Cupertino City Council
April 3, 2024

Type of Services Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Location Cupertino Memorial Park, 10185 North Stelling Road and 21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Cupertino, California
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) performed at Cupertino Memorial Park, 10185 North Stelling Road and 21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino, California (Site) as shown on Figures 1 and 2. This work was performed for David J.

Powers & Associates in accordance with our August 19, 2022 agreement (Agreement).

1.1 PURPOSE
The scope of work presented in the Agreement was prepared in general accordance with ASTM E1527-21 titled, “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process” (ASTM Standard). The ASTM Standard is in general compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule titled, “Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries; Final Rule” (AAI Rule, 40 CFR Part 312). The purpose of this Phase I ESA is to strive to identify, to the extent feasible pursuant to the scope of work presented in the Agreement, Recognized Environmental Conditions at the Site.

As defined by ASTM E1527-21, the term Recognized Environmental Condition means 1) the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property due to a release to the environment; 2) the likely presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property due to a release or likely release to the environment; or 3) the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. A de minimis condition1 is not a recognized environmental condition.

Cornerstone Earth Group, Inc. (Cornerstone) understands that David J. Powers & Associates is providing California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) support associated with preparation of the Memorial Park Specific Plan. We performed this Phase I ESA to support David J. Powers & Associates in evaluation of Recognized Environmental Conditions at the Site. This Phase I ESA is intended to reduce, but not eliminate, uncertainty regarding the potential for Recognized Environmental Conditions at the Site.
1 A de minimis condition is defined by the ASTM Standard as a condition related to a release that generally does not present a threat to human health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies.

Is! CORNERSTONE

EARTH GROUP
1192
CC 04-03-2024
1192 of 1277
Cupertino Memorial Park, 10185 North Stelling Road and
21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California
118-139-1

1.2 SCOPE OF WORK
As presented in our Agreement, the scope of work performed for this Phase I ESA included the following:
 A reconnaissance of the Site to note readily observable indications of significant releases of hazardous materials to structures, soil, soil vapor or groundwater.  Drive-by observation of adjoining properties to note readily apparent activities involving hazardous materials that have or could significantly impact the Site.  Acquisition and review of a regulatory agency database report of public records for the general area of the Site to evaluate potential impacts to the Site from reported contamination incidents on-Site or at nearby facilities.  Review of readily available information on file at selected governmental agencies to help evaluate past and current Site use and hazardous materials management practices.  Historical research including review of readily available maps and aerial photographs to help evaluate past and current Site uses.
 Interviews with persons reportedly knowledgeable of current and/or prior Site uses, including the current Site owner and occupant(s).
 Preparation of a written report summarizing our findings and recommendations.

The limitations for the Phase I ESA are presented in Section 10.

1.3 ASSUMPTIONS
In preparing this Phase I ESA, Cornerstone can neither warrant nor guarantee that records obtained from or prepared by other parties, such as, but not limited to, regulatory agency records, interview responses, maps, related documents, and environmental reports prepared by others are accurate or complete. Cornerstone relied on the information obtained during this study unless we had actual knowledge that the information was incorrect or unless it was obvious that the information was incorrect based on other information obtained. We also assumed that the boundaries of the Site, based on information provided by David J. Powers & Associates, are as shown on Figure 2. We have not independently verified the accuracy or completeness of any data received.

1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL
This Phase I ESA was performed by Stason I. Foster, P.E. and Ron L. Helm, C.E.G. We declare that, to the best of our professional knowledge and belief, we meet the definition of Environmental Professional as defined in § 312.10 of 40 C.F.R. Part 312. We have the specific qualifications based on education, training and experience to assess a property of the nature, history and setting of the subject property. We have developed and performed the All Appropriate Inquiries in general conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312.

Ii! CORNERSTONE

EARTH GROUP
1193
CC 04-03-2024
1193 of 1277
Cupertino Memorial Park, 10185 North Stelling Road and
21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California
118-139-1

SECTION 2: SITE DESCRIPTION
This section describes the Site as of the date of this Phase I ESA. The location of the Site is shown on Figures 1 and 2. Tables 1 through 3 summarize general characteristics of the Site and adjoining properties. The Site is described in more detail in Section 7, based on our on-Site observations.

2.1 LOCATION AND OWNERSHIP
Table 1 describes the physical location, and ownership of the Site, based on information provided by David J. Powers & Associates.

Table 1. Location and Ownership
Assessor’s
Parcel No. (APN) Reported Address/Location Owner
Approximate
Lot Size
326-29-006 21251 Steven Creek Boulevard* City of Cupertino 14.5 acres 326-54-041 10185 North Stelling Road City of Cupertino 7.2 acres 326-27-033 N/A City of Cupertino 0.4 acres
* 21121 Steven Creek Boulevard also was identified as an address associated with the Site and was researched during this Phase I ESA.

2.2 CURRENT/PROPOSED USE OF THE SITE
The current and proposed uses of the Site are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. Current and Proposed Uses
Current Use Cupertino Memorial Park, Quinlan Community Center and Cupertino Senior Center
Proposed Use Public Park and Open Space, Public Facilities, Transportation, etc.

2.3 SITE SETTING AND ADJOINING PROPERTY USE
Land use in the general Site vicinity appears to be primarily residential. During the Site visit, adjoining properties were observed from the Site and from adjacent public thoroughfares.

Based on our Site vicinity reconnaissance, adjoining property uses are summarized below in Table 3. No features, activities, uses or conditions on the adjoining properties were observed that are considered indicative of Recognized Environmental Conditions at the Site.

Table 3. Adjoining Property Uses
North Residential
South De Anza College (across Stevens Creek Boulevard)
East Residential and Cupertino Sports Complex
West Residential
SECTION 3: USER PROVIDED INFORMATION
The ASTM standard defines the User as the party seeking to use a Phase I ESA to evaluate the presence of Recognized Environmental Conditions associated with a property. For the purpose of this Phase I ESA, the User is David J. Powers & Associates. The “All Appropriate Inquiries” 1:1 CORNERSTONE
L:: EARTH GROUP
1194
CC 04-03-2024
1194 of 1277
Cupertino Memorial Park, 10185 North Stelling Road and
21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California
118-139-1

Final Rule (40 CFR Part 312) requires specific tasks be performed by or on behalf of the party seeking to qualify for Landowner Liability Protection under CERCLA (i.e., the User).

Per the ASTM standard, if the User has information that is material to Recognized Environmental Conditions in connection with the Site, such information should be provided to the Environmental Professional. This information includes: 1) specialized knowledge or experience of the User, 2) commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information within the local community, and 3) knowledge that the purchase price of the Site is lower than the fair market value due to contamination. A search of title records for environmental liens and activity and use limitations also is required.

3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL LIENS OR ACTIVITY AND USE LIMITATIONS An environmental lien is a financial instrument that may be used to recover past environmental cleanup costs. Activity and use limitations (AULs) include other environmental encumbrances, such as institutional and engineering controls. Institutional controls (ICs) are legal or regulatory restrictions on a property’s use, while engineering controls (ECs) are physical mechanisms that restrict property access or use.

The regulatory agency database report described in Section 4.1 did not identify the Site as being in 1) US EPA databases that list properties subject to land use restrictions (i.e., engineering and institutional controls) or Federal Superfund Liens or 2) lists maintained by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) of properties that are subject to AULs or environmental liens where the DTSC is a lien holder.

ASTM E1527-21 categorizes the requirement to conduct a search for Environmental Liens and AULs as a User responsibility. A search of land title records for environmental liens and AULs was not within the scope of the current Phase I ESA and the User did not provide such search results to Cornerstone.

3.2 SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE AND COMMONLY KNOWN OR REASONABLY

ASCERTAINABLE INFORMATION
Based on information provided by or discussions with David J. Powers & Associates, we understand that David J. Powers & Associates does not have specialized knowledge or experience, commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information regarding the Site, or other information that is material to Recognized Environmental Conditions.

SECTION 4: RECORDS REVIEW

4.1 STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD SOURCES
Cornerstone conducted a review of federal, state and local regulatory agency database records provided by Environmental Data Resources (EDR) to evaluate the likelihood of contamination incidents at and near the Site. The database sources and the search distances are in general accordance with the requirements of ASTM E1527-21. A list of the database sources reviewed, a description of the sources, and a radius map showing the location of reported facilities relative to the project Site are attached in Appendix A.

Ii! CORNERSTONE

EARTH GROUP
1195
CC 04-03-2024
1195 of 1277
Cupertino Memorial Park, 10185 North Stelling Road and
21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California
118-139-1

The purpose of the records review was to obtain reasonably available information to help identify Recognized Environmental Conditions. Accuracy and completeness of record information varies among information sources, including government sources. Record information is often inaccurate or incomplete. The Environmental Professional is not obligated to identify mistakes or insufficiencies or review every possible record that might exist with respect to the Site. The customary practice is to review information from standard sources that is reasonably ascertainable within reasonable time and cost constraints.

4.1.1 On-Site Database Listings
Memorial Park Ponds Repurposing was identified at the Site address on the California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS) database, a computer system used by the State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards to track information about places of environmental interest, manage permits and other orders, track inspections, and manage violations and enforcement activities. This listing appears to be associated recent construction activities involving the removal of decorative, concrete lined ponds at the park.

4.1.2 Adjoining Property Database Listings and Nearby Spill Incidents Based on the information presented in the agency database report, no off-Site spill incidents were reported that appear likely to significantly impact soil, soil vapor or groundwater beneath the Site. The potential for impact was based on our interpretation of the types of incidents, the locations of the reported incidents in relation to the Site and the assumed groundwater flow direction. A few businesses on adjoining properties were identified on regulatory agency databases relating primarily to regulatory filings associated with hazardous material use/storage, and generation or disposal of hazardous wastes. Such listings are common for commercial facilities in urban settings and are not indicative of hazardous material releases; thus, further review of records associated with these listings does not appear warranted.

