yes 5 35 24 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; narrow unions; full healthy canopy.
287 Red maple 9 Yes 5 35 24 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; narrow unions; full healthy canopy.
288 Red maple 8 Yes 5 35 24 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; narrow unions; full healthy canopy.
289 Red maple 9 Yes 5 35 24 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; narrow unions; full healthy canopy.
290 Red maple 8 Yes 5 35 24 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; narrow unions; full healthy canopy.
291 Red maple 9 Yes 5 35 26 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; narrow unions; full healthy canopy.
292 Red maple 10 Yes 5 35 24 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; narrow unions; full healthy canopy.
293 Red maple 10 Yes 5 35 24 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; narrow unions; full healthy canopy.
1095
CC 04-03-2024
1095 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
294 Red maple 7 Yes 5 35 20 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; narrow unions; full healthy canopy.
295 Red maple 4 Yes 5 35 10 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; narrow unions; full healthy canopy.
296 Coast live oak 27 Yes 5 35 56 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; multiple attachments @ 6’;
full healthy canopy.
297 London plane 12 Yes 4 40 30 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; codominant trunks @ 8’;
healthy canopy.
298 London plane 18 Yes 5 45 40 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; multiple attachments @ 8’;
healthy canopy.
299 Crabapple 12 Yes 3 15 24 Low Basal & root decay; multiple attachments @ 5’.
300 Japanese flowering cherry 6 Yes 2 12 18 Low Basal & root decay; significant twig & branch dieback.
301 Coast redwood 33 Yes 4 65 30 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
302 Coast redwood 26 Yes 4 65 30 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
303 Coast redwood 24 Yes 4 65 30 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; thin upper canopy.
1096
CC 04-03-2024
1096 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
304 Coast redwood 29 Yes 4 65 34 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
305 Callery pear 17 Yes 4 45 20 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow branch unions.
306 Coast redwood 22 Yes 4 55 25 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; small twig dieback.
307 Coast redwood 31 Yes 5 65 33 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
308 Coast live oak 10 Yes 5 35 20 High Surface roots; codominant trunks @ 7’; full healthy canopy.
309 Raywood ash 4 Yes 3 20 8 Low Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; canopy dead on N.
310 Raywood ash 9 Yes 4 35 18 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; healthy canopy.
311 Raywood ash 11 Yes 4 35 20 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; healthy canopy.
312 Coast live oak 37 Yes 5 55 64 High Multiple attachments @ 10’; large lateral on W.; healthy canopy.
313 Coast redwood 22 Yes 5 65 24 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy; roots cut for new
sidewalk.
314 London plane 14 Yes 5 60 30 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
1097
CC 04-03-2024
1097 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
315 Evergreen pear 7 Yes 3 12 10 High Trunk lean; multiple attachments @ 5’; narrow branch unions; sparse canopy.
316 Coast live oak 36 Yes 5 55 60 High Multiple attachments @ 10’; large lateral on W.; healthy canopy.
317 Coast live oak 25 Yes 5 55 45 High Codominant trunks @ 15’; healthy canopy.
318 Coast live oak 19 Yes 5 55 24 High Multiple attachments @ 10’; healthy canopy.
319 Coast live oak 29 Yes 5 55 50 High Multiple attachments @ 5’; branches extend over sidewalk & road; healthy
canopy.
320 Coast live oak 12 Yes 4 30 15 High Trunk leans W.; old trunk wound; multiple attachments @ 10’ healthy
canopy.
321 Coast live oak 10 Yes 5 20 20 High Trunk leans W.; multiple attachments @ 5’; healthy canopy.
322 Crape myrtle 4 Yes 5 12 10 High Good young tree.
323 Crape myrtle 4 Yes 5 12 10 High Good young tree.
324 Coast live oak 8 Yes 5 15 18 High Good young tree.
325 Coast live oak 13 Yes 5 30 28 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 8’; healthy canopy; branches extend
over sidewalk.
1098
CC 04-03-2024
1098 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
326 Coast live oak 25 Yes 5 35 50 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 8’; healthy canopy; history of branch
failure; branches extend over sidewalk
& road.
327 Coast live oak 18 Yes 5 35 22 High Multiple attachments @ 8’; trunk leans E.; healthy canopy.
328 Coast live oak 37 Yes 5 55 54 High Codominant trunks @ 5’; healthy canopy.
329 London plane 13 Yes 5 55 28 High Good upright form & structure; healthy canopy.
330 Japanese flowering cherry 5 Yes 2 8 10 Low Large trunk wound; no central leader. 331 Japanese flowering cherry 5 Yes 3 10 10 Low Surface roots; trunk wound; small twig dieback.
332 Japanese flowering cherry 5 Yes 4 10 16 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 2’; small twig dieback.
333 Raywood ash 9 Yes 4 30 22 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow branch unions; full healthy canopy.
334 Japanese flowering cherry 6 Yes 5 12 14 High Surface roots; codominant trunks @ 3’; full healthy canopy.
335 Japanese flowering cherry 5 Yes 5 12 12 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 3’; full healthy canopy.
336 Raywood ash 8 Yes 4 35 22 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 8’; full healthy canopy.
1099
CC 04-03-2024
1099 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
337 London plane 15 Yes 5 50 34 High Multiple attachments @ 10’; full healthy canopy.
338 Coast live oak 59 Yes 3 65 80 High Cabled; large trunk cavity; multiple attachments @ a 10’; branch decay @
old pruning wounds; wide spreading
canopy; healthy canopy.
339 London plane 16 Yes 5 55 52 High Codominant trunks @ 10’; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
340 Coast live oak 24 Yes 4 40 28 High Off-site; canopy extends over property 28’; trunk leaning against fence; small
twig dieback.
341 Evergreen pear 10 Yes 4 15 19 Moderate Trunk leans E. over parking lot; codominant trunks @ 6’; suppressed.
342 Evergreen pear 7 Yes 3 12 16 Moderate Codominant trunks @ 5’; sparse canopy.
343 Evergreen pear 8 Yes 3 12 18 Moderate Codominant trunks @ 5’; sparse canopy.
344 Sawleaf zelkova 17 Yes 4 35 48 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 8’; small twig dieback; water-stressed.
345 Sawleaf zelkova 17 Yes 2 35 22 Low Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 8’; large sections of bark separating;
water-stressed; significant branch
dieback.
1100
CC 04-03-2024
1100 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
346 Evergreen pear 14 Yes 3 30 35 Moderate Codominant trunks @ 6’; multiple attachments; small trunk wound; small
twig dieback.
347 Evergreen pear 8 Yes 3 20 20 Moderate Codominant trunks @ 8’; poor structure; small twig dieback.
348 Photinia 4 Yes 3 20 8 Low Codominant trunks @ 5’; significant twig dieback.
349 Evergreen pear 5 Yes 3 15 12 Moderate Codominant trunks @ 5’; small twig dieback.
350 Photinia 6 Yes 3 25 14 Low Topped; small resprouts; small twig dieback.
351 Tobira 7 Yes 3 20 16 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 6’; small twig dieback.
352 Tobira 7 Yes 3 20 20 Low Trunk sweeps upright from base; multiple attachments @ 6’; no central
leader; small twig dieback.
353 Western sycamore 11 Yes 3 35 26 Low Large surface roots; codominant trunks @ 10’; thin sinuous central leader.
354 Western sycamore 24 Yes 5 65 45 High Large surface roots; full healthy canopy.
355 Coast redwood 60 Yes 5 90 66 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
356 Western sycamore 10 Yes 5 40 22 High Surface roots; sinuous central leader; healthy canopy.
1101
CC 04-03-2024
1101 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
357 Western sycamore 7 Yes 5 40 15 High Sinuous central leader; healthy canopy. 358 Coast redwood 21 Yes 3 65 32 Moderate Good upright form & structure; waterstressed; thin canopy. 359 Coast redwood 49 Yes 3 80 40 Moderate Codominant trunks high in crown; waterstressed; thin canopy. 360 Coast redwood 32 Yes 3 65 40 Moderate Codominant trunks high in crown; waterstressed; thin canopy. 361 Coast redwood 21 Yes 3 70 32 Moderate Good upright form & structure; waterstressed; thin canopy. 362 Coast redwood 24 Yes 3 55 26 Moderate No central leader; water-stressed; thin canopy.
363 Coast redwood 23 Yes 3 65 26 Moderate Good upright form & structure; waterstressed; thin canopy. 364 Coast redwood 20 Yes 3 60 20 Moderate Good upright form & structure; waterstressed; thin canopy. 365 Coast redwood 19 Yes 3 65 20 Moderate Good upright form & structure; waterstressed; thin canopy. 366 Coast live oak 24 Yes 4 60 52 High Codominant trunks @ 8’; small twig dieback, otherwise health canopy.
367 Coast live oak 30 Yes 5 65 65 High Surface roots; Multiple large attachments @ 8’; small twig dieback
otherwise health canopy.
1102
CC 04-03-2024
1102 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
368 Coast live oak 25 Yes 5 65 60 High Surface roots; Multiple large attachments @ 8’; small twig dieback
otherwise health canopy.
369 Coast live oak 32 Yes 3 65 56 Low Surface roots; Multiple large attachments @ 8’; bring activity in
trunk; significant twig & branch
dieback.
370 Monterey pine 17 Yes 2 60 12 Low Off-site; tagged on fence; significant twig & branch dieback; history of
branch failures.
371 Coast live oak 7 Yes 4 30 15 High Off-site; tagged on fence; trunk will grow into chain link; full healthy
canopy.
372 Coast redwood 27 Yes 3 85 28 Moderate Good upright form & structure; waterstressed; thin canopy. 373 Coast redwood 39 Yes 3 85 28 Moderate Codominant trunks @ 2’; waterstressed; thin canopy. 374 Coast redwood 41,19 Yes 3 85 38 Moderate Water-stressed; thin canopy. 375 Japanese flowering cherry 5 Yes 4 10 16 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 4’; full canopy; margin burn on entire crown.
376 Japanese flowering cherry 5 Yes 4 10 16 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 4’; full canopy; margin burn on entire crown.
1103
CC 04-03-2024
1103 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
377 Coast redwood 21,17,14 Yes 2 45 34 Low Multiple attachments @ base; waterstressed; compact soil; sparse canopy. 378 Coast redwood 29 Yes 2 60 30 Low Good upright form & structure; waterstressed; compact soil; sparse canopy. 379 Coast redwood 36 Yes 3 60 34 Moderate Good upright form & structure; waterstressed; compact soil; sparse canopy. 380 Mexican fan palm 18 Yes 5 60 10 High 40' of brown trunk; healthy crown. 381 Coast live oak 22,17 Yes 4 55 50 High Codominant trunks @ 2’; healthy canopy.
382 Evergreen ash 27 Yes 5 55 38 High Multiple attachments @ a 7’; branches fused; full healthy canopy.
383 Evergreen ash 38 Yes 4 70 64 High Multiple attachments @ a 10’; narrow branch unions; small twig dieback,
otherwise full healthy canopy.
384 Evergreen ash 25 Yes 4 50 50 High Multiple attachments @ a 10’; small twig dieback, otherwise full healthy
canopy.
385 Evergreen ash 16 Yes 4 50 46 High Codominant trunks @ 10’; small twig dieback, otherwise full healthy canopy.
1104
CC 04-03-2024
1104 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
386 Evergreen ash 14 Yes 4 50 32 High Codominant trunks @ 10’; small twig dieback, otherwise full healthy canopy.
387 Coast redwood 36 Yes 3 85 45 Moderate Good upright form & structure; waterstressed; thin canopy. 388 Coast redwood 27 Yes 3 85 36 Moderate Good upright form & structure; waterstressed; thin canopy. 389 Coast redwood 15 Yes 3 85 24 Moderate Good upright form & structure; waterstressed; thin canopy. 390 Coast redwood 32 Yes 3 85 44 Moderate Good upright form & structure; waterstressed; thin canopy. 391 Coast redwood 12 Yes 3 75 16 Moderate Good upright form & structure; waterstressed; thin canopy. 392 Coast redwood 18 Yes 3 85 26 Moderate Good upright form & structure; waterstressed; thin canopy. 393 Coast redwood 25,12 Yes 3 85 26 Moderate Good upright form & structure; waterstressed; codominant trunks @ 3’; thin canopy.
394 Coast redwood 26 Yes 3 55 30 Moderate Good upright form & structure; waterstressed; thin canopy. 395 Coast redwood 7 Yes 2 25 14 Low Good upright form & structure; waterstressed; dead central leader; thin canopy.
396 Coast redwood 21 Yes 3 65 24 High Good upright form & structure; waterstressed; slightly thin canopy.
1105
CC 04-03-2024
1105 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
397 Coast redwood 19 Yes 2 55 20 Low Good upright form & structure; waterstressed; thin canopy. 398 Coast redwood 16 Yes 3 40 22 Low Good upright form & structure; waterstressed; thin canopy. 399 Coast redwood 11 Yes 0 55 12 Low Dead.
400 Coast redwood 29,29 Yes 4 85 34 High Root zone had been scraped; broken roots; codominant trunks @ 2’; healthy
canopy.
401 Coast redwood 28 Yes 3 85 40 High Root zone had been scraped; broken roots; codominant trunks @ 2’; waterstressed; moderate tip dieback. 402 Coast redwood 11 Yes 4 25 20 Moderate Good upright form & structure; waterstressed; small tip dieback. 403 Coast redwood 7 Yes 4 25 10 Moderate Good upright form & structure; waterstressed; small tip dieback. 404 Coast redwood 8 Yes 4 20 10 Moderate Good upright form & structure; waterstressed; small tip dieback. 405 Coast redwood 8 Yes 4 25 10 Moderate Good upright form & structure; waterstressed; small tip dieback. 406 Coast redwood 11 Yes 4 25 12 Moderate Good upright form & structure; waterstressed; small tip dieback. 407 Coast redwood 5 Yes 4 20 8 Moderate Good upright form & structure; waterstressed; good young tree.
1106
CC 04-03-2024
1106 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
408 Coast redwood 5 Yes 4 20 12 Moderate Good upright form & structure; waterstressed; trunk curves @ 8’; codominant trunks @ 8’.
409 Coast redwood 6 Yes 4 20 12 Moderate Water-stressed; good young tree; codominant trunks @ 15’.
410 Coast redwood 8 Yes 4 15 12 Moderate Water-stressed; good young tree. 411 Coast redwood 8 Yes 4 15 14 Moderate Water-stressed; good young tree. 412 Coast redwood 9 Yes 4 15 16 Moderate Water-stressed; good young tree. 413 Italian stone pine 22 Yes 4 35 26 Moderate Codominant trunks @ 7’; trunk curves E.; full healthy canopy.
414 Italian stone pine 16 Yes 3 35 22 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 10’; sparse canopy.
415 Italian stone pine 16 Yes 3 35 26 Moderate Surface roots; growing on top of bathroom structure; trunk curves S.;
thin canopy.
416 Italian stone pine 11 Yes 3 25 24 Moderate Surface roots; canopy raised to 15’; trunk curves S.; suppressed on N.
417 Italian stone pine 24 Yes 3 35 36 Moderate Surface roots; codominant trunks @ 6’; full healthy canopy.
418 Italian stone pine 29 Yes 3 40 44 Moderate Surface roots; codominant trunks @ 10’; full healthy canopy.
419 Italian stone pine 21 Yes 3 40 26 Moderate Surface roots; trunk turns W. @ 20’; suppressed on N.
1107
CC 04-03-2024
1107 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
420 Italian stone pine 34 Yes 3 40 50 Moderate Surface roots; codominant trunks @ 8’; canopy raised to 25’; healthy canopy.
421 Italian stone pine 36 Yes 3 50 55 Moderate Surface roots; codominant trunks @ 8’; heavy laterals over baseball bleachers;
asymmetric canopy; roots displacing
concrete; healthy canopy.
422 Coast live oak 22 Yes 4 45 40 High Good upright form & structure; surface roots; only tree growing on mound;
multiple attachments @ 8’; moderate
twig dieback.
423 Coast live oak 17 Yes 4 35 30 High Good upright form & structure; surface roots; growing in tree well; multiple
attachments @ 7’; small twig dieback.
424 Coast live oak 20 Yes 4 45 44 High Good upright form & structure; surface roots; growing on slight slope; multiple
attachments @ 8’; full healthy canopy.
425 Chinese pistache 8 Yes 4 25 28 High Good upright form & structure; surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; full
healthy canopy.
426 Coast live oak 29 Yes 4 50 50 High Surface roots; suppressed on S.; asymmetric crown; codominant trunks
@ 10’; healthy canopy.
1108
CC 04-03-2024
1108 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
427 Coast redwood 33 Yes 4 80 30 High Surface roots; codominant high in canopy; thin upper canopy.
428 Coast live oak 20 Yes 4 35 35 High Surface roots; slight trunk lean S.; multiple attachments @ 6 & 10’; full
healthy canopy.
429 Coast redwood 20,15 Yes 0 55 35 Low Dead.
430 Coast redwood 9 Yes 1 25 18 Low All but dead.
431 Coast redwood 31 Yes 3 85 40 Moderate Surface roots; good upright form & structure; thin canopy; less than 1’ from
road.
432 Coast redwood 15 Yes 3 50 24 Moderate Surface roots; good upright form & structure; thin canopy; 4’ from road.
433 Coast redwood 11 Yes 2 35 16 Low Surface roots; good upright form & structure; thin canopy; 4’ from road;
water-stressed; significant dieback.
434 Coast live oak 29 Yes 4 40 55 Moderate Surface roots; codominant trunks @ 6’; branches hang E. over road; healthy
canopy.
435 Coast redwood 15 Yes 3 50 20 Moderate Good upright form & structure; waterstressed; thin canopy. 436 Coast redwood 19 Yes 3 65 20 Moderate Good upright form & structure; waterstressed; thin canopy. 437 Coast live oak 16 Yes 3 40 30 High Trunk bows S.; water-stressed; suppressed on N.; healthy canopy.
1109
CC 04-03-2024
1109 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
438 Coast redwood 32 Yes 4 80 30 Moderate Good upright form & structure; waterstressed; small tip dieback; codominant high in canopy.
439 Coast live oak 13 Yes 4 35 20 High Asymmetric crown; heavy on W.; suppressed on E.; healthy new growth.
440 Coast live oak 27 Yes 4 45 40 High Multiple attachments @ 10; good upright form & structure; healthy
canopy.
441 Coast live oak 8 Yes 3 10 16 Low Codominant trunks @ 2’; small understory tree.
442 Coast live oak 25 Yes 4 50 34 Moderate Surface roots; codominant trunks @ 6’; full healthy canopy; retaining wall on S.
side; roots growing under wall.
443 Coast live oak 23 Yes 4 30 34 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; suppressed on NE.; otherwise
healthy canopy.
444 Coast redwood 34 Yes 4 70 38 High Good upright form & structure; waterstressed; sparse upper canopy; otherwise healthy crown.
445 Coast redwood 43 Yes 4 85 36 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; healthy canopy.
446 Coast redwood 18 Yes 2 60 20 Low Surface roots; water-stressed; significant dieback.
1110
CC 04-03-2024
1110 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
447 Evergreen ash 23 Yes 4 65 44 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 10’; suppressed on N.; otherwise
healthy canopy.
448 Evergreen ash 24 Yes 4 65 44 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 10’; vigorous healthy canopy.
449 California black walnut 22 Yes 2 30 26 Low Significant twig & branch dieback; central leader dead.
450 California black walnut 28 Yes 2 20 18 Low Severe twig & branch dieback. 451 California black walnut 19 Yes 2 20 20 Low Severe twig & branch dieback; trunk decay.
452 California black walnut 12 Yes 1 12 15 Low All but dead. 453 California black walnut 20 Yes 2 25 28 Low Codominant trunks @ 5'; significant twig & branch dieback; trunk decay.
454 California black walnut 18 Yes 2 25 28 Low Significant twig & branch dieback; leaders dead.
455 California black walnut 18 Yes 2 25 26 Low Codominant trunks @ 5'; significant twig & branch dieback; trunk decay.
456 California black walnut 31 Yes 2 30 26 Low Significant twig & branch dieback; dead central leader; trunk decay.
457 California black walnut 32 Yes 2 30 34 Low Codominant trunks @ 5'; significant twig & branch dieback; trunk decay.
458 California black walnut 26 Yes 3 35 38 Low Codominant trunks @ 5'; moderate twig & branch dieback.
1111
CC 04-03-2024
1111 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
459 California black walnut 22 Yes 2 30 20 Low Codominant trunks @ 10'; significant twig & branch dieback; main stems
dead.
460 California black walnut 26 Yes 2 25 16 Low Codominant trunks @ 5'; large trunk wound; significant twig & branch
dieback; leaders dead.
461 California black walnut 25 Yes 2 25 12 Low Multiple attachments @ 8'; significant twig & branch dieback; leaders dead.
462 Coast redwood 20 Yes 3 55 22 Moderate 7' from street; good upright form & structure; water-stressed; tip dieback.
463 Coast redwood 12 Yes 3 45 20 Moderate Good upright form & structure; waterstressed; moderate tip dieback. 464 Coast redwood 20 Yes 3 50 24 Moderate Good upright form & structure; waterstressed; moderate tip dieback. 465 Coast redwood 31 Yes 4 70 32 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
466 California black walnut 16,15 Yes 2 20 25 Low Codominant trunks @ 5'; significant twig & branch dieback; trunk decay.
467 Scot's pine 7 Yes 2 20 16 Low Surface roots; canopy raised to 8’; significant twig & branch dieback; thin
canopy.
468 Scot's pine 8 Yes 2 15 16 Low Surface roots; canopy raised to 8’; significant twig & branch dieback; thin
canopy.
1112
CC 04-03-2024
1112 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
469 Scot's pine 14 Yes 3 25 22 Moderate Trunk leans N.; asymmetric crown; multiple attachments; small needle
dieback.
470 Chinese pistache 8 Yes 5 20 26 High Multiple attachments @ 7’; full healthy canopy.
471 Coast live oak 43 Yes 5 45 65 High Good form & structure; multiple attachments @ 8’; full healthy canopy.
472 California black walnut 30 Yes 3 35 34 Low Codominant trunks @ 8’; moderate twig & branch dieback; ground squirrel
holes @ base.
473 Hollywood juniper 12 Yes 3 8 10 Low Multiple attachments @ 1’; suppressed; small understory tree.
474 Hollywood juniper 10 Yes 2 12 8 Low No central leader; small crown; multiple branches removed.
475 Hollywood juniper 7,7,5 Yes 2 15 18 Low Dead central leader; poor structure; vase-shape; small dieback.
476 California black walnut 38 Yes 2 35 34 Low Multiple attachments @ 6’; significant twig & branch dieback; trunk decay.
477 Hollywood juniper 15 Yes 3 12 15 Low Multiple attachments @ 6”; washed out @ base; low wide crown.
478 Hollywood juniper 15 Yes 3 12 15 Low Multiple attachments @ 6”; washed out @ base; low wide crown.
1113
CC 04-03-2024
1113 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
479 London plane 13 Yes 3 35 30 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 6’; suppressed on N.; branches extend over sidewalk;
sparse canopy.
480 Coast live oak 31 Yes 3 35 60 High Basal decay; multiple attachments @ 6’; suppressed on W.; branches extend
over sidewalk; sparse canopy.
481 Coast live oak 24 Yes 4 40 65 High Good upright form & structure; multiple attachments @ 15’; foliage mostly in
upper crown.
482 Coast live oak 23 Yes 3 40 42 High Good upright form & structure; multiple attachments @ 10’; sparse canopy;
trunk leans slightly N.
483 Italian stone pine 33 Yes 4 50 35 Moderate Codominant trunks @ 8’; canopy lifted to 25’; trunk leans slightly W.; healthy
canopy.
484 Italian stone pine 36 Yes 4 55 65 High Codominant trunks @ 6’; canopy lifted to 25+’; full healthy canopy.
485 Japanese flowering cherry 4 Yes 4 8 14 Moderate Good young tree; healthy canopy. 486 Japanese flowering cherry 5 Yes 4 10 18 Moderate Good young tree; margin burn on entire crown.
487 Scot's pine 12 Yes 3 25 22 Moderate Water-stressed; canopy lifted to 10’; multiple attachments; small needle
dieback.
1114
CC 04-03-2024
1114 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
488 Chinese elm 11 Yes 4 25 40 High Multiple attachments @ 7’; small twig & branch dieback.
489 Chinese elm 8 Yes 4 20 26 High Multiple attachments @ 8’; good young tree.
490 Canary Island pine 19,17 Yes 4 70 28 High Codominant trunks @ 3’; full healthy canopy; 4’ from street.
491 Canary Island pine 20 Yes 4 70 28 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy; 3’ from street.
492 Canary Island pine 19 Yes 4 70 26 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
493 Deodar cedar 17 Yes 4 50 28 High Trunk leans slightly S.; branches overhang sidewalk & street; full healthy
canopy.
494 Canary Island pine 16 Yes 3 65 22 Low Suppressed on N.; significant dieback on N.; asymmetric canopy.
495 Canary Island pine 14 Yes 3 65 20 Moderate Good upright form & structure; moderate twig & branch dieback.
496 Canary Island pine 27 Yes 5 85 40 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy; branches extend over
street.
497 Deodar cedar 15 Yes 4 55 30 High Good upright form & structure; suppressed on S.; otherwise healthy
canopy.
498 Deodar cedar 23 Yes 3 60 36 High Good upright form & structure; suppressed on W.; sparse canopy.
1115
CC 04-03-2024
1115 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
499 Southern live oak 4 Yes 4 10 6 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 6’; suppressed N & W.; sparse canopy.
500 Southern live oak 7 Yes 2 12 17 Low Multiple attachments @ 6’; extensive trunk decay; full healthy canopy.
501 Canary Island pine 28 Yes 4 75 40 Moderate Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy; 5’ from sidewalk;
branches extend over street; history of
branch failure.
502 Deodar cedar 22 Yes 4 65 46 High Codominant trunks high in crown; suppressed on S.; full healthy canopy.
503 Canary Island pine 27 Yes 5 85 44 High Good upright form & structure:
branches extend over street; full
healthy canopy.
504 Southern live oak 17 Yes 3 30 40 High Multiple attachments @ 8’; small twig & branch dieback; branches extend over
street.
505 Deodar cedar 24 Yes 3 40 46 High Multiple attachments @ 10’; trunk leans slightly S.; sparse canopy; branches
extend over street.
506 Deodar cedar 26 Yes 3 40 46 High Multiple attachments @ 10’; candelabra form; sparse canopy;
branches extend over street.
507 Southern live oak 13 Yes 1 25 24 Low All but dead.
1116
CC 04-03-2024
1116 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
508 Southern live oak 13 Yes 4 35 26 High Multiple attachments @ 8’; small twig dieback; branches extend over street.
509 Deodar cedar 26 Yes 4 45 42 High Multiple attachments @ 8’; slight candelabra form; healthy canopy;
branches extend over street.
510 Canary Island pine 21 Yes 5 70 44 High Canopy lifted to 20’; full healthy canopy.
511 Canary Island pine 22 Yes 5 70 36 High Canopy lifted to 20’; suppressed on S.; otherwise full healthy canopy.
512 Canary Island pine 20 Yes 5 70 20 High Canopy lifted to 20’; suppressed on W.; codominant trunks high in crown; full
healthy canopy.
513 Canary Island pine 23 Yes 5 70 30 High Canopy lifted to 25’; suppressed on W.; full healthy canopy.
514 Deodar cedar 12 Yes 4 30 24 High Trunk wound on W.; full healthy canopy.
515 Deodar cedar 13 Yes 5 30 30 High Multiple attachments @ 6’; full healthy canopy.
516 Deodar cedar 18 Yes 5 30 32 High Multiple attachments @ 5’; candelabra form; full healthy canopy.
517 Deodar cedar 7,4 Yes 5 20 16 High Codominant trunks @ base; good young tree.
518 Deodar cedar 4 Yes 4 15 10 Moderate Suppressed understory tree, healthy canopy.
1117
CC 04-03-2024
1117 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
519 Deodar cedar 15 Yes 4 30 32 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 6’; trunk leans E.; candelabra form; healthy canopy.
520 Deodar cedar 4 Yes 4 20 14 Moderate Suppressed understory tree; healthy canopy.
521 Blue atlas cedar 12 Yes 4 30 26 High Multiple attachments @ 7’; full healthy canopy.
522 Deodar cedar 14 Yes 5 35 30 High Multiple attachments @ 5’; good upright form & structure, full healthy
canopy.
523 Deodar cedar 17 Yes 5 40 26 High Multiple attachments @ 6’; good upright form & structure, full healthy
canopy.
524 Deodar cedar 15 Yes 5 40 30 High Multiple attachments @ 5’; candelabra form; full healthy canopy.
525 Deodar cedar 13 Yes 5 40 26 High Multiple attachments @ 5’; good upright form & structure; full healthy
canopy.
526 Deodar cedar 17 Yes 5 40 34 High Multiple attachments @ 6’; good upright form & structure; full healthy
canopy.
527 Deodar cedar 11 Yes 5 35 20 High Multiple attachments @ 5’; good upright form & structure; full healthy
canopy.
1118
CC 04-03-2024
1118 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
528 Canary Island pine 21 Yes 5 60 28 High Multiple attachments @ 10’; good upright form & structure; suppressed
on W.; otherwise full healthy canopy;
codominant high in crown.
529 Canary Island pine 22 Yes 4 60 32 High Multiple attachments @ 10’; good upright form & structure; suppressed
on E.; otherwise full healthy canopy;
codominant trunks high in crown.
530 Red ironbark 31 Yes 3 60 40 Low Multiple attachments @ 8’; narrow branch unions; history of branch failure.
531 Canary Island pine 17 Yes 4 45 28 Moderate Codominant trunks @ 8’; trunk 3’ from wall & 4’ from parking lot; full healthy
canopy.
532 Canary Island pine 23 Yes 4 60 38 Moderate Displacing hardscape; trunk 3’ from wall & 4’ from parking lot; full healthy
canopy.
533 Canary Island pine 27 Yes 4 60 32 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 10’; trunk 3’ from wall & 5’ from parking lot; full
healthy canopy.
534 Evergreen pear 9 Yes 4 15 22 High Multiple attachments @ 6’; good young tree; trunk 4’ from wall & 5’ from
parking lot.
535 Canary Island pine 8 Yes 5 30 10 High Good young tree.
1119
CC 04-03-2024
1119 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
536 Callery pear 20 Yes 3 35 32 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 7’; history of branch failure; small twig dieback;
branches extend over parking lot.
537 Callery pear 4 Yes 5 10 8 High Good young tree.
538 Canary Island pine 19 Yes 4 45 22 High Canopy lifted to 20’; full healthy canopy.
539 African fern-pine 14 Yes 4 25 24 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 5’; trunk 1’ from tennis courts; 3’ from curb;
chlorotic leaves.
540 African fern-pine 14 Yes 4 25 20 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 5’; trunk 1’ from tennis courts; 3’ from curb; full
healthy canopy.
541 African fern-pine 14 Yes 4 30 22 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 8’; slightly chlorotic leaves; full canopy.
542 African fern-pine 15 Yes 4 30 30 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 4’; narrow branch unions; small twig dieback;
trunk 1’ from tennis courts & 1’ from
curb.
543 African fern-pine 8 Yes 3 20 10 Moderate Topped; multiple attachments small crown; trunk 1’ from tennis courts & 1’
from curb.
544 African fern-pine 14 Yes 3 25 24 Moderate Topped; multiple attachments @ 5’; narrow branch unions; trunk 4’ from
tennis courts & 3’ from curb.
1120
CC 04-03-2024
1120 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
545 African fern-pine 10 Yes 3 25 18 Moderate Topped; multiple attachments @ 8’; narrow columnar form; small crown;
trunk 1’ from tennis courts & 1’ from
curb.
546 Holly oak 5,4,4 Yes 4 15 22 High Multiple attachments @ base; 2’ from tennis courts; full healthy canopy.
547 Evergreen pear 7 Yes 2 12 8 Low Suppressed understory tree; small canopy.
548 Evergreen pear 5 Yes 2 12 8 Low Suppressed understory tree; small canopy.
549 Evergreen pear 6,6 Yes 3 10 12 Low Codominant trunks @ 2’; sparse canopy.
550 Evergreen pear 6 Yes 3 15 14 Low Suppressed understory tree; sparse canopy.
551 Canary Island pine 13 Yes 4 40 24 High Good upright form & structure; canopy lifted to 15’; full healthy canopy.
552 Callery pear 6 Yes 4 30 16 Moderate Codominant trunks @ 5’; suppressed on N.; otherwise healthy canopy.
553 Canary Island pine 15 Yes 4 65 22 Moderate Good upright form & structure; canopy lifted to 20’; small twig dieback.
554 Canary Island pine 28 Yes 4 75 36 Moderate Good upright form & structure; canopy lifted to 20’; small twig dieback.
1121
CC 04-03-2024
1121 of 1277
TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
555 Canary Island pine 25 Yes 4 70 38 High Good upright form & structure; canopy lifted to 20’; full healthy canopy.
556 African fern-pine 13 Yes 3 15 14 Low Multiple attachments @ 6’; topped; 4’ planting strip; sparse canopy.
557 African fern-pine 15 Yes 4 30 26 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 7’; 4’ planting strip; full healthy canopy.