4.2 ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD SOURCES
The following additional sources of readily ascertainable public information for the Site also were reviewed during this Phase I ESA.

4.2.1 City and County Agency File Review
Cornerstone obtained available files pertaining to the Site at the following public agencies: the Cupertino Building Department (BD), Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD), and the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (DEH).

The DEH and SCCFD indicated that they had no files pertaining to hazardous materials use at the Site.

Building Department files for 21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard contained permit records dated between 1999 and 2017 for construction of the existing Senior Center building and subsequent repairs and alterations. Permits dated between 2010 and 2016 were for cellular telephone antenna equipment installation. A 2022 permit was for the in-progress pond repurposing project at Memorial Park. The files additionally contained a 1980 Certificate of Occupancy for a former “Senor Citizen Building.”
Ii! CORNERSTONE

EARTH GROUP
1196
CC 04-03-2024
1196 of 1277
Cupertino Memorial Park, 10185 North Stelling Road and
21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California
118-139-1

Building Department files for 10185 North Stelling Road contained permit records dated between 1988 and 2021 associated with construction of the Quinlan Community Center and various subsequent alterations and repairs.

4.2.2 Geologic Energy Management Division Maps
To evaluate the presence of oil or gas wells on-Site and in the immediate Site vicinity, maps available on-line at the California Department of Conservation, Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) website were reviewed. Review of the available map for the Site area did not show oil or gas wells on-Site or on the adjacent properties.

SECTION 5: PHYSICAL SETTING
We reviewed readily available geologic and hydrogeologic information to evaluate the likelihood that chemicals of concern released on a nearby property could pose a significant threat to the Site and/or its intended use.

5.1 RECENT USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
A 2018 USGS 7.5 minute topographic map was reviewed to evaluate the physical setting of the Site. The Site’s elevation is approximately 280 feet above mean sea level; topography in the vicinity of the Site slopes downward gently to the northeast towards the San Francisco Bay.

5.2 HYDROGEOLOGY
Based on our experience and information presented in the California Geotracker database pertaining to nearby properties, groundwater beneath the Site is likely present at depths of greater than 100 feet. Groundwater likely flows toward the northeast.

SECTION 6: HISTORICAL USE INFORMATION
The objective of the review of historical use information is to develop a history of the previous uses of the Site and adjoining properties in order to help identify the likelihood of past uses having led to Recognized Environmental Conditions at the Site. The ASTM standard requires the identification of all obvious uses of the Site from the present back to the Site’s first developed use, or back to 1940, whichever is earlier, using reasonably ascertainable standard historical sources. The identification of obvious uses of adjoining properties also is required.

6.1 HISTORICAL SUMMARY
The historical sources reviewed are summarized below. The results of our review of these sources are summarized in Table 4.
 Historical Aerial Photographs: We reviewed aerial photographs dated between 1939 and 2016 obtained from EDR of Shelton, Connecticut; copies of aerial photographs reviewed are presented in Appendix B.
 Historical Topographic Maps: We reviewed USGS 15-minute and 7.5-minute historic topographic maps dated 1897, 1899, 1902, 1943, 1947, 1948, 1953, 1961, 1968, 1973, Ii! CORNERSTONE

EARTH GROUP
1197
CC 04-03-2024
1197 of 1277
Cupertino Memorial Park, 10185 North Stelling Road and
21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California
118-139-1

1980, 2012, 2015 and 2018; copies of historic topographic maps reviewed are presented in Appendix B.
 Historical Fire Insurance Maps: EDR reported that the Site was not within the coverage area of fire insurance maps.

Table 4. Summary of Historical Source Information
Date Source Comments
1897, 1899,
1902, 1943,
1947, 1948,
1953, 1961,
1968, 1973
and 1980
Topographic
maps
Site: Several small structures typical of residences and associated outbuildings are depicted on-Site. Orchards also are depicted on-Site on the maps dated from 1948 to 1968.

Adjoining Properties: Small structures typical of residences are depicted on some of the adjoining parcels. Orchards also are depicted on adjoining properties on the maps dated from 1943 to 1968. What appear to be residential developments are shown to the north and east by 1953 and to the west by 1973. De Anza College is shown to the south by 1968.
1995 to
2018
Topographic
maps
Site: The Quinlan Community Center is shown to have been constructed on the eastern portion of the Site by 1995.

Adjoining Properties: De Anza College is shown to the south and other adjoining properties are shown within the urban developed area of Cupertino.
1939 to
1968
Aerial
photographs
Site: Shown to be occupied by orchards and what appear to be several residences and associated outbuildings.

Adjoining Properties: Shown to be occupied mainly by orchards and what appear to be several residences and associated outbuildings. An increase in residential development is shown to the east by the 1950s.

De Anza College is shown to have been constructed to the south by 1968.
1974 Aerial
photograph
Site: Grading and construction associated with Memorial Park facilities (e.g., tennis courts and baseball field) is shown to be in progress on the northwestern portion of the Site. Residences and associated outbuildings, along with orchards are shown to remain on other portions of the Site.

Adjoining Properties: Orchards remain to the north and southeast.

De Anza College is shown to the south. Residential developments are shown to the east and west.
1982 to
2016
Aerial
photographs
Site: A former building at the Cupertino Senior Center location is shown to have been constructed by 1982 and Memorial Park facilities are shown on the western portion of the Site. Orchards are shown to remain on the eastern portion of the Site on the 1982 photograph; by 1991, the Quinlan Community Center is shown to have been constructed on the eastern portion of the Site. By 2006, the existing Cupertino Senior Center building is shown to have been constructed, replacing a former building.

Adjoining Properties: Development on adjoining properties appears generally similar to the existing conditions.

Is! CORNERSTONE

EARTH GROUP
1198
CC 04-03-2024
1198 of 1277
Cupertino Memorial Park, 10185 North Stelling Road and
21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California
118-139-1

6.1.1 City Directory Review
To obtain additional information regarding past uses of the Site and adjoining properties, business directories including city, cross reference and telephone directories were reviewed, if available, at approximately five year intervals for the years spanning 1968 through 2017. A summary of the city directory listings for Site occupants is presented in Table 6. The listed business names at adjoining properties are not indicative of businesses that are typically associated with the use or storage of significant quantities of hazardous materials (e.g., gasoline stations, dry cleaners, manufacturing facilities, etc.). The acquired city directory report is presented in Appendix C.

Table 5. On-Site City Directory Listings
Date Occupant
10185 North Stelling Road
1992 Cupertino Community Services and Robert W. Quinlan Center 1995 Cupertino Community Services and Cupertino Historical Museum, Cupertino Recreation Department and Salvation Army
2000 Cupertino Community Services and Cupertino Historical Society & Museum 2005 and 2010 Cupertino Historical Society, Cupertino Parks & Recreation and Quinlan Community Center
2014 and 2017 Cupertino Historical Society & Museum
21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard
1985 Cupertino Senior Center
1992 Cupertino Senior Community Center
1995 Cupertino Senior Citizen Center
2000 City of Cupertino City / Recreation
2005, 2010 and 2014 Cupertino Senior Center
2017 City of Cupertino
SECTION 7: SITE RECONNAISSANCE
We performed a Site reconnaissance to evaluate current Site conditions and to attempt to identify Site Recognized Environmental Conditions. The results of the reconnaissance are discussed below. Additional Site observations are summarized in Table 6. Photographs of the Site are presented in Section 7.2.1.

7.1 METHODOLOGY AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
To observe current Site conditions (readily observable environmental conditions indicative of a significant release of hazardous materials), Cornerstone staff Stason I. Foster, P.E. visited the Site on September 26, 2022. The Site reconnaissance was conducted by walking representative areas of the Site, including the interiors of the on-Site structures, the periphery of the structures and the Site periphery. The Site also was observed from adjacent public thoroughfares. Cornerstone staff only observed those areas that were reasonably accessible, safe, and did not require movement of equipment, materials or other objects. Physical obstructions that limited our ability to view the ground surface at the Site included the existing buildings and associated paved vehicle drives and parking areas (typical of developed properties).

Is! CORNERSTONE

EARTH GROUP
1199
CC 04-03-2024
1199 of 1277
Cupertino Memorial Park, 10185 North Stelling Road and
21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California
118-139-1

7.2 OBSERVATIONS
At the time of our visit, the Site was developed with Cupertino Memorial Park, the Cupertino Senior Center, and the Quinlan Community Center.

The Cupertino Senior Center and Quinlan Community Center buildings were observed to consist of various rooms used for events, classes and activities, as well as general office space and kitchen facilities. Cupertino Historical Museum and a preschool facility also operated within the community center building.

Memorial Park was observed to consist of open space, tennis courts, athletic fields, and picnic and playground areas. Grading associated with a project to remove former concrete lined decorative ponds was observed to be in progress. A cellular telephone antenna tower and fenced equipment enclosure also were present.

Two wood-framed sheds with concrete floor slabs were observed within the park that contained grounds maintenance equipment. Hazardous materials observed within the sheds consisted primarily of gasoline that was stored in safety cans within a flammable materials storage cabinet, weed killer (Roundup®) contained in portable backpack pump sprayers and marking paint for sports fields.

Facility maintenance rooms were observed in both the Cupertino Senior Center and Quinlan Community Center buildings that contained paints and other common building maintenance supplies. General housekeeping within the facility maintenance rooms, as well as the grounds maintenance sheds, appeared orderly and no evidence of significant chemical spills was readily apparent.