558 African fern-pine 13 Yes 3 20 16 Low Multiple attachments @ 6’; topped; 4’ planting strip; sparse canopy.
559 Canary Island pine 18 Yes 4 70 33 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
560 Deodar cedar 25 Yes 4 70 40 High Candelabra form; suppressed on W.; otherwise healthy canopy.
1122
CC 04-03-2024
1122 of 1277
Geotechnical Evaluation
Memorial Park
21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Cupertino, California
Gates + Associates
1655 N. Main Street, Suite 365 | Walnut Creek, California 94596 November 3, 2022 | Project No. 404269001
Geotechnical | Environmental | Construction Inspection & Testing | Forensic Engineering & Expert Witness Geophysics | Engineering Geology | Laboratory Testing | Industrial Hygiene | Occupational Safety | Air Quality | GIS • ATTACHMENT D • APPENDIX C •
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
1123
CC 04-03-2024
1123 of 1277
2149 O’Toole Avenue, Suite 30 | San Jose, California 95131 | p. 408.435.9000 | www.ninyoandmoore.com Geotechnical Evaluation
Memorial Park
21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Cupertino, California
Mr. Michael Freitag
Gates + Associates
1655 N. Main Street, Suite 365 | Walnut Creek, California 94596 November 3, 2022 | Project No. 404269001
Ransom H. Hennefer, PE, GE
Principal Engineer
TBG/RHgvr
November 3, 2022
Geotechnlcal & Environmental Sciences Consultants
~
1124
CC 04-03-2024
1124 of 1277
Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022 i
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION 1
2 SCOPE OF SERVICES 1
3 SITE DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND 1
4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2
5 SUBSURFACE EVALUATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 2
6 GEOLOGIC AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3
6.1 Regional Geologic Setting 3
6.2 Site Geology 3
6.3 Subsurface Conditions 3
6.3.1 Alluvium 3
6.4 Groundwater 4
7 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS 4
7.1 Seismic Hazards 4
7.1.1 Historical Seismicity 4
7.1.2 Faulting and Ground Surface Rupture 4
7.1.3 Strong Ground Motion 5
7.1.4 Liquefaction and Strain Softening 5
7.1.5 Ground Subsidence 6
7.1.6 Lateral Spread 6
7.1.7 Seismic Slope Stability 6
7.2 Expansive Soil 6
7.3 Static Settlement 6
7.4 Excavation Characteristics 7
7.5 Corrosive/Deleterious Soil 7
8 CONCLUSIONS 7
9 RECOMMENDATIONS 8
9.1 Seismic Design Criteria 8
9.2 Earthwork Recommendations 9
9.2.1 Pre-Construction Conference 9
9.2.2 Site Preparation 9
1125
CC 04-03-2024
1125 of 1277
Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022 ii
9.2.3 Observation and Removals 10
9.2.4 Material Recommendations 10
9.2.5 Subgrade Preparation 11
9.2.6 Fill Placement and Compaction 12
9.2.7 Temporary Excavations and Shoring 13
9.2.8 Utility Trenches 14
9.3 Foundations 15
9.3.1 Spread Footings 15
9.3.2 Slabs-on-Grade 16
9.3.3 Drilled Piers for Minor Structures 16
9.4 Pavements and Flatwork 17
9.4.1 Asphalt Pavement 17
9.5 Concrete Placement 18
9.6 Review of Construction Plans 18
9.7 Construction Observation and Testing 19
10 LIMITATIONS 19
11 REFERENCES 21
TABLES
1 – California Building Code Seismic Design Criteria 9
2 – Recommended Material Requirements 11
3 – Subgrade Preparation Recommendations 11
4– Fill Placement and Compaction Recommendations 12
5– OSHA Material Classifications and Allowable Slopes 13 6– Recommended Bearing Design Parameters for Footings 15 7– Asphalt Concrete Pavement Sections 18
FIGURES
1 – Site Location
2 – Boring and Test Locations
3 – Fault Locations and Earthquake Epicenters
4 – Regional Geology
5 – Seismic Hazard Zone
1126
CC 04-03-2024
1126 of 1277
Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022 iii
APPENDICES
A – Boring Logs
B – Laboratory Testing
C – Corrosivity Testing (CERCO Analytical)
1127
CC 04-03-2024
1127 of 1277
Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022 1 1 INTRODUCTION
In accordance with your request and authorization, we have performed a geotechnical evaluation for the Memorial Park Project located at 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino, California (Figure 1). The purpose of our study was to assess the geotechnical conditions at the site and provide recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed improvements. 2 SCOPE OF SERVICES
The services we performed included the following:
• Review of pertinent background data, including aerial photographs and published geologic, seismic, and soils maps and literature.
• A site reconnaissance to observe the general site conditions and to mark the proposed locations for subsurface exploration.
• Coordination with Underground Service Alert (USA) to locate and mark underground utilities in the vicinity of the subsurface exploration locations. • Subcontract a private underground utility survey to further check the exploration locations for underground utility conflicts.
• Procurement of an encroachment permit from the City of Cupertino’s Department of Public Works.
• Subsurface exploration consisting of seventeen (17) exploratory borings advanced up to 15 feet below existing grade. A representative of Ninyo & Moore logged the subsurface conditions exposed in the borings and collected bulk and relatively undisturbed soil samples for laboratory tests. The borings were backfilled with cement grout, in compliance with the Santa Clara Valley Water District regulations. Drill cuttings were off hauled from the site. • Laboratory testing of selected soil samples to evaluate the geotechnical properties of the subsurface materials including in-situ soil moisture content and density, soil gradation, Atterberg limits, expansion index, R-value, and soil corrosivity. • Data compilation and engineering analysis of the information obtained from our background review, subsurface evaluation, and laboratory testing.
• Preparation of this geotechnical report presenting our findings and conclusions regarding the subsurface conditions encountered at the project site, and our geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed improvements. 3 SITE DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The project site is located at 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino, California (Figure 1).
The site is an “L” shaped lot that is bounded to the north by Christensen Drive, to the east by North Stelling Road and Anton Way, to the west by residential properties, and to the south Stevens Creek Boulevard and Alves Drive. Memorial Park is the largest and most well-used park in Cupertino. The 22-acre site includes lawns, a gazebo, an amphitheater, a lighted softball field, 1128
CC 04-03-2024
1128 of 1277
Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022 2 and six lighted tennis courts. Memorial Park houses the Cupertino Veterans Memorial which honors local veterans, and is adjacent to the Cupertino Senior Center, Quinlan Community Center, and Cupertino Sports Center. The site is relatively flat and lies at elevations of approximately between 286 to 296 feet above mean sea level (Google Earth, 2022). 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Based on documents provided by the city (City of Cupertino, 2022), the plan for the park is the following. The ponds at the site are in the process of being removed. The City has also identified improvements required for the amphitheater. The Memorial Park Specific Plan will determine how to best meet the future recreation, community gathering, event, and green space needs of citizens through enhancement of the park, following the findings and recommendations of the City’s Parks and Recreation System Master Plan. The Master Plan’s vision for the park highlights expansion of the civic event space and community hub experiences by providing a unifying focus to the surrounding existing City facilities, and by enhancing natural site features. 5 SUBSURFACE EVALUATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
Our field exploration included a site reconnaissance and subsurface exploration of the project site. The subsurface exploration was conducted on August 24 and September 19, 2022 and consisted of seventeen (17) exploratory borings. The locations of the borings are presented on Figure 2. Prior to commencing the subsurface investigation, USA was notified for field marking of existing utilities and a private utility survey was conducted to further assess and locate any utilities that may conflict with the exploration locations.
The borings were advanced to depths of up to approximately 15 feet below the existing grade with a truck-mounted drill rig equipped with hollow-stem augers. A representative of Ninyo & Moore logged the subsurface conditions exposed in the borings and collected bulk and relatively undisturbed soil samples from the borings. The materials encountered in the borings were classified and logged in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The samples were then transported to our geotechnical laboratory for testing. The borings were backfilled with cement grout and capped off with soil cuttings in accordance with Santa Clara Valley Water District requirements. Detailed logs of the borings are presented in Appendix A.
Laboratory testing of soil samples recovered from the borings included in-situ soil moisture content and density, soil gradation, Atterberg limits, expansion index, R-value, and soil corrosivity.
The results of the in-place moisture content and dry density tests are shown on the boring logs in Appendix A. The results of the other laboratory tests, excluding the corrosivity testing, are 1129
CC 04-03-2024
1129 of 1277
Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022 3 presented in Appendix B. The results and findings of the corrosivity evaluation are provided in Appendix C.
6 GEOLOGIC AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
6.1 Regional Geologic Setting
The site is located in the southwestern portion of Santa Clara Valley, which is part of the Coast Ranges geomorphic province of California. The Coast Ranges are comprised of several mountain ranges and structural valleys formed by tectonic processes commonly found around the CircumPacific belt. Basement rocks have been sheared, faulted, metamorphosed, and uplifted, and are separated by thick blankets of Cretaceous and Cenozoic sediments that fill structural valleys and line continental margins. The San Francisco Bay Area has several mountain ranges that trend northwest, parallel to major strike-slip faults such as the San Andreas, Hayward, and Calaveras (Figure 3). Major tectonic activity associated with these and other faults within this regional tectonic framework consists primarily of right-lateral, strike-slip movement.
6.2 Site Geology
A regional geologic map by Dibblee and Minch (2007) indicates that the site is underlain by Holocene age surficial sediments. Dibblee and Minch describe this unit as alluvial sand, silt, and gravel deposited in the upper part of the alluvial fans formed along the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains. A map of the regional geology is presented as Figure 4.
6.3 Subsurface Conditions
The following section provides a generalized description of the materials encountered during our subsurface evaluation at the project site. More detailed descriptions are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A.
6.3.1 Alluvium
Alluvium was encountered in all of the borings to the depths explored. The alluvium encountered in the borings generally consisted of light brown to dark brown, dry to wet, loose to very dense, poorly graded gravel, well-graded gravel with clay and sand, clayey gravel, clayey sand; and dark brown to reddish brown, moist, very stiff to hard, lean clay and silty clay.
1130
CC 04-03-2024
1130 of 1277
Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022 4
6.4 Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered during our subsurface exploration. However, groundwater may rise to a higher level due to the relatively low seepage rate in clay and the limited time for observation. Fluctuations in the groundwater level may occur due to seasonal precipitation, variations in topography or subsurface hydrogeologic conditions, or as a result of changes to nearby irrigation practices or groundwater pumping. In addition, seeps may be encountered at elevations above the historic high groundwater levels due to perched groundwater conditions, leaking pipes, preferential drainage, or other factors not evident at the time of our exploration.
Regional studies by the California Geological Survey (CGS, 2002a) indicate that the depth to historic high groundwater is approximately 50 feet below the ground surface. 7 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
This study considered a number of potential issues relevant to the proposed construction on the subject site, including seismic hazards, expansive soils, static settlement, excavation characteristics, and soil corrosivity. These issues are discussed in the following subsections.
7.1 Seismic Hazards
The seismic hazards considered in this study include the potential for ground rupture due to faulting, seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, and seismic slope stability. These potential hazards are discussed in the following subsections.
7.1.1 Historical Seismicity
The site is located in a seismically active region. Figure 3 presents the location of the site relative to the epicenters of historic earthquakes with magnitudes of 5.0 or more from 1800 to 2000. Records of historic ground effects related to seismic activity (e.g. liquefaction, sand boils, lateral spreading, ground cracking) compiled by Knudsen et al. (2000), indicate that ground effects related to historic seismic activity have not been reported for the site.
7.1.2 Faulting and Ground Surface Rupture
In response to hazards associated with ground rupture, or surface displacement, the State of California enacted the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (AP Act) in 1972, which regulates development of structures for human occupancy in areas within active fault zones.
The AP Act requires that the State Geologist delineate zones along active faults where evaluation of the potential for ground rupture is required. As defined by the California 1131
CC 04-03-2024
1131 of 1277
Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022 5 Geological Survey (CGS, 2018), active faults are faults that have caused surface displacement within Holocene time, or within approximately the last 11,700 years.
The site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone established by the State Geologist (CGS, 2018). The closest active fault and rupture hazard zone is the Monte Vista Shannon 2011 CFM located about 1.5 miles northwest of the site.
Based on our review of the referenced geologic maps, known active faults are not mapped on the site and the site is not located within a fault-rupture hazard zone. Therefore, the probability of damage from surface fault rupture is considered to be low.
7.1.3 Strong Ground Motion
Based on historic activity, the potential for future strong ground motion at the site is considered significant. Seismic design criteria to address ground shaking are provided in Section 9.1. The peak ground acceleration (PGA) associated with the Maximum Considered Earthquake Geometric Mean (MCEG) was calculated in accordance with the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7-16 Standard and the 2019 California Building Code (CBC). The MCEG peak ground acceleration with adjustment for site class effects (PGAM) was calculated as 1.018g using the USGS seismic design tool (SEAOCC & OSHPD, 2020) that yielded a mapped MCEG peak ground acceleration of 0.848g for the site and a site coefficient (FPGA) of 1.2 for Site Class D – Default and Risk Category II.
7.1.4 Liquefaction and Strain Softening
The site is not located within a liquefaction hazard zone (Figure 5) as established by the California Geological Survey (CGS, 2002b). In addition, regional studies of liquefaction susceptibility by the U.S. Geological Survey (Knudsen et al., 2000; and Witter et al., 2006) indicate that the site has a low susceptibility to liquefaction during a moderate to large magnitude earthquake on a nearby fault. Additionally, we did not encounter groundwater to the depths explored, which also indicates that the site has a low susceptibility to liquefaction.
As such, we do not regard seismically induced strain softening, liquefaction induced reduction in bearing capacity, sand-boil-induced ground subsidence, or lateral spreading as design considerations for the project.
1132
CC 04-03-2024
1132 of 1277
Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022 6
7.1.5 Ground Subsidence
Sand boils that occur when liquefied, near-surface soil escapes to the ground surface, can result in ground subsidence due to a loss of material that is in addition to dynamic settlement.
We do not anticipate liquefaction at the site and as such, we do not anticipate sand boils and related ground subsidence at the site.
7.1.6 Lateral Spread
In addition to vertical displacements, seismic ground shaking can induce horizontal displacements as surficial soil deposits spread laterally by floating atop liquefied subsurface layers. Lateral spread can occur on sloping ground or on flat ground adjacent to an exposed face. The nearest exposed face slope is Stevens Creek, located approximately 1 mile from the western portion of the site. Based on the site location and our liquefaction analysis, we do not anticipate that lateral spreading will occur near the proposed improvements following a significant seismic event.
7.1.7 Seismic Slope Stability
The site and surrounding area are relatively flat and the site in not within a seismic hazard zone for earthquake-induced landslides as mapped by the state geologist (CGS, 2002b).
7.2 Expansive Soil
Some clay minerals undergo volume changes upon wetting or drying. Unsaturated soil containing those minerals will shrink/swell with the removal/addition of water. The heaving pressures associated with this expansion can damage structures and flatwork. Laboratory testing was performed on a sample of the near-surface soil to evaluate the expansion index. The tests were performed in accordance with American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard D 4829 (Expansion Index). The results of our laboratory test indicate that the expansion indices of the samples tested were between 6 to 25. These results are indicative of a very low to low expansion characteristic.
7.3 Static Settlement
Based on documents provided, we understand that the sustained loads for the proposed structures are expected to be relatively light. We anticipate, therefore, that the total static settlement of drilled pier foundations due to sustained loads will be less than ½ inch, provided the recommendations presented in this report are followed.