Electricity and/or natural gas fuel sources appeared to be used for building heating/cooling purposes. Potable water appeared to be supplied by the local water service provider. The buildings presumably are connected to the publicly owned sanitary sewer system; no on-Site septic systems were obvious. On-Site storm water catch basins appeared to discharge via below ground piping to the City’s storm water drainage system. Electrical transformer owned by PG&E were observed on concrete pads within the park and near the community center and senior center buildings. No evidence of transformer oil leaks was observed.

Table 6. Summary of Readily Observable Site Features
General Observation Comments
Aboveground Storage Tanks Not Observed
Agricultural Wells Not Observed
Air Emission Control Systems Not Observed
Boilers Not Observed
Burning Areas (waste burn pits or ash disposal areas) Not Observed Chemical Mixing Areas Not Observed
Chemical Storage Areas Observed as described above
Drainage Ditches Not Observed
Drums, Totes, and Intermediate Bulk Containers Not Observed Elevators Not Observed
Is! CORNERSTONE

EARTH GROUP
1200
CC 04-03-2024
1200 of 1277
Cupertino Memorial Park, 10185 North Stelling Road and
21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California
118-139-1

Table 6 (Continued). Summary of Readily Observable Site Features General Observation Comments
Emergency Generators Not Observed
Equipment Maintenance Areas Not Observed
Fill Placement (i.e., fill used to build up the site elevations) Not Observed Groundwater Monitoring Wells Not Observed
Hoods and Ducting (associated with chemical use) Not Observed Hydraulic Vehicle or Equipment Lifts Not Observed
Incinerators Not Observed
Petroleum Pipelines or Wells Not Observed
Pits, Ponds, or Lagoons. Not Observed
Railroad Lines Not Observed
Row Crops or Orchards Not Observed
Septic Systems or Cesspools Not Observed
Solid Waste Disposal Areas (other than municipal trash containers) Not Observed Stained Soil or Pavement Not Observed
Stains or Corrosion on Floors, Walls, or Ceilings Not Observed Standing Surface Water or Pools Not Observed
Stockpiles of Soil or Debris Not Observed
Stressed Vegetation (unrelated to the lack of water) Not Observed Strong, Pungent, or Noxious Odors Not Observed
Sumps, Clarifiers, Oil-Water Separators, or similar structures Below grade grease interceptors were observed
near kitchen facilities
Transformers Observed as described above
Underground Storage Tanks Not Observed
Unidentified Substance Containers Not Observed
Vehicle Maintenance Areas Not Observed
Vehicle Wash Areas Not Observed
Wastewater Neutralization Systems Not Observed
The comment “Not Observed” does not warrant that these features are not present on-Site; it only indicates that these features were not readily observed during the Site visit.

7.2.1 Site Photographs
Photograph 1. View of the Quinlan Community Center
building.

Photograph 2. Interior of Quinlan Community
Center.

Is! CORNERSTONE

EARTH GROUP
1201
CC 04-03-2024
1201 of 1277
Cupertino Memorial Park, 10185 North Stelling Road and
21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California
118-139-1

Photograph 3. Interior of Quinlan Community Center. Photograph 4. View of the Cupertino Senior Center building.

Photograph 5. Interior of the Cupertino Senior Center. Photograph 6. Memorial Park picnic area.

Photograph 7. Memorial Park playground area. Photograph 8. Memorial Park (former pond area).

Is! CORNERSTONE

EARTH GROUP
1202
CC 04-03-2024
1202 of 1277
Cupertino Memorial Park, 10185 North Stelling Road and
21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California
118-139-1

Photograph 9. One of two grounds maintenance sheds at
Memorial Park.

Photograph 10. Interior of grounds maintenance
shed.

SECTION 8: ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE AND INTERVIEWS

8.1 ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE / CURRENT OWNER AND OCCUPANT

INTERVIEW
To help obtain information on current and historical Site use and use/storage of hazardous materials on-Site, we provided an environmental questionnaire for completion by the Site owner (City of Cupertino). The completed questionnaire is attached in Appendix D. The information provided on the questionnaire appears generally consistent with our on-Site observations and information obtained from other data sources. No information indicative of Recognized Environmental Conditions was reported on the questionnaire.

8.2 INTERVIEWS WITH PREVIOUS OWNERS AND OCCUPANTS
Contact information for previous Site owners and occupants was not provided to us. Therefore, interviews with previous Site owners and occupants could not be performed.

8.3 INTERVIEWS WITH STATE AND/OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS Per the ASTM Standard, a reasonable attempt should be made to interview at least one staff member of any one of the following types of state and/or local government agencies: fire department, health department, building department, or other agency having jurisdiction over hazardous waste disposal or other environmental matters in the area.

The Cupertino Building Department, Santa Clara County Fire Department, and the Santa Clara County DEH were contacted during this study. The DEH is the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) responsible for implementing California’s Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management regulatory program for properties within Cupertino; the Fire Department also is a Participating Agency (PA). Files pertaining to the Site were requested from each of these agencies; a summary of the information obtained was discussed in Section

4.2.1. Is! CORNERSTONE

EARTH GROUP
1203
CC 04-03-2024
1203 of 1277
Cupertino Memorial Park, 10185 North Stelling Road and
21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California
118-139-1

SECTION 9: FINDINGS, OPINIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS (WITH

RECOMMENDATIONS)
Cornerstone performed this Phase I ESA in general conformance with ASTM E1527-21 to support David J. Powers & Associates in evaluation of Recognized Environmental Conditions.

Our findings, opinions and conclusions are summarized below.

9.1 HISTORICAL SITE USAGE
Based on the information obtained during this study, the Site historically was occupied by orchards, along with what appear to have been several residences and associated outbuildings.

During the mid-1970s, Memorial Park facilities (e.g., tennis courts and baseball field) were constructed on the western portion of the Site. A former senior center building was constructed at the southwest corner of the Site during the early 1980s. The existing Quinlan Community Center was constructed on the eastern portion of the Site during the late 1980s. The existing Cupertino Senior Center building was constructed in approximately 2000, replacing the former senior center building.

9.2 CHEMICAL STORAGE AND USE
Paints and other common building maintenance supplies were observed within facility maintenance rooms in both the Cupertino Senior Center and Quinlan Community Center buildings. Grounds maintenance sheds within Memorial Park were observed to contain gasoline that was stored in safety cans within a flammable materials storage cabinet, weed killer (Roundup®) contained in portable backpack pump sprayers and marking paint for sports fields.

General housekeeping within the facility maintenance rooms and the grounds maintenance sheds appeared orderly and no evidence of significant chemical spills was readily apparent.

9.3 AGRICULTURAL USE
The Site historically was used for agricultural purposes for several decades. Pesticides may have been applied to crops in the normal course of farming operations. Residual pesticide concentrations may remain in on-Site soil. If elevated concentrations of agricultural chemicals are present, mitigation or soil management measures may be required. We recommend performing soil sampling to evaluate if agricultural chemicals are present at concentrations that may pose a risk to human health. At agricultural properties, pesticides often were stored within structures such as barns or sheds. The recommended sampling should include an evaluation of these former structures, along with the agricultural field areas.

9.4 LEAD-BASED PAINT AND TERMITE CONTROL PESTICIDES
In 1978, the Consumer Product Safety Commission banned lead-containing paints and coatings sold for consumer use. Some lead-containing products, such as industrial coatings, however, are still allowed. Based on the age of the existing Cupertino Senior Center and Quinlan Community Center buildings, lead-containing paint is not likely to be present. Some of the Memorial Park structures (such a restrooms) appear to have been constructed during the 1970s and have greater potential for the presence of lead-containing paint. If demolition is planned, the removal of lead-containing paint is not required if it is bonded to the building materials.

However, if the lead-containing paint is flaking, peeling, or blistering, it should be removed prior to demolition. In either case, applicable OSHA regulations must be followed; these include Ii! CORNERSTONE

EARTH GROUP
1204
CC 04-03-2024
1204 of 1277
Cupertino Memorial Park, 10185 North Stelling Road and
21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California
118-139-1

requirements for worker training, air monitoring and dust control, among others. Any debris or soil containing lead must be disposed appropriately.

Soil adjacent to structures, if painted with lead-containing paint, can become impacted with lead as a result of the weathering and/or peeling of painted surfaces. Soil near wood framed structures also can be impacted by pesticides historically used to control termites. No information was identified during this study documenting the use of lead based paint or termite control pesticides on-Site; however, if previously used, residual pesticide and lead concentrations may remain in on-Site soil. Lead and/or pesticides often are identified in soil near old residences and outbuildings, such as those historically located on-Site. We recommend that shallow soil at the former structure locations be evaluated for the possible presence of lead and pesticides.

9.5 ASBESTOS CONTAINING BUILDING MATERIALS (ACBMS)
Based on the age of the existing Cupertino Senior Center and Quinlan Community Center buildings, it is unlikely that these building materials contain asbestos. Some of the Memorial Park structures (such a restrooms) appear to have been constructed during the 1970s and have greater potential for the presence of asbestos. If demolition, renovation, or re-roofing of the buildings is planned, an asbestos survey may be required by local authorities or National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) guidelines. NESHAP guidelines require the removal of potentially friable ACBMs prior to building demolition or renovation that may disturb the ACBM.

9.6 IMPORTED SOIL
If the planned development will require importing soil for Site grading, we recommend documenting the source and quality of imported soil. The DTSC’s October 2001 Clean Fill Advisory provides useful guidance on evaluating imported fill.

9.7 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS WITHIN THE SITE VICINITY Based on the information obtained during this study, no hazardous material spill incidents have been reported in the Site vicinity that would be likely to significantly impact the Site.

9.8 DATA GAPS
ASTM Standard E1527-21 requires the Environmental Professional to comment on significant data gaps that affect our ability to identify Recognized Environmental Conditions. A data gap is a lack of or inability to obtain information required by the ASTM Standard despite good faith efforts by the Environmental Professional to gather such information. A data gap by itself is not inherently significant; it only becomes significant if it raises reasonable concerns. No significant data gaps were identified during this Phase I ESA.

9.9 DATA FAILURES
As described by ASTM Standard E1527-21, a data failure occurs when all of the standard historical sources that are reasonably ascertainable and likely to be useful have been reviewed and yet the historical research objectives have not been met. Data failures are not uncommon when attempting to identify the use of a Site at five year intervals back to the first use or to 1940 Ii! CORNERSTONE

EARTH GROUP
1205
CC 04-03-2024
1205 of 1277
Cupertino Memorial Park, 10185 North Stelling Road and
21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California
118-139-1

(whichever is earlier). The ASTM Standard requires the Environmental Professional to comment on the significance of data failures and whether the data failure affects our ability to identify Recognized Environmental Conditions. A data failure by itself is not inherently significant; it only becomes significant if it raises reasonable concerns. No significant data failures were identified during this Phase I ESA.

9.10 RECOGNIZED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Cornerstone has performed a Phase I ESA in general conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM E1527-21. This assessment identified the following Recognized Environmental Conditions2
.
 The Site historically was used for agricultural purposes. There is a potential that residual pesticides could remain in Site soil. If present, this soil may require appropriate management.
 Soil adjacent to structures that are painted with lead-containing paint can become impacted with lead as a result of the weathering and/or peeling of painted surfaces. Soil near wood-framed structures also can be impacted by pesticides historically used to control termites. There is a potential that residual lead and pesticide concentrations could remain in on-Site soil resulting from prior on-Site structures.

This assessment did not identify any Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions3 or Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions4 associated with the Site.

SECTION 10: LIMITATIONS
Cornerstone performed this Phase I ESA to support David J. Powers & Associates in evaluation of Recognized Environmental Conditions associated with the Site. David J. Powers & Associates understands that no Phase I ESA can wholly eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for Recognized Environmental Conditions to be present at the Site. This Phase I ESA is intended to reduce, but not eliminate, uncertainty regarding the potential for Recognized Environmental Conditions. David J. Powers & Associates understands that the extent of information obtained is based on the reasonable limits of time and budgetary constraints.

Findings, opinions, conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on readily available information, conditions readily observed at the time of the Site visit, and/or information readily identified by the interviews and/or the records review process. Phase I ESAs are inherently limited because findings are developed based on information obtained from a non-intrusive Site evaluation. Cornerstone does not accept liability for deficiencies, errors, or 2 Recognized Environmental Condition means 1) the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property due to a release to the environment; 2) the likely presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property due to a release or likely release to the environment; or 3) the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment.
3 A Recognized Environmental Condition that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory agency with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls. 4 A previous release of hazardous substances or petroleum products affecting the Site that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory agency and meeting unrestricted use criteria established by the applicable regulatory agency without subjecting the Site to any controls.

Is! CORNERSTONE

EARTH GROUP
1206
CC 04-03-2024
1206 of 1277
Cupertino Memorial Park, 10185 North Stelling Road and
21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California
118-139-1

misstatements that have resulted from inaccuracies in the publicly available information or from interviews of persons knowledgeable of Site use. In addition, publicly available information and field observations often cannot affirm the presence of Recognized Environmental Conditions; there is a possibility that such conditions exist. If a greater degree of confidence is desired, soil, groundwater, soil vapor and/or air samples should be collected by Cornerstone and analyzed by a state-certified laboratory to establish a more reliable assessment of environmental conditions.

Cornerstone acquired an environmental database of selected publicly available information for the general area of the Site. Cornerstone cannot verify the accuracy or completeness of the database report, nor is Cornerstone obligated to identify mistakes or insufficiencies in the information provided (ASTM E1527-21, Section 8.1.3). Due to inadequate address information, the environmental database may have mapped several facilities inaccurately or could not map the facilities. Releases from these facilities, if nearby, could impact the Site.

David J. Powers & Associates may have provided Cornerstone environmental documents prepared by others. David J. Powers & Associates understands that Cornerstone reviewed and relied on the information presented in these reports and cannot be responsible for their accuracy.

This report, an instrument of professional service, was prepared for the sole use of David J.

Powers & Associates and may not be reproduced or distributed without written authorization from Cornerstone. Cornerstone makes no warranty, expressed or implied, except that our services have been performed in accordance with the environmental principles generally accepted at this time and location.

10.1 REPORT VIABILITY
Per ASTM E1527-21 and 40 CFR Part 312, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment report is presumed to be viable when it is conducted within one year prior to the date of acquisition of the subject property (or, for transactions not involving an acquisition such as a lease or refinance, the date of the intended transaction), provided that the following components of the inquiries were conducted or updated within 180 days prior to the date of purchase or the date of the intended transaction:

Task Date Competed
Interview with current owner and occupant September 21, 2022 Review of standard government environmental record sources September 19, 2022 Visual observation of the Site and of adjoining properties September 26, 2022 Declaration by the Environmental Professional October 13, 2022 Searches for recorded environmental cleanup liens User responsibility Is! CORNERSTONE

EARTH GROUP
1207
CC 04-03-2024
1207 of 1277
Project Number
Figure Number
Date Drawn By
118-139-1
Figure 1
RRN
Vicinity Map
Cupertino Memorial Park
10185 North Stelling Road and
21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Cupterino, CA October 2022
N
SITE
Anton Way
Alves Drive

WO ODLAND

A CRE S - THE

HI GHLANDS
~ Antonio
e Preserve
ft Gate of Heaven
T Catholic Cemetery
Trader Joe's q Homestead Rd
Blackberry Farm Q
Golf Course Y
Homestead High School9
Stevens Cieek Blvd
ft Blackberry Farm
T Recreation and Pool
Crunch Fitness ft
- Sunnyvale T
9 De Anza
College
9 Monta Vista Higli School
Deep Cliff Golf Course .
l
McClellan
Ranch
Preserve -
. Taiwan Porridge E Homeste&d Rd
Northpoint HOA q
Junlpero Se
z
!!I
IL
i
C. "'
Apple Infinite Loop q,
z
1 Targetq, i&'
i!/.

Stevens Creek Blvd Cupertino
MCCieiion Rd
Trader Joe's
The Home Depotq, '
Stevens C1eek Btvd
Paclnca Dr
"' a,
5'
~
l
<'fl Jollyman Park
;
"'j;

CORNERSTONE

EARTH GROUP
~
'<
it;
j
CD

BI RD L

N EIGH B
99 Ranch Market q E Homestead Rd
,,.,, F'w;,
AppleParkq,
z
J
~
Lary Dog ~ Restaurant & Bar T Ste'a'enS Creek BIYd
Cupertino High School 9
Creekside Park
eollin,gef Rd
Shang Cafe San
v'v,
1208
CC 04-03-2024
1208 of 1277
Anton Way
Alves Drive
North Stelling Road
Stevens Creek Boulevard Christensen Drive Christensen Drive Mary Avenue Mary Avenue
Golden Gate Drive
Alves Drive
Approximate
Site Boundary
Base by Google Earth, dated 08/15/2020
Project Number
Figure Number
Date Drawn By
118-139-1
Figure 2
RRN
Site Plan
Cupertino Memorial Park
10185 North Stelling Road and
21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Cupterino, CA October 2022
0 200 400

APPROXIMATE SCALE (FEET)
N
Residential
Cupertino Sports Center
Mixed-use development
(under construction)
De Anza College
Residential
Residential
Residential
w a. Z :> o o
I- n:
en c, et: WI Z to:: n: 0 <( U w
mi
1209
CC 04-03-2024
1209 of 1277
APPENDIX A – DATABASE SEARCH REPORT
Ii! CORNERSTONE

EARTH GROUP
1210
CC 04-03-2024
1210 of 1277
APPENDIX B – HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND MAPS
Ii! CORNERSTONE

EARTH GROUP
1211
CC 04-03-2024
1211 of 1277
APPENDIX C – LOCAL STREET DIRECTORY SEARCH RESULTS
Ii! CORNERSTONE

EARTH GROUP
1212
CC 04-03-2024
1212 of 1277
APPENDIX D – QUESTIONNAIRE
Ii! CORNERSTONE

EARTH GROUP
1213
CC 04-03-2024
1213 of 1277

MEMORIAL PARK SPECIFIC PLAN

NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT

CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
December 19, 2023
♦ ♦ ♦
Prepared for:

Nick Towstopiat
Associate Project Manager
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.
1871 The Alameda, Suite 200
San José, CA 95126
Prepared by:

Heather A. Bruce and
Michael S. Thill
429 East Cotati Avenue
Cotati, CA 94931
(707) 794-0400
I&R Job No.: 23-101
• ATTACHMENT D • APPENDIX E •
ILLINGWORTH&RoalCIN,INC.
11111 Acoustics • Air Quality 11111
1214
CC 04-03-2024
1214 of 1277
1 INTRODUCTION
The approximate 22.5-acre project site currently contains Memorial Park, the Quinlan-Community Center, and the Cupertino Senor Center in the City of Cupertino. Within Memorial Park, there are currently six tennis courts (including one court that is dual-lined to provide four pickleball courts), a softball field, an amphitheater, the Cupertino Veterans Memorial, playground areas, picnic areas, and the Memorial Park Gazebo. Until 2013, Memorial Park also contained a concrete-lined, artificial pond in the central portion of the park south of the softball field. It was drained in 2013 in response to the ongoing drought, and was proposed for removal under the City’s 2021-2022 Capital Improvement Program. In 2022, construction began under a separate project application to remove the concrete liner, backfill and grade the area, install landscaping and sodded turf, and pedestrian pathways. The park is currently open from sunrise to 10 p.m. seven days per week.