1133
CC 04-03-2024
1133 of 1277
Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022 7
7.4 Excavation Characteristics
We anticipate that the proposed project will involve excavations of up to 15 feet in depth for installation of drilled pier foundations for light poles, shad structures, and play equipment. The soil encountered during our subsurface exploration over this interval generally consisted of firm to stiff clay and medium dense to dense sand and gravel with cobbles. We anticipate that heavy earthmoving equipment in good working condition should be able to make the proposed excavations. Near-vertical cuts or drilled shafts in these materials should not be considered stable. Recommendations for excavation stabilization are presented in Section 9.2.8. Excavations are not anticipated to extend below or near historic groundwater levels.
7.5 Corrosive/Deleterious Soil
Corrosivity analysis was performed by CERCO Analytical, Inc. of Concord, California on samples of the near-surface soil from boring B-6a. As reported by CERCO Analytical, the samples were determined to be corrosive based on resistivity test results. CERCO Analytical’s report (see Appendix C) included the following recommendation: “All buried iron, steel, cast iron, ductile iron, galvanized steel and dielectric coated steel or iron should be properly protected against corrosion depending upon the critical nature of the structure. All buried metallic pressure piping such as ductile iron firewater pipelines should be protected against corrosion.” Please refer to the CERCO Analytical report included in Appendix C for more information regarding their test results and brief evaluation.
8 CONCLUSIONS
Based on our review of the referenced background data, site reconnaissance, subsurface evaluation, and laboratory testing, it is our opinion that the proposed construction is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. Geotechnical considerations include the following:
• The subsurface conditions encountered during our exploration generally consisted of light brown to dark brown, dry to wet, loose to very dense, poorly graded gravel, well-graded gravel with clay and sand, clayey gravel, clayey sand; and dark brown to reddish brown, moist, very stiff to hard, lean clay and silty clay.
• Groundwater was not encountered during our subsurface exploration. Variations in the groundwater level across the site and over time should be anticipated. Regional mapping indicates that the historic high groundwater level is approximately 50 feet below the existing grade.
• We anticipate that the proposed project will involve excavations of up to 15 feet below the existing grade for installation of drilled pier foundations. Stability of excavations will be a concern, particularly where excavation sidewalls are disturbed by construction operations, or 1134
CC 04-03-2024
1134 of 1277
Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022 8 where excavations encounter relatively cohesionless soil or are exposed to water.
Recommendations for excavation stabilization are provided. • Static settlement should be tolerable for the proposed improvements provided that the proposed structures are supported on foundations that conform with our recommendations and fill placement to raise grades is less than 2 feet in height. • Our laboratory test results indicate that the near-surface soil has a very low to low expansion characteristic.
• Based on the results of the soil corrosivity tests during this study, the soils are considered to be corrosive (Appendix C) to buried ferrous metals as is typical for the area. Buried metals, such as play equipment, should be properly protected against corrosion. Corrosion protection measures should be discussed with the equipment manufacturer and may include corrosion resistant paint or other coatings.
9 RECOMMENDATIONS
The following sections present our geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed improvements. The project improvements should be designed and constructed in accordance with these recommendations, applicable codes, and appropriate construction practices.
9.1 Seismic Design Criteria
Seismic Site Class D-default was selected. Table 1 presents the Risk-Targeted, Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) spectral response accelerations consistent with the 2019 California Building Code and corresponding site-adjusted and design level spectral response accelerations based on the USGS seismic design maps using the ASCE 7 Hazard Tool (ASCE, 2021). The values provided in the table may be used for structures with a fundamental period of
0.5 seconds or less presuming that the seismic response coefficient is calculated from equation
12.8-2 of ASCE Standard 7-16 in accordance with Exception 2 in Section 11.4.8 of ASCE Standard 7-16.
1135
CC 04-03-2024
1135 of 1277
Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022 9 Table 1 – California Building Code Seismic Design Criteria Seismic Design Parameter Section 11.4 ASCE 7-16
Site Class D - Default
Site Coefficient, Fa 1.2
Site Coefficient, Fv -
Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2-second period, SS 2.056 Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 1.0-second period, S1 0.735 Site-Adjusted Spectral Acceleration at 0.2-second period, SMS 2.467 g Site-Adjusted Spectral Acceleration at 1.0-second period, SM1 - Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2-second Period, SDS 1.644 g Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1.0-second Period, SD1 - Seismic Design Category for Risk Category I, II, or III -
9.2 Earthwork Recommendations
Earthwork should be performed in accordance with the requirements of applicable governing agencies and the recommendations presented below. The geotechnical consultant should observe foundation excavations and earthwork operations. Evaluations performed by the geotechnical consultant during the course of operations may result in new recommendations, which could supersede the recommendations in this section.
9.2.1 Pre-Construction Conference
We recommend that a pre-construction conference be held to discuss the recommendations presented in the report. Representatives of the District, the design engineer, Ninyo & Moore, and the contractor should be in attendance to discuss project schedule and earthwork requirements.
9.2.2 Site Preparation
Site preparation should begin with the removal of existing vegetation, utility lines, debris and other deleterious materials from areas to be graded. Tree stumps and roots should be removed to such a depth that organic material is generally not present. Clearing and grubbing should extend beyond the proposed excavation and fill areas. Rubble and excavated materials that do not meet criteria for use as fill should be disposed of in an appropriate landfill. Existing utilities in the work area should be relocated away from the proposed structures. Existing utilities to be abandoned should be removed, crushed in place, or backfilled with grout.
1136
CC 04-03-2024
1136 of 1277
Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022 10 Excavations resulting from removal of buried utilities, tree stumps, or obstructions should be backfilled with compacted fill in accordance with the recommendations in the following sections.
9.2.3 Observation and Removals
Prior to placement of fill, or the placement of forms or reinforcement for foundations, the client should request an evaluation of the exposed subgrade by Ninyo & Moore. Materials that are considered unsuitable shall be excavated under the observation of Ninyo & Moore in accordance with the recommendations in this section or supplemental recommendations by the geotechnical engineer.
Unsuitable materials include, but may not be limited to dry, loose, soft, wet, expansive, organic, or compressible natural soil, and undocumented or otherwise deleterious fill materials. Unsuitable materials should be removed from trench bottoms and below bearing surfaces to a depth at which suitable foundation subgrade is exposed, as evaluated in the field by Ninyo & Moore.
9.2.4 Material Recommendations
Materials used during earthwork, grading, and paving operations should comply with the requirements listed in Table 2. Materials should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer for suitability prior to use. The contractor should notify the geotechnical consultant prior to import of materials or use of on-site materials to permit time for sampling, testing, and evaluation of the proposed materials. On-site materials may need to be dried out before reuse as fill. The contractor should be responsible for the uniformity of import material brought to the site.
1137
CC 04-03-2024
1137 of 1277
Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022 11 Table 2 – Recommended Material Requirements
Material and Use Source Requirements1,2,3
General Fill Import or Onsite Borrow
Close-graded with 35 percent or more
passing No. 4 sieve and either:
Expansion Index of 50 or less,
Plasticity Index of 12 or less,
or less than 10 percent, by dry weight,
passing No. 200 sieve
Pipe/Conduit Bedding and Pipe Zone
Material
-material below conduit invert to 12
inches above conduit
Import 90 to 100 percent (by mass) should pass No.
4 sieve, and 5 percent or less should pass
No. 200 sieve
Trench Backfill
- above bedding material
Import or Onsite BorrowAs per general fill and excluding rock/lumps retained on 4-inch sieve or 2-inch sieve in top
12 inches
Controlled Low Strength
Material (CLSM)
Import CSS5 Section 19-3.02G
Notes:
1 In general, fill should be free of rocks or lumps in excess of 6 inches in diameter, trash, debris, roots, vegetation or other deleterious material. 2 In general, import fill should be tested or documented to be non-corrosive4 and free from hazardous materials in concentrations above levels of concern. 3 The specification of utility owner or local agency may supersede the indicated requirements in this table. 4 Non-corrosive as defined by the Corrosion Guidelines (Caltrans, 2021). 5 CSS is California Standard Specifications (Caltrans, 2018).
9.2.5 Subgrade Preparation
Subgrade below slabs or fill should be prepared as per the recommendations in Table 3.
Prepared subgrade should be maintained in a moist (but not saturated) condition by the periodic sprinkling of water prior to placement of additional overlying fill. Subgrade that has been permitted to dry out and loosen or develop desiccation cracking, should be scarified, moisture-conditioned, and recompacted as per the requirements above.
Table 3 – Subgrade Preparation Recommendations
Subgrade Location Source
Below Slabs,
Pavement, and General
Fill
• After clearing per Section 9.2.2, check for unsuitable materials as per Section 9.2.4.
• Scarify 8 inches then moisture condition and compact as per Section 9.2.7.
• Keep in moist condition by sprinkling water.
1138
CC 04-03-2024
1138 of 1277
Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022 12
9.2.6 Fill Placement and Compaction
Fill and backfill should be compacted in horizontal lifts in conformance with the recommendations presented in Table 4. The allowable uncompacted thickness of each lift of fill depends on the type of compaction equipment utilized, but generally should not exceed 8 inches in loose thickness.
Table 4– Fill Placement and Compaction Recommendations
Fill Type Location Compacted
Density1
Moisture
Content2
Subgrade
Below pavement (within 12 inches of
finished subgrade) 95 percent + 2 percent or
above
Below slabs or fill and in locations not
already specified 90 percent + 2 percent or
above
General Fill
Below pavement (within 12 inches of
finished subgrade) 95 percent + 2 percent or above
In locations not already specified 90 percent + 2 percent or above
Bedding and
Pipe Zone Fill
Material below invert to 12 inches above
pipe or conduit 90 percent Within +/- 2
Optimum
Trench Backfill
Top 12 inches below finish subgrade for
areas subject to vehicular loading 95 percent + 2 percent or above In locations not already specified 90 percent + 2 percent or above
Aggregate Base Below slabs or pavement 95 percent Near Optimum Notes:
1 Expressed as percent relative compaction or ratio of field density to reference density (typically on a dry density basis for soil and aggregate). The reference density of soil and aggregate should be evaluated by ASTM D 1557. 2 Target moisture content at compaction relative to the optimum as evaluated by ASTM D 1557 Compacted fill should be maintained in a moist (but not saturated) condition by the periodic sprinkling of water prior to placement of additional overlying fill. Fill that has been permitted to dry out and loosen or develop desiccation cracking, should be scarified, moistureconditioned, and recompacted as per the requirements above. 1139
CC 04-03-2024
1139 of 1277
Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022 13
9.2.7 Temporary Excavations and Shoring
Trench excavations shall be stabilized in accordance with the Excavation Rules and Regulations (29 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR], Part 1926) stipulated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Stabilization shall consist of shoring sidewalls or laying slopes back.
Dewatering pits or sumps should be used to depress the groundwater level (if encountered) below the bottom of the excavation. Table 5 lists the OSHA material type classifications and corresponding allowable temporary slope layback inclinations for soil deposits that may be encountered on site. We encountered granular soils that consisted of loose to very dense, silty sand during our subsurface investigation, which corresponds to OSHA Type C soil. If materials other than those anticipated are encountered, Ninyo & Moore should be provided an opportunity to review subsurface conditions. Alternatively, an internally-braced shoring system or trench shield conforming to the OSHA Excavation Rules and Regulations (29 CFR, Part 1926) may be used to stabilize excavation sidewalls during construction. The lateral earth pressures listed in Table 6 may be used to design or select the internally-braced shoring system or trench shield. The recommendations listed in Table 6 are based upon the limited subsurface data provided by our subsurface exploration and reflect the influence of the environmental conditions that existed at the time of our exploration. Excavation stability, material classifications, allowable slopes, and shoring pressures should be re-evaluated and revised, as-needed, during construction. Excavations, shoring systems and the surrounding areas should be evaluated daily by a competent person for indications of possible instability or collapse.
Table 5– OSHA Material Classifications and Allowable Slopes Formation OSHA
Classification
Allowable
Temporary Slope1,2,3
Lateral Earth
Pressure on
Shoring4 (psf)
Alluvium
(above groundwater) Type C 1½ h:1v (34°) 80×D + 72
Notes:
1 Allowable slope for excavations less than 20 feet deep. Excavation sidewalls in cohesive soil may be benched to meet the allowable slope criteria (measured from the bottom edge of the excavation). The allowable bench height is 4 feet. The bench at the bottom of the excavation may protrude above the allowable slope criteria. 2 In layered soil, layers shall not be sloped steeper than the layer below. 3 Temporary excavations less than 5 feet deep may be made with vertical side slopes and remain unshored if judged to be stable by a competent person (29 CFR, Part 1926.650). 4 ‘D’ is depth of excavation for excavations up to 20 feet deep. Includes a surface surcharge equivalent to two feet of soil. 1140
CC 04-03-2024
1140 of 1277
Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022 14 The shoring system should be designed or selected by a suitably qualified individual or specialty subcontractor. The shoring parameters presented in this report are preliminary design criteria, and the designer should evaluate the adequacy of these parameters and make appropriate modifications for their design. We recommend that the contractor take appropriate measures to protect workers. OSHA requirements pertaining to worker safety should be observed.
Excavations made in close proximity to existing structures may undermine the foundation of those structures and/or cause soil movement related distress to the existing structures.
Stabilization techniques for excavations in close proximity to existing structures will need to account for the additional loads imposed on the shoring system and appropriate setback distances for temporary slopes. The contractor should be solely responsible for protection of existing site improvements and provide shoring and/or underpinning as needed.
The excavation bottoms may encounter wet, loose material which may be subject to pumping under heavy equipment loads. The contractor should be prepared to stabilize the bottom of the excavations. In general, unstable bottom conditions may be mitigated by using a stabilizing geogrid, overexcavating the excavation bottom to suitable depths and replacing with compacted fill, or other suitable method. Additionally, aeration of wet soils should be anticipated.
9.2.8 Utility Trenches
Trenches constructed for the installation of underground utilities should be stabilized in accordance with our recommendations in Section 9.2.9. Utility trenches should be backfilled with materials that conform to our recommendations in Section 9.2.5. Trench backfill, bedding, and pipe zone fill should be compacted in accordance with Section 9.2.7 of this report. Bedding and pipe zone fill should be shoveled under pipe haunches and compacted by manual or mechanical, hand-held tampers. Trench backfill should be compacted by mechanical means. Densification of trench backfill by flooding or jetting should not be permitted.
Trenches should not be excavated adjacent to footings. If trenches are to be excavated near a continuous footing, the bottom of the trench should be located above a 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) plane projected downward from the bottom of the footing. Utility lines that cross beneath footings should be encased in concrete or CLSM below the footing for a distance equivalent to the depth of the excavation.
1141
CC 04-03-2024
1141 of 1277
Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022 15
9.3 Foundations
Foundations should be designed in accordance with structural considerations and our geotechnical recommendations. In addition, requirements of the governing jurisdictions, practices of the Structural Engineers Association of California, and applicable building codes should be considered in the design of the structures. Maximum static settlement due to building loads is anticipated to be on the order of ½ inch.
9.3.1 Spread Footings
Footings bearing on subgrade prepared as per the recommendations in Section 9.2.6. The footings may be designed using the criteria listed in Table 6. The geotechnical engineer should observe the footing excavations to evaluate bearing materials and subgrade condition before the exposed subgrade is covered.
Table 6– Recommended Bearing Design Parameters for Footings Footing Sustained
Loads
Footing
Widths
Bearing
Depth1
Allowable
Bearing
Capacity2
Static
Settlement
Wall Footing 3 kips/foot or
less
12 inches
or more
2 feet
or more 3,000 psf ½ -inch total
Column Footing 12 kips
or less
24 inches
or more
2 feet
or more 3,000 psf ½ -inch total
Notes:
1 Below the adjacent finish grade and the existing grade. 2 Net allowable bearing capacity in pounds per square foot with Safety Factor of 2 or more. Allowable bearing capacity may be increased by one-third for wind or seismic load combinations.
Structures supported on footings consistent with these recommendations should be designed for the total and differential settlements listed in Table 6 for sustained loads.
The spread footings should be reinforced with deformed steel bars as detailed by the project structural engineer. Where footings are located adjacent to utility trenches or other excavations, the footing bearing surfaces should bear below an imaginary plane extending upward from the bottom edge of the adjacent trench/excavation at a 1½:1 (horizontal to vertical) angle above the bottom edge of the footing. Footings should be deepened or excavation depths reduced as-needed. Footing bottoms should not be sloped more than 1- unit vertical to 10 units horizontal. Wall footings may be stepped provided that the bearing grade differential between adjacent steps does not exceed 18 inches and the slope of a series of such steps does not exceed 1-unit vertical to 2 units horizontal. 1142
CC 04-03-2024
1142 of 1277
Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022 16 A lateral bearing pressure of 300 psf per foot of depth up to 3,000 psf may be used to evaluate the resistance of footings to lateral loads. The recommended lateral bearing pressure is for level and gently sloping ground conditions where the ground slope adjacent to the foundation is 5 percent or less. The lateral bearing pressure should be neglected to a depth of 12 inches where the ground adjacent to the foundation is not covered by a slab or pavement. The lateral bearing pressure may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration such as wind or seismic forces. A friction coefficient of 0.35 may be assumed for evaluating frictional resistance to lateral loads. A dry unit weight of 90 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for soil, 120 pcf for aggregate and 150 pcf for normal weight concrete may be assumed for this evaluation.