The project proposes to implement a Specific Plan for Memorial Park that outlines improvements planned for the park. Although no improvements are proposed for the Quinlan Community Center or Cupertino Senior Center buildings, the project would upgrade the courtyards outside these two buildings with new landscaping and seating areas. The project’s primary components include:
• Softball Field- the existing softball field would continue to be used for programmed adult softball leagues, senior softball activities, and public rentals throughout the year. However, the area would also serve as a dog off-leash area (DOLA) when the softball field is not in use. Operation of the DOLA would likely be limited to several hours in the afternoon during normal park operating hours;
• Tennis Courts- six existing tennis courts on the northwest corner of the project site would remain in the same location, and the only proposed change under the Master Plan would be to remove the pickleball dual-striping on one of the tennis courts; • Basketball Court- a basketball court with new lighting would be added adjacent to the eastern side of the softball field, and the existing landscaped berms would be utilized as seating areas around the new basketball court;
• Pickleball Courts- eight pickleball courts would be added on the southeast corner of the site, adjacent to the intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Anton Way. Additional lighting would be installed for the pickleball courts, and the courts would be open during normal park operating hours.
• Bocce Ball Court- would be installed adjacent to the Senior Center, and would be programmed for Senior Center socials, classes, and public rentals. No new lights are proposed for the bocce ball court;
• Playground Areas- Currently, the park contains two playground areas, one south of the tennis courts and one south of the amphitheater. The project would relocate and replace these playground areas with an All-Abilities Playground area and a Nature Playground area, both of which would be centrally located within the park between the Senior Center 1215
CC 04-03-2024
1215 of 1277
2 and softball field. A new publicly accessible restroom would be constructed adjacent to the All-Abilities Playground area;
• Picnic Areas- the existing reservable picnic area east of the softball field would be renovated and two new picnic areas would be added on-site. Renovation of the existing picnic area would include replacing the decomposed granite surfacing with concrete surfacing, installing new shade structures, installing new landscaping and trees, and providing additional barbeque and potable water stations. One new picnic area would be constructed south of the Veterans Memorial and a second would be constructed adjacent to the Memorial park Gazebo. Both new picnic areas would include picnic tables and shade structures;
• Amphitheater- the existing amphitheater has an official seating capacity of approximately 140 people. Currently, the programming for the amphitheater includes concerts and theater productions that occur during the summer months (June through September). These events generally occur between 10:30 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. depending on the type of performance.

Typically, the adjacent lawn areas act as unofficial seating for the attendees that cannot be accommodated by the seats. Performances at the amphitheater can draw as many as 300 to 500 attendees. The project would upgrade the existing amphitheater to increase the amount of seating available, provide Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant improvements such as reinforced stairs and pathways, and install a shade structure. In addition, the existing stage infrastructure would be improved through the installation of a new shade structure, new surfacing, and telecommunication and fiber optic equipment. The types of performances held at the amphitheater would remain the same. The project would not create a larger stage to accommodate larger scale events; • Park Programing would include events typically range in size from as low as 100 to 150 attendees for minor events to as high as 4,000 to 5,000 attendees for major events like the annual Cherry Blossom Festival. Spillover parking for larger events is accommodated in the surface parking areas at De Anza College, which is located across the street on the south side of Stevens Creek Boulevard. The proposed project would not alter the type or scale of the current events held at the park; however, if some of the currently scheduled events are no longer held in the future, alternative events may be scheduled to take their place. In addition to the existing event lawn area located west of the Quinlan Community Center, the project would reconfigure a smaller (i.e., approximately 70,000 square feet) area comprised of lawn and hardscaping south of the softball field where the concrete-lined pond was previously located. Events would include:
o Easter Egg Hunt
o Holi Celebration
o Cherry Blossom Festival
o YAB Summer Kick-Off
o Relay for Life: Silicon Valley North
o Field Day
o Independence Day Celebration
o Rotary Fall Festival
1216
CC 04-03-2024
1216 of 1277
3 o Bhubaneswar Sister City Celebration
o Diwali Festival
o Veteran’s Day Memorial Ceremony
This report evaluates the project’s potential to result in significant noise and vibration impacts with respect to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines. The report is divided into three sections: 1) the Setting Section provides a brief description of the fundamentals of environmental noise and groundborne vibration, summarizes applicable regulatory criteria, and discusses the results of the ambient noise monitoring survey completed to document existing noise conditions; 2) the General Plan Consistency Section discusses noise and land use compatibility utilizing policies in the City of Cupertino’s General Plan; and 3) the Impacts and Mitigation Measures Section describes the significance criteria used to evaluate project impacts, provides a discussion of each project impact, and presents measures, where necessary, to mitigate the impacts of the project on sensitive receptors in the vicinity.

SETTING
Fundamentals of Environmental Noise
Noise may be defined as unwanted sound. Noise is usually objectionable because it is disturbing or annoying. The objectionable nature of sound could be caused by its pitch or its loudness. Pitch is the height or depth of a tone or sound, depending on the relative rapidity (frequency) of the vibrations by which it is produced. Higher pitched signals sound louder to humans than sounds with a lower pitch. Loudness is the intensity of sound waves combined with the reception characteristics of the ear. Intensity may be compared with the height of an ocean wave in that it is a measure of the amplitude of the sound wave.

In addition to the concepts of pitch and loudness, there are several noise measurement scales which are used to describe noise in a particular location. A decibel (dB) is a unit of measurement which indicates the relative amplitude of a sound. The zero on the decibel scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Sound levels in decibels are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 decibels represents a ten-fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 decibels is 100 times more intense, 30 decibels is 1,000 times more intense, etc. There is a relationship between the subjective noisiness or loudness of a sound and its intensity. Each 10 decibel increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness over a fairly wide range of intensities. Technical terms are defined in Table 1.

There are several methods of characterizing sound. The most common in California is the Aweighted sound level (dBA). This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. Representative outdoor and indoor noise levels in units of dBA are shown in Table 2. Because sound levels can vary markedly over a short period of time, a method for describing either the average character of the sound or the statistical behavior of the variations must be utilized. Most commonly, environmental sounds are described in terms of an average level that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time-varying events.

This energy-equivalent sound/noise descriptor is called Leq. The most common averaging period is hourly, but Leq can describe any series of noise events of arbitrary duration. 1217
CC 04-03-2024
1217 of 1277
4 The scientific instrument used to measure noise is the sound level meter. Sound level meters can accurately measure environmental noise levels to within about plus or minus 1 dBA. Various computer models are used to predict environmental noise levels from sources, such as roadways and airports. The accuracy of the predicted models depends upon the distance the receptor is from the noise source. Close to the noise source, the models are accurate to within about plus or minus 1 to 2 dBA.

Since the sensitivity to noise increases during the evening and at night – because excessive noise interferes with the ability to sleep – 24-hour descriptors have been developed that incorporate artificial noise penalties added to quiet-time noise events. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a measure of the cumulative noise exposure in a community, with a 5 dB penalty added to evening (7:00 p.m. – 10:00 p.m.) and a 10 dB addition to nocturnal (10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.) noise levels. The Day/Night Average Sound Level (DNL or Ldn) is essentially the same as CNEL, with the exception that the evening time period is dropped and all occurrences during this threehour period are grouped into the daytime period.

Effects of Noise
Sleep and Speech Interference
The thresholds for speech interference indoors are about 45 dBA if the noise is steady and above 55 dBA if the noise is fluctuating. Outdoors the thresholds are about 15 dBA higher. Steady noises of sufficient intensity (above 35 dBA) and fluctuating noise levels above about 45 dBA have been shown to affect sleep. Interior residential standards for multi-family dwellings are set by the State of California at 45 dBA Ldn. Typically, the highest steady traffic noise level during the daytime is about equal to the Ldn and nighttime levels are 10 dBA lower. The standard is designed for sleep and speech protection and most jurisdictions apply the same criterion for all residential uses.

Typical structural attenuation is 12-17 dBA with open windows. With closed windows in good condition, the noise attenuation factor is around 20 dBA for an older structure and 25 dBA for a newer dwelling. Sleep and speech interference is therefore possible when exterior noise levels are about 57-62 dBA Ldn with open windows and 65-70 dBA Ldn if the windows are closed. Levels of 55-60 dBA are common along collector streets and secondary arterials, while 65-70 dBA is a typical value for a primary/major arterial. Levels of 75-80 dBA are normal noise levels at the first row of development outside a freeway right-of-way. In order to achieve an acceptable interior noise environment, bedrooms facing secondary roadways need to be able to have their windows closed, those facing major roadways and freeways typically need special glass windows.

Annoyance
Attitude surveys are used for measuring the annoyance felt in a community for noises intruding into homes or affecting outdoor activity areas. In these surveys, it was determined that the causes for annoyance include interference with speech, radio and television, house vibrations, and interference with sleep and rest. The Ldn as a measure of noise has been found to provide a valid correlation of noise level and the percentage of people annoyed. People have been asked to judge the annoyance caused by aircraft noise and ground transportation noise. There continues to be 1218
CC 04-03-2024
1218 of 1277
5 disagreement about the relative annoyance of these different sources. When measuring the percentage of the population highly annoyed, the threshold for ground vehicle noise is about 50 dBA Ldn. At a Ldn of about 60 dBA, approximately 12 percent of the population is highly annoyed.