9.3.2 Slabs-on-Grade
Building floor slabs should be designed by the project structural engineer based on the anticipated loading conditions. The subgrade should be prepared in accordance with Section
9.2.6. Where a vapor retarding system is not used, slabs should be constructed on 6 inches, or more, of aggregate base conforming to Section 9.2.5 and placed in accordance with Section 9.2.7. The slab should be reinforced with deformed steel bars. We recommend that masonry briquettes or plastic chairs be used to aid in the correct placement of slab reinforcement in the upper half of the slab. Refer to Section 9.5 for the recommended concrete cover over reinforcing steel. A vapor retarder is recommended in areas where moisture-sensitive floor coverings or conditioned environments are anticipated. Joints consistent with ACI guidelines (ACI, 2020) may be constructed at periodic intervals to reduce the potential for random cracking of the slab.
9.3.3 Drilled Piers for Minor Structures
Drilled piers for minor structures such as fences and light poles embedded 5 to 25 feet below grade may be designed for an allowable side friction of 300 psf to evaluate resistance to downward axial loads and 200 psf per foot depth for upward axial loads. The allowable skin friction includes a factor of safety of 2 for downward loading and 3 for upward loading. The allowable side friction may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration such as wind or seismic loads. The spacing between adjacent piers should be equivalent to eight pier diameters, or more to mitigate reduction due to group effects.
A lateral bearing pressure of 300 pounds per square foot (psf) per foot depth up to 3,000 psf may be used to evaluate resistance to lateral loads and overturning moments in accordance with Section 1806 of the 2019 CBC. The allowable lateral bearing pressure may be increased 1143
CC 04-03-2024
1143 of 1277
Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022 17 by one-third for wind or seismic load combinations and by an additional factor of two for structures that can accommodate ½ inch of lateral deflection of the top of the pier foundation.
Drilled pier excavations should be cleaned of loose material prior to pouring concrete. Drilled pier excavations that encounter groundwater or cohesionless soil may be unstable and may need to be stabilized by temporary casing or use of drilling mud. Standing water should be removed from the pier excavation or the concrete should be delivered to the bottom of the excavation, below the water surface, by tremie pipe. Casing should be removed from the excavation as the concrete is placed. Concrete should be placed in the piers in a manner that reduces the potential for segregation of the components. Piers should be completed with concrete the same day as the excavation is completed.
9.4 Pavements and Flatwork
Recommendations for pavement and exterior flatwork are presented in the following sections. A design R-value of 20 was selected based on subsurface soil encountered. The pavement subgrade should be observed by the geotechnical engineer during grading to check the finish subgrade for consistency with the assumed condition. Recommendations for preparation of subgrade are presented in Section 9.2.6.
9.4.1 Asphalt Pavement
Based on the damage observed along the pedestrian pathways, we recommend complete removal of the existing pavement sections and reconstruction with a new section of aggregate base and asphalt concrete. The existing aggregate base and asphalt concrete may be processed to meet Caltrans Class 2 Aggregate Base specifications for re-use.
Ninyo & Moore conducted an analysis to evaluate appropriate asphalt pavement structural sections following the methodology presented in the Highway Design Manual (Caltrans, 2020). Alternative sections were evaluated for pedestrian and vehicular loading. The pavement sections were designed for a 20-year service life presuming that periodic maintenance, including crack sealing and resurfacing will be performed during the service life of the pavement. Premature deterioration may occur without periodic maintenance. Our recommendations for the pavement sections are presented in Table 7. 1144
CC 04-03-2024
1144 of 1277
Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022 18 Table 7– Asphalt Concrete Pavement Sections
Traffic Index R-Value Alternative 1 Alternative 2
3 (Light Vehicular Traffic) 20 3½ inches AC 2 inches AC 4½ inches AB
6 (Fire Lanes) 20 8 inches AC 3½ inches AC
9½ inches AB
Notes:
1 AC is Type A, Dense-Graded Hot Mix Asphalt complying with Caltrans Standard Specification 39-2 (2018). 2 AB is Class 2 Aggregate Base complying with Caltrans Standard Specification 26-1.02 (2018).
Aggregate base for pavement should be placed in lifts of no more than 8 inches in loose thickness and compacted per Section 9.2.7. Asphalt concrete should be placed and compacted in accordance with Caltrans Standard Specification and Construction Manual; asphalt concrete should be compacted to between 92 and 96 percent of the theoretical maximum specific gravity and density (Rice gravity – ASTM D 2041) of the material.
Pavements should be sloped so that runoff is diverted to an appropriate collector (concrete gutter, swale, or area drain) to reduce the potential for ponding of water on the pavement.
Concentration of runoff over asphalt pavement should be discouraged.
9.5 Concrete Placement
Concrete in contact with soil or water that contains high concentrations of soluble sulfates can be subject to chemical and/or physical deterioration. The sulfate ion concentration was measured 49 mg/kg and is determined to be insufficient to damage reinforced concrete structures, however due to the potential variability in soil conditions across the site, we recommend that Type V cement with a water/cement ratio of 0.45 or less be considered for the project.
9.6 Review of Construction Plans
The recommendations provided in this report are based on preliminary design information for the proposed construction. We recommend that a copy of the plans be provided to Ninyo & Moore for review before bidding to check the interpretation of our recommendations and that the designed improvements are consistent with our assumptions. It should be noted that, upon review of these documents, some recommendations presented in this report might be revised or modified to meet the project requirements.
1145
CC 04-03-2024
1145 of 1277
Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022 19
9.7 Construction Observation and Testing
The recommendations provided in this report are based on subsurface conditions encountered in discrete exploratory borings. During construction, the geotechnical engineer or his representative in the field should be allowed to check the exposed subsurface conditions. During construction, the geotechnical engineer or his representative should be allowed to:
• Check for unsuitable materials and observe foundation excavations. • Observe preparation and compaction of subgrade.
• Check and test imported materials prior to import to the project site. • Observe placement and compaction of fill.
• Perform field density tests to evaluate fill and subgrade compaction. • Observe placement of reinforcing steel and concrete in drilled piers and slabs.
The recommendations provided in this report assume that Ninyo & Moore will be retained as the geotechnical consultant during the construction phase of the project. If another geotechnical consultant is selected, we request that the selected consultant provide a letter to the architect and the owner (with a copy to Ninyo & Moore) indicating that they fully understand Ninyo & Moore’s recommendations, and that they are in full agreement with the recommendations contained in this report. Ninyo & Moore cannot assume responsibility for aspects of construction for which we have not been given an opportunity to observe/test.
10 LIMITATIONS
The field evaluation, laboratory testing, geotechnical analyses, and assessment of geologic hazards presented in this report have been conducted in general accordance with current practice and the standard of care exercised by geotechnical consultants performing similar tasks in the project area at the time this report was prepared. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made regarding the conclusions, recommendations, and opinions presented in this report. There is no evaluation detailed enough to reveal every subsurface condition. Variations may exist, and conditions not observed or described in this report may be encountered during construction.
Uncertainties relative to subsurface conditions can be reduced through additional subsurface exploration. Additional subsurface evaluation will be performed upon request. Please also note that our evaluation was limited to assessment of the geotechnical aspects of the project, and did not include evaluation of structural issues, environmental concerns, or the presence of hazardous materials.
1146
CC 04-03-2024
1146 of 1277
Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022 20 This document is intended to be used only in its entirety. No portion of the document, by itself, is designed to completely represent any aspect of the project described herein. Ninyo & Moore should be contacted if the reader requires additional information or has questions regarding the content, interpretations presented, or completeness of this document.
This report is intended for design purposes only. It does not provide sufficient data to prepare an accurate bid by contractors. It is suggested that the bidders and their geotechnical consultant perform an independent evaluation of the subsurface conditions in the project areas. The independent evaluations may include, but not be limited to, review of other geotechnical reports prepared for the adjacent areas, site reconnaissance, and additional exploration and laboratory testing.
Our conclusions, recommendations, and opinions are based on an analysis of the observed site conditions. If geotechnical conditions different from those described in this report are encountered, our office should be notified and additional recommendations will be provided, as appropriate. It should be understood that the conditions of a site could change with time as a result of natural processes or the activities of man at the subject site or nearby sites. In addition, changes to the applicable laws, regulations, codes, and standards of practice may occur due to government action or the broadening of knowledge. The findings of this report may, therefore, be invalidated over time, in part or in whole, by changes over which Ninyo & Moore has no control.
This report is intended exclusively for use by the client. Any use or reuse of the findings, conclusions, and/or recommendations of this report by parties other than the client is undertaken at said parties’ sole risk.
1147
CC 04-03-2024
1147 of 1277
Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022 21 11 REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute, 2021, ACI Manual of Concrete Practice.
American Concrete Institute, 2014, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318- 14) - Commentary on Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318R-14).
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2016, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Building and Other Structures, ASCE Standard 7-16.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2021, ASCE 7 Hazard Tool, https://asce7hazardtool.online/
California Building Standards Commission (CBSC), 2019, California Building Code (CBC), Title 24, Part 2, Volumes 1 and 2.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2018, Standard Specifications.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2020, Highway Design Manual, https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/manual-highway-design-manual-hdm.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2021, Corrosion Guidelines, Version 3.2, Division of Engineering Services, Materials Engineering and Testing Services, Corrosion Branch: dated May.
California Geological Survey (CGS), 2002a, Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Cupertino 7.5- Minute Quadrangle, Santa Clara Valley, California, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 068.
California Geological Survey (CGS), 2007, Special Publication 42 - Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps, by Bryant, W.A. and Hart, E.W.
California Geological Survey (CGS), 2018, Earthquake Fault Zones, A Guide for Government Agencies, Property Owners/Developers, and Geoscience Practitioners for Assessing Fault Rupture Hazards in California: California Geologic Survey Special Publication 42.
City of Cupertino, 2022, Memorial Park Specific Plan, EngageCupertino_Draft content, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o7fSGt_Mt641L-z0oc5RVIlbFFlLzXJoACdY43Ds hYY/edit
Dibblee, T.W., Jr. and Minch, J.A., 2007, Geologic Map of the Cupertino and San Jose West Quadrangles, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties, California: Dibblee Geological Foundation, Dibblee Foundation Map DF-351, scale 1:24,000 Google Earth, 2022, Google Earth Pro 7.3.3.7699, http://earth.google.com/.
Knudsen, K.L., Sowers, J.M., Witter, R.C., Wentworth, C.M., Helley, E.J., Nicholson, R.S., Wright, H.M., and Brown, K.H., 2000, Preliminary Maps of Quaternary Deposits and Liquefaction Susceptibility, Nine-County San Francisco Bay Region, California: a digital database: U.S.
Geological Survey, Open-File Report OF-2000-444, Scale 1:275,000.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), 1989, Occupational Safety and Health Standards – Excavations, Department of Labor, Title 29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 1926, dated October 31.
Witter, R.C., Knudsen, K.L, Sowers, J.M., Wentworth, C.M., Koehler, R.D., and Randolph, C.E., 2006, Maps of Quaternary Deposits and Liquefaction Susceptibility in the Central San Francisco Bay Region, California: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1037, Scale 1:200,000 (http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1037/).
1148
CC 04-03-2024
1148 of 1277
Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022 Appendix A
Photographic Documentation
FIGURES
1149
CC 04-03-2024
1149 of 1277
SITE
MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
SITE LOCATION
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
FIGURE 1
NOTE: DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS, AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE I REFERENCE: USGS, 2018 0
SCALE (FEET)
2,000 4,000
N
404269001 I 11/22
404269001.dwg 11/02/2022 AEK
~-
,
JG<>
1 5i
CG
kl.s::.rp~~" • t., • '" _,r -~j
}~W~
'I;~ -::1 =i ~VM SVONV , ·tj g ?-Js~NEYAVEJ I cl ti:? , 1 ~-·~··Lj ~ ~
DENISON AV£
1150
CC 04-03-2024
1150 of 1277
N STELLING RD MARY AVE
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
PATRIOT WAY
B-1a
(1.5')
B-1
(15.0')
B-3a
(1.7')
B-3
(6.5')
B-6a
(1.2')
B-6
(6.5')
B-10a
(1.0')
B-10
(15.0')
B-11a
(1.3')
B-11
(11.5')
B-4
(11.5')
B-2
(11.5')
B-5
(6.5')
B-10
(10.5')
B-9
(15.0')
B-8
(6.5')
CHRISTENSEN DR
ALVES DR ANTON WAY
EXPLORATION LOCATIONS
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
FIGURE 2
NOTE: DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS, AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE I REFERENCE: GOOGLE EARTH, 2022 0
SCALE (FEET)
200 400
N 404269001.dwg 11/02/2022 AEK LEGEND
BORING LOCATION (09/19/2022)
(TOTAL DEPTH, IN FEET)
PROJECT BOUNDARY
B-1
(15.0')
MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
404269001 I 11/22
B-1a
(1.5')
BORING LOCATION (08/24/2022)
(TOTAL DEPTH, IN FEET)
1151
CC 04-03-2024
1151 of 1277
P a c i fic
O c e an
S a n
P a b lo
B a y
S a n
F r a n c isco
B a y
S u i sun
B a y
S A N
A N D R E A S
FA U LT
Z O N E
H AY WA R D
F A U LT
Z O N E
C A L AV E R A S
G R E E N V I L L E
FA U LT
VA
L
L
E
Y F A
U
L
T
Z
O
N
E
R S
C R E E K
F A U LT
Z O N E
C H A B O T
FA U L
A
P A
FA
U
LT
Z O N
E
P O I N T
R E Y E S
F A U LT
C O N C O R D
F A U LT
F R A N K L I N
FA U LT
L A K E V I E W
F A U LT
C A LV E R A S
F A U
LT
Z O N E
S E R R A
F A U LT
Z O N E
Oakland
S I LV
T
E R
C R E E K
F A U LT
Z
M I S S I O N
FA U LT
O N E
M O N T E V IS TA - S H A N N O N
C A S C A D E
FA U LT
Z O N E
S TA N F O R D F A U LT
P I L A R C I T O S
FA U LT
S A N
G R E G O R I O
F A U
LT
Z O N
E
B U TA N O
FA U LT
Z AYA N T E - V E R G E L E S FA U LT Z O N E
FA U LT Z O N E
B E R R O C A L F A U LT Z O N E
P I E R C Y
FA U LT
S A N
A N D R E A S
F A U LT
Z O N E
Solano
County
Marin
County
Contra Costa
County
Alameda
County
San Francisco
County
San Mateo
County
Sacramento
County
Colma
Novato Vallejo
Concord
Hayward
Rio Vista
Fairfield
San Mateo
Brentwood
Livermore
San
Francisco
San Jose
18980331
6.4 19060418
7.8 18681021
7.0 18380600
7.4 Morgan
Hill
CALIFORNIA
LEGEND
HOLOCENE ACTIVE
CALIFORNIA FAULT ACTIVITY
HISTORICALLY ACTIVE
LATE QUATERNARY
QUATERNARY
STATE/COUNTY BOUNDARY
MAGNITUDE 5.0 - 5.9
MAGNITUDE 6.0 - 6.9
MAGNITUDE 7.0 - 7.9
EARTHQUAKE EPICENTERS
(DATE/MAGNITUDE)
404269001-Fig3-FL.pdf 10/02/2022 AEK
NOTE: DIRECTIONS, DIMENSIONS, AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE FIGURE 3
0 10 20
SCALE (MILES)
SOURCES: CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, 2010, FAULT ACTIVITY MAP OF CALIFORNIA; CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, 2000, MAP SHEET 49
SITE
FAULT LOCATIONS AND EARTHQUAKE EPICENTERS
MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
4042696001 | 11/22
S A N
J O S E
FA U LT
•
• •
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
•
•
1152
CC 04-03-2024
1152 of 1277
SITE
REGIONAL GEOLOGY
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
FIGURE 4
0 SCALE (FEET)
2,000 4,000
N 404269001.dwg 11/02/2022 AEK
LEGEND
NOTE: DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS, AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE I REFERENCE: DIBBLEE, 2007 Qa ALLUVIAL GRAVEL, SAND,
SILT, & CLAY(HOLOCENE)
STRIKE AND DIP
OF BEDDING
GEOLOGIC CONTACT
FAULT
OLDER ALLUVIAL TERRACE THRUST FAULT
GRAVEL, SAND, & CLAY,
UNDEFORMED (PLEISTOCENE)
Qa.1 ALLUVIAL SAND, SILT,
& GRAVEL (HOLOCENE)
Qoa/
Qt
Qa.2 ALLUVIAL GRAVEL, SAND,
SILT, & CLAY (HOLOCENE)
SANTA CLARA FORMATION/
NONMARINE SEDIMENTARY ROCKS
(PLEISTOCENE/PLIOCENE)
Qsc/
QTs
MONTEREY FORMATION;
SILICEOUS SHALE (MIOCENE) Tm
MATADERO
SANDSTONE
(MIOCENE)
Tms
MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
404269001 I 11/22
r.- r
~ ,,
1101
IU h ,_
D D D
D D
D D
I • l -:_J
1--!-----r---~-·~ ·=,lf'iVf/lM
1 •-w-1
-~ I
' I ·-
.,,
i
• •
I
}
ort~f i
Sch I 1
-· . . f-rr
j ·-· P·
St J l , • Ll ·- St-h
/~...,/ / r • i
'!l~~J----4
..., • I
J ~
TTT"f
-------
----
___J_
1153
CC 04-03-2024
1153 of 1277
SITE
SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
FIGURE 5
0 SCALE (FEET)
2,000 4,000
N 404269001.dwg 11/02/2022 AEK NOTE: DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS, AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE REFERENCE: CGS, 1974, 2002
LEGEND
EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED LANDSLIDE ZONES: Areas where previous occurrence of landslide movement, or local topographic, geological, geotechnical, and subsurface water conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements such that mitigation as defined in Public Resources Code Section 2693(c) would be required.
LIQUEFACTION ZONES: Areas where historic occurrence of liquefaction, or local geological, geotechnical, and groundwater conditions
indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements such that mitigation as defined in Public Resources Code Section 2693(c) would be required.
MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
404269001 I 11/22
1154
CC 04-03-2024
1154 of 1277
Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022
APPENDIX A
Boring Logs
1155
CC 04-03-2024
1155 of 1277
Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022
APPENDIX A
BORING LOGS
Field Procedure for the Collection of Disturbed Samples Disturbed soil samples were obtained in the field using the following method.
Bulk Samples
Bulk samples of representative earth materials were obtained from the exploratory borings. The samples were bagged and transported to the laboratory for testing.
Field Procedure for the Collection of Relatively Undisturbed Samples Relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained in the field using the following method.
The Modified Split-Barrel Drive Sampler
The sampler, with an external diameter of 3.0 inches, was lined with 6-inch long, thin brass liners with inside diameters of approximately 2.4 inches. The sample barrel was driven into the ground with the weight of a hammer in general accordance with ASTM D 3550. The driving weight was permitted to fall freely. The approximate length of the fall, the weight of the hammer, and the number of blows per foot of driving are presented on the boring log as an index to the relative resistance of the materials sampled. The samples were removed from the sample barrel in the brass liners, sealed, and transported to the laboratory for testing.
1156
CC 04-03-2024
1156 of 1277
;;;;
SM
CL
%XONVDPSOH
0RGLILHGVSOLWEDUUHOGULYHVDPSOHU
1RUHFRYHU\ZLWKPRGLILHGVSOLWEDUUHOGULYHVDPSOHU
6DPSOHUHWDLQHGE\RWKHUV
6WDQGDUG3HQHWUDWLRQ7HVW
637
1RUHFRYHU\ZLWKD637
6KHOE\WXEHVDPSOH'LVWDQFHSXVKHGLQLQFKHVOHQJWKRIVDPSOHUHFRYHUHGLQLQFKHV 1RUHFRYHU\ZLWK6KHOE\WXEHVDPSOHU
&RQWLQXRXV3XVK6DPSOH
6HHSDJH
*URXQGZDWHUHQFRXQWHUHGGXULQJGULOOLQJ
*URXQGZDWHUPHDVXUHGDIWHUGULOOLQJ
0$-250$7(5,$/7<3(
62,/
6ROLGOLQHGHQRWHVXQLWFKDQJH
'DVKHGOLQHGHQRWHVPDWHULDOFKDQJH
$WWLWXGHV
6WULNH'LS
E
%HGGLQJ
F
&RQWDFW
M
-RLQW
I
)UDFWXUH
)
)DXOW
FV
&OD\6HDP
V
6KHDU
EVV
%DVDO6OLGH6XUIDFH
VI
6KHDU)UDFWXUH
V]
6KHDU=RQH
VEV
6KHDU%HGGLQJ6XUIDFH
7KHWRWDOGHSWKOLQHLVDVROLGOLQHWKDWLVGUDZQDWWKHERWWRPRIWKHERULQJ DEPTH (feet)
Bulk SAMPLES Driven
BLOWS/FOOT
MOISTURE (%)
DRY DENSITY (PCF)
SYMBOL
CLASSIFICATION
U.S.C.S.
BORING LOG EXPLANATION SHEET
BORING LOG
20 !BORING lOG EXIPlANA l!ON ~[H[E[El
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
1157
CC 04-03-2024
1157 of 1277
Soil Classification Chart Per ASTM D 2488
Primary Divisions Secondary Divisions
Group Symbol Group Name
COARSEGRAINED
SOILS
more than
50% retained
on No. 200
sieve
GRAVEL
more than
50% of
coarse
fraction
retained on
No. 4 sieve
CLEAN GRAVEL
less than 5% fines
GW well-graded GRAVEL
GP poorly graded GRAVEL
GRAVEL with
DUAL
CLASSIFICATIONS
5% to 12% fines
GW-GM well-graded GRAVEL with silt
GP-GM poorly graded GRAVEL with silt
GW-GC well-graded GRAVEL with clay
GP-GC poorly graded GRAVEL with
GRAVEL with
FINES
more than
12% fines
GM silty GRAVEL
GC clayey GRAVEL
GC-GM silty, clayey GRAVEL
SAND
50% or more
of coarse
fraction
passes
No. 4 sieve
CLEAN SAND
less than 5% fines
SW well-graded SAND
SP poorly graded SAND
SAND with
DUAL
CLASSIFICATIONS
5% to 12% fines
SW-SM well-graded SAND with silt
SP-SM poorly graded SAND with silt
SW-SC well-graded SAND with clay
SP-SC poorly graded SAND with clay
SAND with FINES
more than
12% fines
SM silty SAND
SC clayey SAND
SC-SM silty, clayey SAND
FINEGRAINED
SOILS
50% or
more passes
No. 200 sieve
SILT and
CLAY
liquid limit
less than 50%
INORGANIC
CL lean CLAY
ML SILT
CL-ML silty CLAY
ORGANIC
OL (PI > 4) organic CLAY
OL (PI < 4) organic SILT
SILT and
CLAY
liquid limit
50% or more
INORGANIC
CH fat CLAY
MH elastic SILT
ORGANIC
OH (plots on or
above “A”-line) organic CLAY
OH (plots
below “A”-line) organic SILT
Highly Organic Soils PT Peat
USCS METHOD OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION
Apparent Density - Coarse-Grained Soil
Apparent
Density
Spooling Cable or Cathead Automatic Trip Hammer
SPT
(blows/foot)
Modified
Split Barrel
(blows/foot)
SPT
(blows/foot)
Modified
Split Barrel
(blows/foot)
Very Loose < 4 < 8 < 3 < 5
Loose 5 - 10 9 - 21 4 - 7 6 - 14
Medium
Dense 11 - 30 22 - 63 8 - 20 15 - 42
Dense 31 - 50 64 - 105 21 - 33 43 - 70
Very Dense > 50 > 105 > 33 > 70
Consistency - Fine-Grained Soil
Consis- tency
Spooling Cable or Cathead Automatic Trip Hammer
SPT
(blows/foot)
Modified
Split Barrel
(blows/foot)
SPT
(blows/foot)
Modified
Split Barrel
(blows/foot)
Very Soft < 2 < 3 < 1 < 2
Soft 2 - 4 3 - 5 1 - 3 2 - 3
Firm 5 - 8 6 - 10 4 - 5 4 - 6
Stiff 9 - 15 11 - 20 6 - 10 7 - 13
Very Stiff 16 - 30 21 - 39 11 - 20 14 - 26
Hard > 30 > 39 > 20 > 26
LIQUID LIMIT (LL), %
PLASTICITY INDEX (PI), %
0 10
10 7
4 20
30 40
50 60
70 0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
MH or OH
CL - ML ML or OL
Plasticity Chart
Grain Size
Description Sieve
Size Grain Size Approximate Size
Boulders > 12” > 12” Larger than
basketball-sized
Cobbles 3 - 12” 3 - 12” Fist-sized to
basketball-sized
Gravel
Coarse 3/4 - 3” 3/4 - 3” Thumb-sized to
fist-sized
Fine #4 - 3/4” 0.19 - 0.75” Pea-sized to
thumb-sized
Sand
Coarse #10 - #4 0.079 - 0.19” Rock-salt-sized to
pea-sized
Medium #40 - #10 0.017 - 0.079” Sugar-sized to
rock-salt-sized
Fine #200 - #40 0.0029 -
0.017”
Flour-sized to
sugar-sized
Fines Passing
#200 < 0.0029” Flour-sized and smaller
CH or OH
CL or OL
/
/ ,./
V /
,,,
/ /"
V ,./
/ A
7 /
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
1158
CC 04-03-2024
1158 of 1277
0 5
10 15
20 20
53 67
50/6"
50/3"
7.1 114.0
GC
SC
ALLUVIUM:
Dark brown, wet, loose, clayey GRAVEL. Gravel up to 2.5 inches in diameter, subangular.
Medium dense, moist.
Dense.
Light brown, dry, very dense, clayey SAND.
Gray, very dense.
Total Depth: 15 feet stopped at planned depth.
Backfilled with soil immediately after boring on 9/19/2022.
Notes: Groundwater was not encountered in boring at time of borings. It may rise higher due to relatively slow rate of seepage in clay and several other factors, as discussed in the report. Ground elevation shown above is an estimation only. It is based on our interpretation of published maps and other documents reviewed for the purposes of this evaluation. It is not sufficiently accurate for preparing constuction bids and design documents (Google, 2022).
FIGURE A- 1
CUPERTINO MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
404269001 | 11/22 DEPTH (feet) Bulk SAMPLES Driven BLOWS/FOOT MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) SYMBOL CLASSIFICATION U.S.C.S.
DATE DRILLED 9/19/22 BORING NO. B-1
GROUND ELEVATION 265'± (MSL) SHEET 1 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING HOLLOW STEM AUGER
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs (SPOOLING CABLE) DROP 30 IN
SAMPLED BY CDS LOGGED BY CDS REVIEWED BY RH
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
1 Geotecbnlcill & Environmental sc;e.nces Consultants 1159 CC 04-03-2024
1159 of 1277
0 5
10 15
20 GC Brown, dry, dense, clayey GRAVEL with sand.
Total Depth: 1.5 feet stopped on refusal.
Backfilled with soil shortly after boring on 8/24/2022.
Notes: Groundwater was not encountered in boring at time of augering. It may rise higher due to relatively slow rate of seepage in clay and several other factors, as discussed in the report. Ground elevation shown above is an estimation only. It is based on our interpretation of published maps and other documents reviewed for the purposes of this evaluation. It is not sufficiently accurate for preparing constuction bids and design documents(Google, 2022).
FIGURE A- 2
CUPERTINO MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
404269001 | 11/22 DEPTH (feet) Bulk SAMPLES Driven BLOWS/FOOT MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) SYMBOL CLASSIFICATION U.S.C.S.
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 8/24/2022 BORING NO. B-1a
GROUND ELEVATION 265'± (MSL) SHEET 1 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING Hand Auger
DRIVE WEIGHT DROP
SAMPLED BY CDS LOGGED BY CDS REVIEWED BY RH
1 Geotecbnlcill & Environmental sc;e.nces Consultants 1160 CC 04-03-2024
1160 of 1277
0 5
10 15
20 37
30 34
75 6.7 110.4
GW-GC ALLUVIUM:
Brown, moist, medium dense, well-graded GRAVEL with clay and sand. Gravel up to 0.5" in diameter, subrounded.
Dense.
Total Depth: 11.5 feet stopped at planned depth.
Backfilled with soil and cement immediately after boring on 9/19/2022.
Notes: Groundwater was not encountered in boring at time of borings. It may rise higher due to relatively slow rate of seepage in clay and several other factors, as discussed in the report. Ground elevation shown above is an estimation only. It is based on our interpretation of published maps and other documents reviewed for the purposes of this evaluation. It is not sufficiently accurate for preparing constuction bids and design documents (Google, 2022).
FIGURE A- 3
CUPERTINO MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
404269001 | 11/22 DEPTH (feet) Bulk SAMPLES Driven BLOWS/FOOT MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) SYMBOL CLASSIFICATION U.S.C.S.
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 9/19/2022 BORING NO. B-2
GROUND ELEVATION 270'± (MSL) SHEET 1 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING HOLLOW STEM AUGER
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 LBS (SPOOLING CABLE) DROP 30 INCHES
SAMPLED BY CDS LOGGED BY CDS REVIEWED BY RH
1 Geotecbnlcill & Environmental sc;e.nces Consultants 1161 CC 04-03-2024
1161 of 1277
0 5
10 15
20 35
59 11.0 116.1
CL
GP
ALLUVIUM:
Dark brown, moist, very stiff, gravelly LEAN CLAY with trace sand.
Brown, dry, medium dense, poorly graded GRAVEL with sand and clay.
Total Depth: 6.5 feet stopped at planned depth.
Backfilled with soil immediately after boring on 9/19/2022.
Notes: Groundwater was not encountered in boring at time of borings. It may rise higher due to relatively slow rate of seepage in clay and several other factors, as discussed in the report. Ground elevation shown above is an estimation only. It is based on our interpretation of published maps and other documents reviewed for the purposes of this evaluation. It is not sufficiently accurate for preparing constuction bids and design documents (Google, 2022).
FIGURE A- 4
CUPERTINO MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
404269001 | 11/22 DEPTH (feet) Bulk SAMPLES Driven BLOWS/FOOT MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) SYMBOL CLASSIFICATION U.S.C.S.
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 9/19/2022 BORING NO. B-3
GROUND ELEVATION 276'± (MSL) SHEET 1 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING HOLLOW STEM AUGER
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 LBS (SPOOLING CABLE) DROP 30 IN
SAMPLED BY CDS LOGGED BY CDS REVIEWED BY RH
1 Geotecbnlcill & Environmental sc;e.nces Consultants 1162 CC 04-03-2024
1162 of 1277
0 5
10 15
20 CL Brown, dry to moist, firm, sandy CLAY with gravel. Gravel up to 2" in diameter, subangular.
Very hard.
Total Depth: 1.7 feet stopped on refusal.
Backfilled with soil shortly after boring on 8/24/2022.
Notes: Groundwater was not encountered in boring at time of augering. It may rise higher due to relatively slow rate of seepage in clay and several other factors, as discussed in the report. Ground elevation shown above is an estimation only. It is based on our interpretation of published maps and other documents reviewed for the purposes of this evaluation. It is not sufficiently accurate for preparing constuction bids and design documents (Google, 2022).
FIGURE A- 5
CUPERTINO MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
404269001 | 11/22 DEPTH (feet) Bulk SAMPLES Driven BLOWS/FOOT MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) SYMBOL CLASSIFICATION U.S.C.S.
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 8/24/2022 BORING NO. B-3a
GROUND ELEVATION 276'± (MSL) SHEET 1 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING Hand Auger
DRIVE WEIGHT DROP
SAMPLED BY CDS LOGGED BY CDS REVIEWED BY RH
1 Geotecbnlcill & Environmental sc;e.nces Consultants 1163 CC 04-03-2024
1163 of 1277
0 5
10 15
20 32
64 41
72 14.4 119.7
GC
CL
GC
ALLUVIUM:
Brown, moist, medium dense, clayey GRAVEL with sand.
Dense.
Brown, moist, hard, LEAN CLAY with gravel.