When the Ldn increases to 70 dBA, the percentage of the population highly annoyed increases to about 25-30 percent of the population. There is, therefore, an increase of about 2 percent per dBA between a Ldn of 60-70 dBA. Between a Ldn of 70-80 dBA, each decibel increase increases by about 3 percent the percentage of the population highly annoyed. People appear to respond more adversely to aircraft noise. When the Ldn is 60 dBA, approximately 30-35 percent of the population is believed to be highly annoyed. Each decibel increase to 70 dBA adds about 3 percentage points to the number of people highly annoyed. Above 70 dBA, each decibel increase results in about a 4 percent increase in the percentage of the population highly annoyed.

TABLE 1 Definition of Acoustical Terms Used in this Report Term Definition
Decibel, dB A unit describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure. The reference pressure for air is 20 micro Pascals.

Sound Pressure Level Sound pressure is the sound force per unit area, usually expressed in micro Pascals (or 20 micro Newtons per square meter), where 1 Pascal is the pressure resulting from a force of 1 Newton exerted over an area of 1 square meter. The sound pressure level is expressed in decibels as 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio between the pressures exerted by the sound to a reference sound pressure (e. g., 20 micro Pascals). Sound pressure level is the quantity that is directly measured by a sound level meter.

Frequency, Hz The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below atmospheric pressure. Normal human hearing is between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz. Infrasonic sound are below 20 Hz and Ultrasonic sounds are above 20,000 Hz.

A-Weighted Sound
Level, dBA
The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise.

Equivalent Noise Level,
Leq
The average A-weighted noise level during the measurement period.

Lmax, Lmin
The maximum and minimum A-weighted noise level during the measurement period.

L01, L10, L50, L90
The A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded 1%, 10%, 50%, and 90% of the time during the measurement period.

Day/Night Noise Level,
Ldn or DNL
The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 10 decibels to levels measured in the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
1219
CC 04-03-2024
1219 of 1277
6 Term Definition
Community Noise
Equivalent Level,
CNEL
The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 5 decibels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and after addition of 10 decibels to sound levels measured in the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

Ambient Noise Level The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location.

Intrusive That noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence and tonal or informational content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level.

Source: Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control, Harris, 1998. 1220
CC 04-03-2024
1220 of 1277
7 TABLE 2 Typical Noise Levels in the Environment
Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor Activities 110 dBA Rock band
Jet fly-over at 1,000 feet
100 dBA
Gas lawn mower at 3 feet
90 dBA
Diesel truck at 50 feet at 50 mph Food blender at 3 feet 80 dBA Garbage disposal at 3 feet
Noisy urban area, daytime
Gas lawn mower, 100 feet 70 dBA Vacuum cleaner at 10 feet Commercial area Normal speech at 3 feet
Heavy traffic at 300 feet 60 dBA
Large business office
Quiet urban daytime 50 dBA Dishwasher in next room
Quiet urban nighttime 40 dBA Theater, large conference room Quiet suburban nighttime
30 dBA Library
Quiet rural nighttime Bedroom at night, concert hall
(background)
20 dBA
Broadcast/recording studio
10 dBA
0 dBA
Source: Technical Noise Supplement (TeNS), California Department of Transportation, September 2013. 1221
CC 04-03-2024
1221 of 1277
8 Fundamentals of Groundborne Vibration
Ground vibration consists of rapidly fluctuating motions or waves with an average motion of zero.

Several different methods are typically used to quantify vibration amplitude. One method is the Peak Particle Velocity (PPV). The PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration wave. In this report, a PPV descriptor with units of mm/sec or in/sec is used to evaluate construction generated vibration for building damage and human complaints.

Table 3 displays the reactions of people and the effects on buildings that continuous or frequent intermittent vibration levels produce. The guidelines in Table 3 represent syntheses of vibration criteria for human response and potential damage to buildings resulting from construction vibration.

Construction activities can cause vibration that varies in intensity depending on several factors.

The use of pile driving and vibratory compaction equipment typically generates the highest construction related groundborne vibration levels. Because of the impulsive nature of such activities, the use of the PPV descriptor has been routinely used to measure and assess groundborne vibration and almost exclusively to assess the potential of vibration to cause damage and the degree of annoyance for humans.

The two primary concerns with construction-induced vibration, the potential to damage a structure and the potential to interfere with the enjoyment of life, are evaluated against different vibration limits. Human perception to vibration varies with the individual and is a function of physical setting and the type of vibration. Persons exposed to elevated ambient vibration levels, such as people in an urban environment, may tolerate a higher vibration level.

Structural damage can be classified as cosmetic only, such as paint flaking or minimal extension of cracks in building surfaces; minor, including limited surface cracking; or major, that may threaten the structural integrity of the building. Safe vibration limits that can be applied to assess the potential for damaging a structure vary by researcher. The damage criteria presented in Table 3 include several categories for ancient, fragile, and historic structures, the types of structures most at risk to damage. Most buildings are included within the categories ranging from “Historic and some old buildings” to “Modern industrial/commercial buildings”. Construction-induced vibration that can be detrimental to the building is very rare and has only been observed in instances where the structure is at a high state of disrepair and the construction activity occurs immediately adjacent to the structure.

The annoyance levels shown in Table 3 should be interpreted with care since vibration may be found to be annoying at lower levels than those shown, depending on the level of activity or the sensitivity of the individual. To sensitive individuals, vibrations approaching the threshold of perception can be annoying. Low-level vibrations frequently cause irritating secondary vibration, such as a slight rattling of windows, doors, or stacked dishes. The rattling sound can give rise to exaggerated vibration complaints, even though there is very little risk of actual structural damage. 1222
CC 04-03-2024
1222 of 1277
9 TABLE 3 Reaction of People and Damage to Buildings from Continuous or Frequent Intermittent Vibration Levels
Velocity Level,
PPV (in/sec) Human Reaction Effect on Buildings

0.01 Barely perceptible No effect

0.04 Distinctly perceptible Vibration unlikely to cause damage of any type to any structure

0.08 Distinctly perceptible to
strongly perceptible
Recommended upper level of the vibration to
which ruins and ancient monuments should be
subjected

0.1 Strongly perceptible Virtually no risk of damage to normal buildings

0.25 Strongly perceptible to
severe
Threshold at which there is a risk of damage to
historic and some old buildings.

0.3 Strongly perceptible to
severe
Threshold at which there is a risk of damage to
older residential dwellings such as plastered
walls or ceilings

0.5 Severe–- Vibrations
considered unpleasant
Threshold at which there is a risk of damage to
newer residential structures
Source: Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, California Department of Transportation, April 2020.

Regulatory Background
This section describes the relevant guidelines, policies, and standards established by State Agencies, Santa Clara County, and the City of Cupertino. The State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, are used to assess the potential significance of impacts pursuant to local General Plan policies, Municipal Code standards, or the applicable standards of other agencies. A summary of the applicable regulatory criteria is provided below.

Federal Government
Federal Transit Administration. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has identified construction noise thresholds in the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 1 which limit daytime construction noise to 80 dBA Leq at residential land uses, 85 dBA Leq at commercial land uses, and to 90 dBA Leq at industrial land uses.

State of California
State CEQA Guidelines. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) contains guidelines to evaluate the significance of effects of environmental noise attributable to a proposed project.

Under CEQA, noise impacts would be considered significant if the project would result in:
1 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, FTA Report No. 0123, September 2018.
1223
CC 04-03-2024
1223 of 1277
10 (a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; (b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; (c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, if the project would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

City of Cupertino General Plan. The Health and Safety Chapter in the City of Cupertino General Plan sets forth policies related to noise control in the City. The following policies are applicable to the proposed project:

Policy HS-8.1: Land Use Decision Evaluation. Use the Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments chart (see Figure HS-8), the Future Noise Contour Map (see Figure D-2), and the City Municipal Code to evaluate land use decisions.

Policy HS-8.3: Construction and Maintenance Activities. Establish and enforce reasonable allowable periods of the day during weekdays, weekends, and holidays for construction activities. Require the construction contractors to use the best available technology to minimize excessive noise and vibration from construction equipment such as pile drivers, jack hammers, and vibratory rollers.

Policy HS-8.5: Neighborhoods. Review residents’ needs for convenience and safety and prioritize them over the convenient movement of commute or through traffic where practical.

Policy HS-8.6: Traffic Calming Solutions to Street Noise. Evaluated solutions to discourage through traffic in neighborhoods through enhanced paving and modified street design.

Strategy HS-8.6.1: Local Improvement. Modify street design to minimize noise impact to neighbors.
1224
CC 04-03-2024
1224 of 1277
11 Land Use Category
Residential - Low Density
(Single Family, Duplex,
Mobile Homes)
Res1den1,al - Multi Fam,ly
T ranslent Lodging
(Motels, Hotels)
Schools, Ubratoes, Churches,
Hospitals, Nursing Homes
Auditoriums, Concert Halls,
Amphitheatets
Sports Arena, Outdoor
Spectator Sports
Playgrounds,
Neighborhood Parks
Golf Coutses, Riding Stables,
Woter Recreation. Cemcteri~
Office Buildings, Commercial
and Professional Centers
Industrial. Manufacturing,
Utilities, Agncuhure
FIGURE HS-8

LAND USE COMPATIBILITY FOR

COMMUNITY NOISE ENVIRONMENTS
Community Noise Exposure
55 60
(l.,,,
65 or CNEL.
70 dB)
75 -
I
~
I I I
1 1 I
I I I
.