Brown, moist, dense, clayey GRAVEL with SAND.
Total Depth: 11.5 feet stopped at planned depth.
Backfilled with soil immediately after boring on 9/19/2022.
Notes: Groundwater was not encountered in boring at time of borings. It may rise higher due to relatively slow rate of seepage in clay and several other factors, as discussed in the report. Ground elevation shown above is an estimation only. It is based on our interpretation of published maps and other documents reviewed for the purposes of this evaluation. It is not sufficiently accurate for preparing constuction bids and design documents (Google, 2022).
FIGURE A- 6
CUPERTINO MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
404269001 | 11/22 DEPTH (feet) Bulk SAMPLES Driven BLOWS/FOOT MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) SYMBOL CLASSIFICATION U.S.C.S.
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 9/19 BORING NO. B-4
GROUND ELEVATION 277'± (MSL) SHEET 1 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING HOLLOW STEM AUGER
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 LBS (SPOOLING CABLE) DROP 30 IN
SAMPLED BY CDS LOGGED BY CDS REVIEWED BY RH
1 Geotecbnlcill & Environmental sc;e.nces Consultants 1164 CC 04-03-2024
1164 of 1277
0 5
10 15
20 27
37 7.3 115.3
GC ALLUVIUM:
Dark browm, moist, medium dense, clayey GRAVEL with sand.
Total Depth: 6.5 feet stopped at planned depth.
Backfilled with soil immediately after boring on 9/19/2022.
Notes: Groundwater was not encountered in boring at time of borings. It may rise higher due to relatively slow rate of seepage in clay and several other factors, as discussed in the report. Ground elevation shown above is an estimation only. It is based on our interpretation of published maps and other documents reviewed for the purposes of this evaluation. It is not sufficiently accurate for preparing constuction bids and design documents (Google, 2022).
FIGURE A- 7
CUPERTINO MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
404269001 | 11/22 DEPTH (feet) Bulk SAMPLES Driven BLOWS/FOOT MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) SYMBOL CLASSIFICATION U.S.C.S.
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 9/19/2022 BORING NO. B-5
GROUND ELEVATION 273'± (MSL) SHEET 1 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING HOLLOW STEM AUGER
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 LBS (SPOOLING CABLE) DROP 30 IN
SAMPLED BY CDS LOGGED BY CDS REVIEWED BY RH
1 Geotecbnlcill & Environmental sc;e.nces Consultants 1165 CC 04-03-2024
1165 of 1277
0 5
10 15
20 36
22 10.9 119.2
GC ALLUVIUM:
Dark brown, moist, medium dense, clayey GRAVEL with sand.
Total Depth: 6.5 feet stopped at planned depth.
Backfilled with soil immediately after boring on 9/19/2022.
Notes: Groundwater was not encountered in boring at time of borings. It may rise higher due to relatively slow rate of seepage in clay and several other factors, as discussed in the report. Ground elevation shown above is an estimation only. It is based on our interpretation of published maps and other documents reviewed for the purposes of this evaluation. It is not sufficiently accurate for preparing constuction bids and design documents (Google, 2022).
FIGURE A- 8
CUPERTINO MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA DEPTH (feet) Bulk SAMPLES Driven BLOWS/FOOT MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) SYMBOL CLASSIFICATION U.S.C.S.
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 9/19/22 BORING NO. B-6
GROUND ELEVATION 280'± (MSL) SHEET 1 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING HOLLOW STEM AUGER
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 LBS (SPOOLING CABLE) DROP 30 IN
SAMPLED BY CDS LOGGED BY CDS REVIEWED BY RH
1 Geotecbnlcill & Environmental sc;e.nces Consultants 404269001 | 11166 1/22 CC 04-03-2024
1166 of 1277
0 5
10 15
20 GC Brown, dry to moist, dense to very dense, clayey GRAVEL with sand.
Total Depth: 1.2 feet stopped on refusal.
Backfilled with soil shortly after boring on 8/24/2022.
Notes: Groundwater was not encountered in boring at time of augering. It may rise higher due to relatively slow rate of seepage in clay and several other factors, as discussed in the report. Ground elevation shown above is an estimation only. It is based on our interpretation of published maps and other documents reviewed for the purposes of this evaluation. It is not sufficiently accurate for preparing constuction bids and design documents(Google, 2022).
FIGURE A- 9
CUPERTINO MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
404269001 |11/2022 DEPTH (feet) Bulk SAMPLES Driven BLOWS/FOOT MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) SYMBOL CLASSIFICATION U.S.C.S.
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 8/24/2022 BORING NO. B-6a
GROUND ELEVATION 280'± (MSL) SHEET 1 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING Hand Auger
DRIVE WEIGHT DROP
SAMPLED BY CDS LOGGED BY CDS REVIEWED BY RH
1 Geotecbnlcill & Environmental sc;e.nces Consultants 1167 CC 04-03-2024
1167 of 1277
0 5
10 15
20 75
46 88
73 11.4 125.3
CL-ML
GC
GP
ALLUVIUM:
Reddidh brown, moist, hard, silty CLAY with trace sand and gravel.
Brown.
Brown, moist, very dense, clayey GRAVEL with sand.
Brown, moist, very dense, GRAVEL with sand and gravel.
Total Depth: 10.5 feet stopped at planned depth.
Backfilled with soil immediately after boring on 9/19/2022.
Notes: Groundwater was not encountered in boring at time of borings. It may rise higher due to relatively slow rate of seepage in clay and several other factors, as discussed in the report. Ground elevation shown above is an estimation only. It is based on our interpretation of published maps and other documents reviewed for the purposes of this evaluation. It is not sufficiently accurate for preparing constuction bids and design documents (Google, 2022).
FIGURE A- 10
CUPERTINO MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
404269001 | 11/22 DEPTH (feet) Bulk SAMPLES Driven BLOWS/FOOT MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) SYMBOL CLASSIFICATION U.S.C.S.
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 9/19/22 BORING NO. B-7
GROUND ELEVATION 272'± (MSL) SHEET 1 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING HOLLOW STEM AUGER
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 LBS (SPOOLING CABLE) DROP 30 IN
SAMPLED BY CDS LOGGED BY CDS REVIEWED BY RH
1 Geotecbnlcill & Environmental sc;e.nces Consultants 1168 CC 04-03-2024
1168 of 1277
0 5
10 15
20 70
72 4.2 113.1
GP ALLUVIUM:
Brown, dry, dense, poorly graded GRAVEL with clay and sand.
Total Depth: 6.5 feet stopped at planned depth.
Backfilled with soil immediately after boring on 9/19/2022.
Notes: Groundwater was not encountered in boring at time of borings. It may rise higher due to relatively slow rate of seepage in clay and several other factors, as discussed in the report. Ground elevation shown above is an estimation only. It is based on our interpretation of published maps and other documents reviewed for the purposes of this evaluation. It is not sufficiently accurate for preparing constuction bids and design documents (Google, 2022).
FIGURE A- 11
CUPERTINO MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
404269001 | 11/22 DEPTH (feet) Bulk SAMPLES Driven BLOWS/FOOT MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) SYMBOL CLASSIFICATION U.S.C.S.
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 9/19/22 BORING NO. B-8
GROUND ELEVATION 278'± (MSL) SHEET 1 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING HOLLOW STEM AUGER
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 LBS (SPOOLING CABLE) DROP 30 IN
SAMPLED BY CDS LOGGED BY CDS REVIEWED BY RH
1 Geotecbnlcill & Environmental sc;e.nces Consultants
... ,. '.•.!
:.• ... . •· . ..
. ...
... '··· .,
1169
CC 04-03-2024
1169 of 1277
0 5
10 15
20 23
76 78
88 86
3.7 106.0
GP
SC
ALLUVIUM:
Brown, moist, medium dense, poorly graded GRAVEL with sand. Gravel up to 1/ 2" inches, subrounded. Fine- to medium-grained sand.
Dry.
Very dense, cobbles. Brown, moist, very dense, clayey SAND.
Total Depth: 15 feet stopped at planned depth.
Backfilled with soil immediately after boring on 9/19/2022.
Notes: Groundwater was not encountered in boring at time of borings. It may rise higher due to relatively slow rate of seepage in clay and several other factors, as discussed in the report. Ground elevation shown above is an estimation only. It is based on our interpretation of published maps and other documents reviewed for the purposes of this evaluation. It is not sufficiently accurate for preparing constuction bids and design documents (Google, 2022).
FIGURE A- 12
CUPERTINO MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
404269001 | 11/22 DEPTH (feet) Bulk SAMPLES Driven BLOWS/FOOT MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) SYMBOL CLASSIFICATION U.S.C.S.
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 9/19/22 BORING NO. B-9
GROUND ELEVATION 277'± (MSL) SHEET 1 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING HOLLOW STEM AUGER
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 LBS (SPOOLING CABLE) DROP 30 IN
SAMPLED BY CDS LOGGED BY CDS REVIEWED BY RH
1 Geotecbnlcill & Environmental sc;e.nces Consultants 1170 CC 04-03-2024
1170 of 1277
0 5
10 15
20 70
65 82
80 100
5.1 3.9
124.2
113.4
GP ALLUVIUM:
Brown, moist, dense, poorly graded GRAVEL with clay and sand. Clast supported.
Increasing sand content. Very dense.
Total Depth: 15 feet stopped at planned depth.
Backfilled with soil immediately after boring on 9/19/2022.
Notes: Groundwater was not encountered in boring at time of borings. It may rise higher due to relatively slow rate of seepage in clay and several other factors, as discussed in the report. Ground elevation shown above is an estimation only. It is based on our interpretation of published maps and other documents reviewed for the purposes of this evaluation. It is not sufficiently accurate for preparing constuction bids and design documents (Google, 2022).
FIGURE A- 13
CUPERTINO MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
404269001 | 11/22 DEPTH (feet) Bulk SAMPLES Driven BLOWS/FOOT MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) SYMBOL CLASSIFICATION U.S.C.S.
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 9/19/22 BORING NO. B-10
GROUND ELEVATION 286'± (MSL) SHEET 1 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING HOLLOW STEM AUGER
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 LBS (SPOOLING CABLE) DROP 30 IN
SAMPLED BY CDS LOGGED BY CDS REVIEWED BY RH
1 Geotecbnlcill & Environmental sc;e.nces Consultants
....
, .. •-:_ .. · " I
... . . . . .. ~ ... : ... ,
. .
1171
CC 04-03-2024
1171 of 1277
0 5
10 15
20 GC Brown, dry, dense, clayey GRAVEL with sand.
Total Depth: 1.0 feet stopped on refusal.
Backfilled with soil shortly after boring on 8/24/2022.
Notes: Groundwater was not encountered in boring at time of augering. It may rise higher due to relatively slow rate of seepage in clay and several other factors, as discussed in the report. Ground elevation shown above is an estimation only. It is based on our interpretation of published maps and other documents reviewed for the purposes of this evaluation. It is not sufficiently accurate for preparing constuction bids and design documents(Google, 2022).
FIGURE A- 14
CUPERTINO MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
404269001 | 11/22 DEPTH (feet) Bulk SAMPLES Driven BLOWS/FOOT MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) SYMBOL CLASSIFICATION U.S.C.S.
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 8/24/2022 BORING NO. B-10a
GROUND ELEVATION 286'± (MSL) SHEET 1 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING Hand Auger
DRIVE WEIGHT DROP
SAMPLED BY CDS LOGGED BY CDS REVIEWED BY RH
1 Geotecbnlcill & Environmental sc;e.nces Consultants 1172 CC 04-03-2024
1172 of 1277
0 5
10 15
20 55
38 81
64 4.0 112.3
GC ALLUVIUM:
Dark brown, moist, medium dense, clayey GRAVEL with sand.
Brown, moist, medium dense, GRAVEL with sand and clay
Dense. Rock.
Total Depth: 11.5 feet stopped at planned depth.
Backfilled with soil immediately after boring on 9/19/2022.
Notes: Groundwater was not encountered in boring at time of borings. It may rise higher due to relatively slow rate of seepage in clay and several other factors, as discussed in the report. Ground elevation shown above is an estimation only. It is based on our interpretation of published maps and other documents reviewed for the purposes of this evaluation. It is not sufficiently accurate for preparing constuction bids and design documents (Google, 2022).
FIGURE A- 15
CUPERTINO MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
404269001 | 11/22 DEPTH (feet) Bulk SAMPLES Driven BLOWS/FOOT MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) SYMBOL CLASSIFICATION U.S.C.S.
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 9/19/22 BORING NO. B-11
GROUND ELEVATION 286'± (MSL) SHEET 1 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING HOLLOW STEM AUGER
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 LBS (SPOOLING CABLE) DROP 30 IN
SAMPLED BY CDS LOGGED BY CDS REVIEWED BY RH
1 Geotecbnlcill & Environmental sc;e.nces Consultants 1173 CC 04-03-2024
1173 of 1277
0 5
10 15
20 CL Brown, dry to moist, firm to stiff, sandy lean CLAY with gravel.
Total Depth: 1.3 feet stopped on refusal.
Backfilled with soil shortly after boring on 8/24/2022.
Notes: Groundwater was not encountered in boring at time of augering. It may rise higher due to relatively slow rate of seepage in clay and several other factors, as discussed in the report. Ground elevation shown above is an estimation only. It is based on our interpretation of published maps and other documents reviewed for the purposes of this evaluation. It is not sufficiently accurate for preparing constuction bids and design documents(Google, 2022).
FIGURE A- 16
CUPERTINO MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
404269001 | 11/22 DEPTH (feet) Bulk SAMPLES Driven BLOWS/FOOT MOISTURE (%) DRY DENSITY (PCF) SYMBOL CLASSIFICATION U.S.C.S.
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 8/24/2022 BORING NO. B-11a
GROUND ELEVATION 286'± (MSL) SHEET 1 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING Hand Auger
DRIVE WEIGHT DROP
SAMPLED BY CDS LOGGED BY CDS REVIEWED BY RH
1 Geotecbnlcill & Environmental sc;e.nces Consultants 1174 CC 04-03-2024
1174 of 1277
Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022
3. Description
3. Description
APPENDIX B
Laboratory Testing
1175
CC 04-03-2024
1175 of 1277
Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
Classification
Soils were visually and texturally classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) in accordance with ASTM D 2488. Soil classifications are indicated on the logs of the exploratory borings in Appendix A.
In-Place Moisture and Density
The moisture content and dry density of relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the exploratory borings were evaluated in accordance with ASTM D 2937. The test results are presented on the logs of the exploratory borings in Appendix A.
Gradation Analysis
Gradation analysis tests were performed on selected representative soil samples in accordance with ASTM D 422. The grain-size distribution curves are shown on Figures B-1 through B-4. These test results were utilized in evaluating the soil classifications in accordance with the USCS.
Atterberg Limits
Tests were performed on selected representative fine-grained soil samples to evaluate the liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index in accordance with ASTM D 4318. These test results were utilized to evaluate the soil classification in accordance with the USCS. The test results and classifications are shown on Figure B-5.
Expansion Index
The expansion index of a selected material was evaluated in accordance with ASTM D 4829. The specimen was molded under a specified compactive energy at approximately 50 percent saturation (plus or minus 1 percent). The prepared 1 inch thick by 4 inch diameter specimen was loaded with a surcharge of 144 pounds per square foot and inundated with tap water. Readings of volumetric swell were made for a period of 24 hours. The test results are presented on Figure B-6.
1176
CC 04-03-2024
1176 of 1277
Coarse
3" 2" 1-1/2" 1" 3/4" 3/8" 4 10 30 50 200
PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422 / D6913 Group Name: Clayey SAND Soak Time: 2.0 % Gravel
% Sand
% Fines 13
FINES
Fine
Passing
No. 200
(percent)
SILT CLAY
-- -- 13 SC
Medium
14 73
GRAVEL SAND
Coarse Fine
16 100
-- --
Sample
Location
Depth
(ft)
Liquid
Limit
Plastic
Limit
B-1 10.0-10.5 -- -- 0.72
404269001 | 11/22
CUPERTINO MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
Plasticity
Index USCS
0.23 Symbol D10 D30 D60 Cu Cc
FIGURE B-1
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
f'-,_ 1,1 I t I
I
r--.._ I
I
I'-.. I
I
",
1:1 N ,,
I
I ~ I
Ill ' I '1 I
I \
! I!
i i \ i
I! I I \ I
!
: 11 I
: ! '\ !