I
. .
.
80 ~
-
"
. ~
N01mally Acceptoblc
Specified land U$e I~ Jatt:sfactory.
based u.pO<l the as$umpt.10n 1hat 4ny
bu1ld1ngs Involved are of ,-.om,aJ
convontional construcbon, wrthout
any spcei~I nois:o mwlatton
roquirbrncmts.
-
Cond1t1onalty Acceptable
New cof\S.tructlor\ or devok>pmet'lt
should be undertaken ordy ahet a
detailed ;,nnlysis of the noise
reduc;t1on reqvltements ,s made and
needed noise ,edua1on featYres
mduded 1n the design. Comtenbona,
coci,truction. but wrth dosed wlndow·s
Mid f1esh .,., suppty syate.l't'\S ot atr
c0f'ld1t1orun9 will no,m111ty suffice
-
Normally Vn..:ceptable
New construction or developmeot
should 9ener-ally be d1.Sco.m1ged If
!'\ow <:Otl.S:ttuct•on 0( developmt1nt
doe, ptocead, a detaite-d analy,1s ol
the notse red1JC11on requirementl
mv5t bG mc1de af'ld needed noi$O
,nsulation features lndvded In the
desigr,
-
Cfearly Un.a<:cept~ble
New constrvctlon or dawk,pm~flt
should generally not bo undet14iken
1225
CC 04-03-2024
1225 of 1277
12 City of Cupertino Municipal Code. The City’s Municipal Code contains a Zoning Ordinance that limits noise levels at adjacent properties. The following sections establish applicable limits:

10.48.040 Daytime and Nighttime Maximum Noise Levels. Individual noise sources, or the combination of a group of noise sources located on the same property, shall not produce a noise level exceeding those specified on property zoned as follows, unless specifically provided in another section of this chapter:

Land Use at Point of Origin Maximum Noise Level at Complaint Site of Receiving Property
Nighttime Daytime
Residential 50 dBA 60 dBA
Nonresidential 55 dBA 65 dBA

10.48.50 Brief Daytime Incidents.

A During the daytime period only, brief noise incidents exceeding limits in other sections of this chapter are allowed; providing, that the sum of the noise duration in minutes plus the excess noise level does not exceed twenty in a two-hour period. For example, the following combinations would be allowable:

FIGURE 0-2

FUTURE NOISE CONTOURS
)
... I I
a o/Sa ,
a
60 dBA CNEL contour - 6$d8AC CL-tou1 70 dMC EL contour
Oty8oundary
1226
CC 04-03-2024
1226 of 1277
13 Noise Increment Above Normal
Standard Noise Duration in 2-Hour Period
5 dBA 15 minutes
10 dBA 10 minutes
15 dBA 5 minutes
19 dBA 1 minute
B For multifamily dwelling interior noise, Section 10.48.054, the sum of excess noise level and duration in minutes of a brief daytime incident shall not exceed ten in any two-hour period, measured at the receiving location.

C Section 10.48.050A does not apply to Section 10.48.055 (Motor Vehicle Idling).

10.48.051 Landscape Maintenance Activities. The use of motorized equipment for landscape maintenance activities shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays, with the exception of landscape maintenance activities for public schools, public and private golf courses, and public facilities, which are allowed to begin at 7:00 a.m. The use of motorized equipment for landscape maintenance activities during these hours is exempted from the limits of Section 10.48.040; provided, that reasonable efforts are made by the user to minimize the disturbances to nearby residents by, for example, installation of appropriate mufflers or noise baffles, running equipment only the minimal period necessary, and locating equipment so as to generate minimum noise levels on adjoining properties.

10.48.052 Outdoor Public Events.

A Outdoor events open to the general public on nonresidential property, such as parades, rallies, fairs, concerts and special sales and promotional events, involving generation of noise levels higher than would normally occur, by use of the human voice, public address systems, musical instruments, electronic amplification systems, and similar sound producing activities, are allowed upon obtaining an appropriate permit from the city, and subject to the following general limitations:
1 The event shall not produce noise levels above seventy dBA on any residential property for a period longer than three hours during daytime. 2 The event shall not produce noise levels above sixty dBA on any residential property during the period from eight p.m. to eleven p.m., and above fifty-five dBA for any other nighttime period.
3 Continuous or repeated peak noise levels above ninety-five dBA shall not be produced at any location where persons may be continuously exposed.

B The conditions imposed upon the event or activity in the permit issued by the City, regarding maximum noise level, location of noise sources, or duration of activity, for example, may be more limiting than this section, to protect certain individuals, areas or nearby activities which would otherwise be disturbed, and these permit conditions, when in conflict with this section, are overriding.

10.48.53 Grading, Construction and Demolition.

A Grading, construction and demolition activities shall be allowed to exceed the noise limits of Section 10.48.040 during daytime hours; provided, that the equipment utilized has high-quality 1227
CC 04-03-2024
1227 of 1277
14 noise muffler and abatement devices installed and in good condition, and the activity meets one of the following two criteria:

1. No individual device produces a noise level more than eighty-seven dBA at a distance of twenty-five feet (7.5 meters); or
2 The noise level on any nearby property does not exceed eighty dBA.

B Notwithstanding Section 10.48.053A, it is a violation of this chapter to engage in any grading, street construction, demolition or underground utility work within seven hundred fifty feet of a residential area on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, and during the nighttime period, except as provided in Section 10.48.030.

C Construction, other than street construction, is prohibited on holidays, except as provided in Sections 10.48.029 and 10.48.030.

D Construction, other than street construction, is prohibited during nighttime periods unless it meets the nighttime standards of Section 10.48.040.

E The use of helicopters as a part of a construction and/or demolition activity shall be restricted to between the hours of nine a.m. and six thirty p.m. Monday through Friday only, and prohibited on the weekends and holidays. The notice shall be given at least twenty-four hours in advance of said usage. In cases of emergency, the twenty-four hour period may be waived.

10.48.055 Motor Vehicle Idling. Motor vehicles, including automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, motor scooters and trailers or other equipment towed by a motor vehicle, shall not be allowed to remain in one location with the engine or auxiliary motors running for more than three minutes in any hour, in an area other than on a public right-of-way, unless:

A The regular noise limits of Section 10.48.040 are met while the engine and/or auxiliary motors are running; or
B The vehicle is in use for provision of police, fire, medical, or other emergency services.

10.48.060 Noise Disturbances. No person shall unreasonably make, continue, or cause to be made or continued, any noise disturbance as defined in Section 10.48.010. “Noise disturbance” means any sound which:
1 Endangers or injures the safety or health of humans or animals; or 2 Annoys or disturbs a reasonable person of normal sensitivities; or 3 Endangers or damages personal or real property.

Existing Noise Environment
Figure 1 shows the existing park and vicinity. Figure 2 shows the proposed improvements to the park. The project site is located at the northeast corner of Mary Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard, and is bordered by Christensen Drive and single family residences to the north, North Stelling Road, Anton Way, and single family residential land uses and Cupertino Sports Center to the east, Alves Drive, Stevens Creek Boulevard, single family residential land uses, and DeAnza College to the south, Mary Avenue, and multi-family residential land uses to the west. SR-85 is located approximately 1,000 feet west of the project. The noise environment at the site and in the surrounding area results primarily from local vehicular traffic along Stevens Creek Boulevard, Mary Avenue, and Anton Way, as well as from recreational activities associated with the park itself.
1228
CC 04-03-2024
1228 of 1277
15 A noise monitoring survey consisting of two long-term noise measurements (LT-1 and LT-2) and six short-term noise measurements (ST-1 through ST-6) was made between Tuesday, August 29, 2023, and Friday, September 1, 2023. All noise measurement locations are shown in Figure 1.

Long-term noise measurement LT-1 was located along the eastern boundary of the park, approximately 20 feet west of the Anton Way centerline. Hourly average noise levels at LT-1 typically ranged from 49 to 60 dBA Leq during daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and from 34 to 55 dBA Leq during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). An abnormally high hourly average noise level of 68 dBA Leq was observed on Thursday, August 31, 2023 during the 9:00 a.m. hour. After careful review of the data, this noise level was removed from the CNEL calculation. The CNELs on Wednesday, August 29, 2023, and Thursday August 30, 2023 were 58 dBA. The main sources of noise at this location were traffic along Anton Way and activities occurring within the park. The daily trend in noise levels at LT-1 are shown in Figures A-1 through Figures A-4 in Appendix A.

Long-term noise measurement LT-2 was located along the west boundary of the park near an existing parking lot. Hourly average noise levels at LT-2 ranged from 47 to 65 dBA Leq during daytime hours and from 37 to 53 dBA Leq during the nighttime hours. Unusually high hourly average noise levels were observed on Tuesday August 29, 2023 during the 6:00 p.m. hour (60 dBA Leq) and on Thursday August 31, 2023 during the 3:00 p.m. hour (56 dBA Leq). The CNEL was 57 dBA on Wednesday, August 30, 2023, and 56 dBA on Thursday, August 31, 2023. The main sources of noise at this location were also traffic within the existing parking lot and park activities. The daily trend in noise levels at LT-2 are shown in A-5 through A-8 in Appendix A.

Short-term noise measurement ST-1 was conducted on Tuesday, August 29, 2023, between 12:35 p.m. and 12:50 p.m. As shown in Figure 1, measurement ST-1 was located within Memorial Park near an existing picnic area. The main noise source at this location was traffic along Stevens Creek Boulevard and Anton Way and playground noise. The 15-minute average noise level measured at this location was 55 dBA Leq.