I I I I N I
I I I I I
I I 1:1 I I
I
I I I I
: " I
I I I I ~ I
: I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I 1:1 I I I
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
1177
CC 04-03-2024
1177 of 1277
Coarse
3" 2" 1-1/2" 1" 3/4" 3/8" 4 10 30 50 200
PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422 / D6913 Group Name: Well-graded GRAVEL with clay and sand Soak Time: 2.0 % Gravel
% Sand
% Fines
GRAVEL SAND FINES
Coarse Fine Medium Fine SILT CLAY
16 100
Symbol Sample
Location
Depth
(ft)
Liquid
Limit
Plastic
Limit
Plasticity
Index USCS
B-2 10.0-10.5 -- -- -- 0.13 1.10
D10 D30 D60 Cu Cc
Passing
No. 200
(percent)
404269001 | 11/22
8.04 62.1 1.2 7 GW-GC
FIGURE B-2
49 44
7 GRADATION TEST RESULTS
CUPERTINO MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
rl\ I 1:1
I
~ I 1;1 :\: I
•
!\1:1
\~
1:1 I\
1',i.
! I!
i I'\. i
I! I I'\. I
!
: 11 I
)N
: !
I I I I I
I I I I ""-, I
I I 1:1 I I
I I I I "' I
I I I I "' I
: I I I I I I I I r---.l.._ 1:
I I I I I I " I I I I I I I
I I I 1:1 I I I
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
1178
CC 04-03-2024
1178 of 1277
Coarse
3" 2" 1-1/2" 1" 3/4" 3/8" 4 10 30 50 200
PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422 / D6913 Group Name: Clayey GRAVEL with sand Soak Time: 2.0 % Gravel
% Sand
% Fines
GRAVEL SAND FINES
Coarse Fine Medium Fine SILT CLAY
16 100
Symbol Sample
Location
Depth
(ft)
Liquid
Limit
Plastic
Limit
Plasticity
Index USCS
B-5 6.0-6.5 -- -- -- -- 0.45
D10 D30 D60 Cu Cc
Passing
No. 200
(percent)
404269001 | 11/22
6.86 -- -- 15 GC
FIGURE B-3
44 41
15 GRADATION TEST RESULTS
CUPERTINO MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
\i I 1,1
I I
I
1!1
I I I
~ I I
I I
I I
I :' ~ I
I I
I I 1!1
I I " I
I I
I I
I I ~~ I I 1,1 !'-.I'. I I I
r-.... I I I
! I!
i I"" i
I! :'--,. I I
!
: 11 I ... : ! .... ~
'- I I I " I I
I I I .....__ I I
I I
1!1 i-...' I
I
I I I ; ........ I I I ~ ~ : I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I
1!1 I I
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
1179
CC 04-03-2024
1179 of 1277
Coarse
3" 2" 1-1/2" 1" 3/4" 3/8" 4 10 30 50 200
PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422 / D6913 Group Name: Clayey SAND Soak Time: 2.0 % Gravel
% Sand
% Fines
GRAVEL SAND FINES
Coarse Fine Medium Fine SILT CLAY
16 100
Symbol Sample
Location
Depth
(ft)
Liquid
Limit
Plastic
Limit
Plasticity
Index USCS
B-9 10.5-11.0 -- -- -- -- 0.09
D10 D30 D60 Cu Cc
Passing
No. 200
(percent)
404269001 | 11/22
0.57 -- -- 28 SC
FIGURE B-4
13 59
28 GRADATION TEST RESULTS
CUPERTINO MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
.............. 1:1 I I i~ I I
I I 1;1
r,.11., I
I
I'-. I
I
1:1 " ~ 1"
I ~ I
I ''I 1:1 I
"'\ I
I
! I!
i i "' I! I I I\.
!
: 11 I
: ! ~~ I I I I I I I I I I
I I 1:1 I I
I
I I I I I
I I I I I
: I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I 1:1 I I
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
1180
CC 04-03-2024
1180 of 1277
404269001 - Cupertino - Master Labs CDS
PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 4318
FIGURE B-5
ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTS
SYMBOL LOCATION DEPTH (ft) LIQUID
LIMIT
PLASTIC
LIMIT
PLASTICITY
INDEX
USCS
USCS CLASSIFICATION
(Fraction Finer Than
No. 40 Sieve)
B-7 3.5-4.0 19 15 4 CL-ML CL-ML
404269001 | 11/22
CUPERTINO MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
CH or OH
CL or OL MH or OH
CL - ML ML or OL
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
PLASTICITY INDEX, PI
LIQUID LIMIT, LL
V /
/ / /
V /
/
V ~/
V / /
/ ,/
,, .,
V I
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
1181
CC 04-03-2024
1181 of 1277
PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 4829
FIGURE B-6
EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
CUPERTINO MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
404269001 | 11/22
B-11a 0.0-1.3 11.9 102.5 23.1 0.025 25 Low
B-7 2.5-3.0 8.9 114.2 15.2 0.008 8 Very Low
B-3 2.5-3.0 9.4 111.8 17.9 0.006 6 Very Low
SAMPLE
LOCATION
SAMPLE
DEPTH (ft)
INITIAL
MOISTURE
(percent)
COMPACTED DRY
DENSITY (pcf)
FINAL
MOISTURE
(percent)
VOLUMETRIC
SWELL (in)
EXPANSION
INDEX
POTENTIAL
EXPANSION
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
1182
CC 04-03-2024
1182 of 1277
Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022
APPENDIX C
Corrosivity Testing (CERCO Analytical)
1183
CC 04-03-2024
1183 of 1277
7 September, 2022
Ms. Tatiana Gospe
Ninyo & Moore
2149 O'Toole Avenue, Suite 30
San Jose, CA 95131
Subject: Project No.: 404269001
Job No. 2208054
Cust. No.13270
CERCO ~· a n a I y t i c a I
1100 Willow Pass Court, Suite A
Concord, CA 94520-1006
925 462 2771 Fax. 925 462 2775
www.cercoanalytical.com
Project Name: Memorial Park, 21121 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, CA Corrosivity Analysis -ASTM Test Methods
Dear Ms. Gospe:
Pursuant to your request, CERCO Analytical has analyzed the soil sample submitted on August 29, 2022.
Based on the analytical results, this brief corrosivity evaluation is enclosed for your consideration.
Based upon the resistivity measurement, this sample is classified as "corrosive". All buried iron, steel, cast iron, ductile iron, galvanized steel and dielectric coated steel or iron should be properly protected against corrosion depending upon the critical nature of the structure. All buried metallic pressure piping such as ductile iron firewater pipelines should be protected against corrosion.
The chloride ion concentration is 78 mg/kg and is determined to be insufficient to attack steel embedded in a concrete mortar coating.
The sulfate ion concentration is 49 mg/kg and is determined to be insufficient to damage reinforced concrete structures and cement mortar-coated steel at this location.
The pH of the soil is 7.32, which does not present corrosion problems for buried iron, steel, motiar-coated steel and reinforced concrete structures.
The redox potential is 200-m V and is indicative of potentially "moderately corrosive" soils resulting from anaerobic soil conditions.
This corrosivity evaluation is based on general corrosion engineering standards and is non-specific in nature. For specific long-term corrosion control design recommendations or consultation, please call JDH Corrosion Consultants, Inc. at (925) 927-6630.
We appreciate the opportunity of working with you on this project. If you have any questions, or if you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Very truly yours,
CERCO ANALYTICAL, INC.
~ ~ - Hv, J. Darby Howard, Jr., P.E.
President
JDH/jdl
Enclosure
1184
CC 04-03-2024
1184 of 1277
Client:
Client's Project No.:
Client's Project Name:
Date Sampled:
Date Received:
Matrix:
Authorization:
Job/Sample No.
2208054-001
Method:
Reporting Limit:
Date Analyzed:
Sherri Moore
Chemist
Ninyo & Moore
404269001
Memorial Park, 21121 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, CA 24-Aug-22
29-Aug-22
Soil
Signed Chain of Custody
Samplel.D.
B-6/0.0-1.2'
Redox
(mV)
200
ASTMD1498
-
2-Sep-2022
pH
7.32 ASTMD4972
-
2-Sep-2022
Conductivity
(umhos/cm)*
-
ASTMD1125M
10 -
* Results Reported on "As Received" Basis
N.D. - None Detected
Oualitv Control Summarv -AIHaboratory quality control parameters were found to be within established limits Resistivity
(100% Saturation)
(ohms-cm)
1,800
ASTMG57
-
2-Sep-2022
Sulfide
(mg/kg)*
-
ASTMD4658M
50 -
CERCO
analytical
1100 Willow Pass Court, Suite A
Concord, CA 94520-1006
925 462 2771 Fax. 925 462 2775
www.cercoanalytical.com
Date of Report:
Chloride
(mg/kg)*
78 ASTMD4327
15 2-Sep-2022
7-Sep-2022
Sulfate
(mg/kg)*
49 ASTMD4327
15 2-Sep-2022
PageNo.1 1185
CC 04-03-2024
1185 of 1277
Chain of Custody
Job No. CU# Client Project I.D.
I 404269001 l~l I
Full Name Phone 4084359000 X 15319
Tatiana Gospe Fax
Company and/or Mailing Address Cell
Ninyo & Moore 2149 O'Toole Avenue Suite 30 San Jose CA 181 Sample Source
Memorial Park, 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, CA Lab No. Sample I.D. , Date Time Matrix Contain. Size Preserv. Qtv.
I i
B-6/0.0-1.2' /', l l
~ 1J..,f{; 1/i/ s !
I
I I\
I
I,
I
i
I
I :1
I ',
I
I
DW - Drinking Water rJ)
z HB-Hosebib f--< CJ ""' Total No. of Containers
GW - Ground Water 0 PV - Petcock Valve .....
~ - CJ i;a:i
SW Rec'd Good Cond/Cold - Surface Water E-< PT - Pressure Tank u Q::; WW - Waste Water --i: PH - Pump House i;a:i
CJ f--< s: Q::; Conforms to Record
~ Water RR - Restroom i;a:i (;al ..;;/ CJ SL- Sludge ~ GL-Glass ""' Temp. at Lab -'C ~ ;;;: S - Soil ~ PL- Plastic -< Sampler j Product -<::: ST- Sterile "' Comments:
THERE IS A. 'l' ADDITIONAL CHARGE FOR EXTRUDING SOIL FROM METAL TUBES Email Ad~ [email protected]
Schedule I
Analvter I
1100 Willow Pass Court
Concord, CA 94520-1006
9254622n1
Fax: 925 4622n5
ANALYSIS
"2 ~ = 0 0 ·.p 0 ·~ = <l) -I ;:I .....
0 .-2"0 "2 <l) A., > <l) > <l) "O ·.p ~ i::t:i X: - ·;:: 0 <E 0 "' ,_ <..., "O -- ;:I .2 <l)
-
>-"-< 3 :a ~~ "' - ,_ ~ 0.. U'.l u i:o
X X X X X X
Relinquished By: ~ ,e Date
~ - -' Received By: .Ji/ {j)j /) ~;11/tf te
Relinquished By: (/(~ Date
Received By: Date
Relinquished By: Date
Received By: Date
Date Sampled Date Due
I 8/24/22
ASTM
8/26/22 Time 12:30
r) /)t{ / c/J---:l-me //)!J. 0
I I Time
Time
Time
Time
1186
CC 04-03-2024
1186 of 1277
2149 O’Toole Avenue, Suite 30 | San Jose, California 95131 | p. 408.435.9000 ARIZONA | CALIFORNIA | COLORADO | NEVADA | TEXAS | UTAH ninyoandmoore.com
Geotechnlcal & Environmental Sciences Consultants
1187
CC 04-03-2024
1187 of 1277
TYPE OF SERVICES Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
LOCATION Cupertino Memorial Park, 10185 North Stelling Road and 21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Cupertino, California
CLIENT David J. Powers & Associates
PROJECT NUMBER 118-139-1
DATE October 13, 2022
• ATTACHMENT D • APPENDIX D •
CORNERSTONE
EARTH GROUP
1188
CC 04-03-2024
1188 of 1277
Type of Services Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Location Cupertino Memorial Park, 10185 North Stelling Road and 21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Cupertino, California
Client David J. Powers & Associates
Client Address 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200
San Jose, California 95126
Project Number 118-139-1
Date October 13, 2022
Prepared by Ron L. Helm, C.E.G.
Senior Principal Geologist
CORNERSTONE
EARTH GROUP
1259 Oakmead Parkway I Sunnyvale, CA 94085
T 408 245 4600 I F 408 245 4620
www.cornerstoneearth.com
1220 Oakland Boulevard, Suite 220 I Walnut Creek, CA 94596 T 925 988 9500 I F 925 988 9501
■
1189
CC 04-03-2024
1189 of 1277
Cupertino Memorial Park, 10185 North Stelling Road and
21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California
118-139-1
Page i
Table of Contents
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION........................................................................................ 1
1.1 PURPOSE............................................................................................................. 1
1.2 SCOPE OF WORK................................................................................................ 2
1.3 ASSUMPTIONS.................................................................................................... 2
1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL .................................................................. 2 SECTION 2: SITE DESCRIPTION.................................................................................. 3
2.1 LOCATION AND OWNERSHIP ............................................................................ 3
2.2 CURRENT/PROPOSED USE OF THE SITE......................................................... 3
2.3 SITE SETTING AND ADJOINING PROPERTY USE............................................ 3 SECTION 3: USER PROVIDED INFORMATION............................................................ 3
3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL LIENS OR ACTIVITY AND USE LIMITATIONS.................... 4
3.2 SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE AND COMMONLY KNOWN OR REASONABLY ASCERTAINABLE INFORMATION............................................................................ 4 SECTION 4: RECORDS REVIEW .................................................................................. 4
4.1 STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD SOURCES........................................ 4
4.1.1 On-Site Database Listings............................................................................ 5
4.1.2 Adjoining Property Database Listings and Nearby Spill Incidents ........... 5
4.2 ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD SOURCES...................................... 5
4.2.1 City and County Agency File Review .......................................................... 5
4.2.2 Geologic Energy Management Division Maps............................................ 6 SECTION 5: PHYSICAL SETTING................................................................................. 6
5.1 RECENT USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ................................................................ 6
5.2 HYDROGEOLOGY ............................................................................................... 6 SECTION 6: HISTORICAL USE INFORMATION ........................................................... 6
6.1 HISTORICAL SUMMARY..................................................................................... 6
6.1.1 City Directory Review................................................................................... 8 SECTION 7: SITE RECONNAISSANCE......................................................................... 8
7.1 METHODOLOGY AND LIMITING CONDITIONS.................................................. 8
7.2 OBSERVATIONS.................................................................................................. 9
7.2.1 Site Photographs........................................................................................10 SECTION 8: ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE AND INTERVIEWS ....................12
8.1 ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE / CURRENT OWNER AND OCCUPANT INTERVIEW ..............................................................................................................12
8.2 INTERVIEWS WITH PREVIOUS OWNERS AND OCCUPANTS........................12
8.3 INTERVIEWS WITH STATE AND/OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS......12 SECTION 9: FINDINGS, OPINIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS (WITH
RECOMMENDATIONS)................................................................................................13
9.1 HISTORICAL SITE USAGE................................................................................13
9.2 CHEMICAL STORAGE AND USE......................................................................13
9.3 AGRICULTURAL USE........................................................................................13
9.4 LEAD-BASED PAINT AND TERMITE CONTROL PESTICIDES........................13
9.5 ASBESTOS CONTAINING BUILDING MATERIALS (ACBMS) .........................14
9.6 IMPORTED SOIL................................................................................................14
9.7 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS WITHIN THE SITE VICINITY.....14
9.8 DATA GAPS.......................................................................................................14
9.9 DATA FAILURES ...............................................................................................14
9.10 RECOGNIZED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS............................................15
CORNERSTONE
EARTH GROUP
1190
CC 04-03-2024
1190 of 1277
Cupertino Memorial Park, 10185 North Stelling Road and
21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California
118-139-1
Page ii
SECTION 10: LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................15
10.1 REPORT VIABILITY .........................................................................................16 FIGURE 1 – VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 2 – SITE PLAN
APPENDIX A – DATABASE SEARCH REPORT
APPENDIX B – HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND MAPS
APPENDIX C – LOCAL STREET DIRECTORY SEARCH RESULTS
APPENDIX D – QUESTIONNAIRE
CORNERSTONE
EARTH GROUP
1191
CC 04-03-2024
1191 of 1277
Cupertino Memorial Park, 10185 North Stelling Road and
21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California
118-139-1