Short-term noise measurement ST-2 was conducted on Tuesday, August 29, 2023, between 12:30 p.m. and 12:45 p.m. ST-2 was located within Memorial Park near the existing tennis courts and event lawn. The main noise source at this location was tennis play. The 15-minute average noise level measured at this location was 47 dBA Leq. Eight automobiles and 1 medium truck passed along Christensen Drive during this measurement period. Traffic along Christensen Drive produced noise levels of ranging from 44 to 53 dBA.

Short-term noise measurement ST-3 was conducted on Friday, September 1, 2023, between 3:55 p.m. and 4:10 p.m. ST-3 was located within Memorial Park adjacent to the existing playground.

The main noise sources at this location were children at the playground vehicular traffic along Stevens Creek Boulevard and Anton Way. The 15-minute average noise level measured at this location was 57 dBA Leq. Vehicles passing along Stevens Creek Boulevard and Anton Way during the measurement, producing noise levels ranging from 54 to 61 dBA. The existing playground produced noise levels ranging from 56 to 63 dBA.
1229
CC 04-03-2024
1229 of 1277
16 Short-term noise measurement ST-4 was conducted on Friday, September 1, 2023, between 3:20 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. ST-4 was located within Memorial Park adjacent to the existing softball field.

The main noise source at this location were musicians playing drums. The 10-minute average noise level measured at this location was 65 dBA Leq.

Short-term noise measurement ST-5 was conducted on Friday, September 1, 2023, between 3:10 p.m. and 3:20 p.m. ST-5 was located within Memorial Park adjacent to the existing pickleball courts. The main noise source at this location was pickleball play. The 10-minute average noise level measured at this location was 58 dBA Leq.

Short-term noise measurement ST-6 was conducted on Friday, September 1, 2023, between 3:40 p.m. and 3:50 p.m. ST-6 was located within Memorial Park adjacent to the existing tennis courts.

The main noise source at this location was tennis play. The 10-minute average noise level measured at this location was 58 dBA Leq.

A summary of short-term noise measurements ST-1 through ST-6 is shown in Table 4 below.

TABLE 4 Summary of Short-Term Noise Measurements (dBA)
Noise Measurement
Location Date, Time Measured Noise Level, dBA
Lmax L(1) L(10) L(50) L(90) Leq
ST-1: Memorial ParkPicnic Area
8/29/2023
12:35 p.m. to
12:50 p.m.
64 62 58 53 48 55
ST-2: Memorial Park –
Event Lawn and Tennis
Courts
8/29/2023
12:30 p.m. to
12:45 p.m.
60 53 49 46 45 47
ST-3: Memorial Park -
Playground
9/1/2023
3:55 p.m. to
4:10 p.m.
68 62 59 56 55 57
ST-4: Memorial Park –
Softball Field
9/1/2023
3:20 p.m. to
3:30 p.m.
71 69 68 65 54 65
ST-5 Memorial Park –
Pickleball Courts
9/1/2023
3:10 p.m. to
3:20 p.m.
68 65 61 56 53 58
ST-6 Memorial Park –
Tennis Courts
9/1/2023
3:40 p.m. to
3:50 p.m.
70 64 59 57 56 58
1230
CC 04-03-2024
1230 of 1277
17 FIGURE 1 Aerial Image of the Project Site and Surrounding Area with the Noise Measurement Locations Identified 1231
CC 04-03-2024
1231 of 1277
18 FIGURE 2 Memorial Park Specific Plan
LEGEND
0 New Sile Arrival
© New Portcing Loi
© Upgraded Restroom
© Passive Garden Walk
0 Pockleball Courts
© Expanded Senior Center C~rd
0 F'rtness Slahans
© Baccecavrt
0 Reservable Picnic Area
@ Nature Playground
@ Enhanced Pedestrian/ Rike Access
@ Veterans Memorial
@ upgraded Amphitheater and stage
@ Gazebo Picnic Area
Exlsllng trees (oaks, rdwds) @ Event Lawn
W Maintef91Ce @ Al-Abilities Playground
@ New Restroom
@ Rasketboll Court
@ Existing SoftboD Field / OOLA
@ Dedicated Tennis Courts
@ Upgraded Quinlan Courtyard
...,.. O 80 160 320
~~--,_I-i
@ Upgraded Partcing Lot
@) Eiosting Partcing Loi
~ ■ MEMORIALPARK
E1j I SPFCIFIC PLAN M emorial Pork ,v,.1n11No (,Alt" Septembe, 2023 1232
CC 04-03-2024
1232 of 1277
19 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Noise and Land Use Compatibility
Figure HS-8 of the City of Cupertino General Plan identifies 50 to 70 dB CNEL as normally acceptable for parks and playgrounds. The future noise environment at the project site would continue to result primarily from vehicular traffic along Stevens Creek Boulevard, Anton Way, North Stelling Road, and Alves Drive.

Long-term noise measurements LT-1 and LT-2 quantified existing CNEL noise levels. The results of these measurements showed that existing CNEL noise levels range from 57 to 58 dBA. The onsite noise measurement data is also consistent with projections for roadway noise. Based on a review of the future roadway noise contours from Cupertino’s General Plan, future noise levels in the project vicinity are anticipated to increase above existing levels by 2-3 dB but would not approach 70 dBA CNEL except within areas close to Stevens Creek Boulevard. The future noise exposure at activity areas proposed nearest to Stevens Creek Boulevard would reach 65 dBA CNEL. Therefore, future noise levels at the project site would be considered by the City of Cupertino to be compatible with the proposed recreational land uses.

NOISE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significance Criteria
The following criteria were used to evaluate the significance of environmental noise resulting from the project:
(a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; (b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; (c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, if the project would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
1233
CC 04-03-2024
1233 of 1277
20 Impact 1a: Noise from Project Operations. The proposed project would not result in a substantial permanent noise level increase. Further, the proposed project would not generate noise levels exceeding the City’s established thresholds at noise-sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. This is a less-than-significant impact.

When the source of noise originates from nonresidential land uses, Section 10.48.040 of the City’s Municipal Code limits noise levels received on any nearby land use to 65 dBA Leq during daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and to 55 dBA Leq at night (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). Additionally, Section 10.48.050 provides further noise limitations during daytime hours for sources that occur for brief periods of time. For a 5-minute noise duration occurring within a 2-hour period, the noise limits mentioned above would increase by 15 dBA (80 dBA during daytime hours and 70 dBA during nighttime hours). For a 1-minute noise duration occurring within a 2-hour period, the noise limits mentioned above would increase by 19 dBA (84 dBA during daytime hours and 74 dBA during nighttime hours). Most sports activities occurring at the park, including playground noise, would occur continuously for more than 30 minutes in any given hour, with intermittent maximum noise levels from whistles, etc. Parking lot activities would be intermittent; however, under worstcase conditions, which would occur before and after sports events, parking lot activities could occur continuously for more than 30 minutes in a given hour.

Existing daytime hourly average and maximum instantaneous noise levels at LT-1 range from 48 to 68 dBA Leq (average of 54 dBA Leq) and from 53 to 85 dBA Lmax (average of 70 dBA Lmax), respectively. For LT-2, daytime hourly average noise levels range from 47 to 65 dBA Leq (average of 52 dBA Leq), and maximum instantaneous noise levels range from 50 to 90 dBA Lmax (average of 61 dBA Lmax).

The existing noise environment is dominated by traffic noise from Stevens Creek Boulevard, Mary Avenue and the surrounding residential streets. In addition to the local traffic noise, Memorial Park currently has one lighted softball field, six lighted tennis courts (including one court that is duallined to provide four pickleball courts), an amphitheater, the Cupertino Veterans Memorial, two playground areas, multiple BBQ and picnic areas, and the Memorial Park Gazebo, public restrooms, the Cupertino Senior Center, Quinlan Community Center, and four parking lots, which would generate sporadic noise.

Current operations at Memorial Park include:
• Softball Field: available from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. • Amphitheater: available from 10:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
• Event Lawn: available from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
• Tennis Courts (pickleball courts): available from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.

Under the conditions of the proposed project, the softball field would continue to be used as a DOLA when the field is not in use, the six existing tennis courts would remain with the removal of the four pickleball court striping, the existing two playground areas would be relocated, the existing reservable picnic area would be renovated, and the existing amphitheater would be upgraded to increase the amount of seating, provide ADA compliant improvements, and update the existing stage infrastructure. The parking lot accessed via Alves Drive would be reconfigured, several pedestrian access points to the park would be realigned, and a Class 1 bicycle route would 1234
CC 04-03-2024
1234 of 1277
21 be added to connect Alves Drive, Mary Avenue, and Christen Drive.

Additionally, the project would include the following:
• One new lighted basketball court adjacent to the eastern side of the existing softball field. • Eight new lighted pickleball courts would be added on the southeast corner of the site adjacent to the Stevens Creek Boulevard and Anton Way intersection. • One unlighted bocce ball court adjacent to the Senior Center. o Planned use for Senior Center Socials, classes, and public rentals. • Two playground areas would be moved to be centrally located within the park between the Senior Center and softball field.
o Playgrounds would include an all-abilities playground and a nature playground. o A new publicly accessible restroom would be constructed adjacent to the all-abilities playground.
• Two new picnic areas would be constructed.
o One south of the Veterans Memorial and a second adjacent to the Memorial Park Gazebo.
• Nine parallel parking stalls along Anton Way adjacent to the new pickleball courts would be added.

Under the proposed project, hours of operation at the park would continue from sunrise to 10:00 p.m. seven days per week.

Sports and Park Operational Noise
New noise generating activities at Memorial Park would include basketball, pickleball, and playground activities. Based on measurements made by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. (I&R) at similar neighborhood parks in the Bay Area, the following noise source levels are used in this report:
• Basketball activities – average hourly noise levels of 65 dBA Leq at 30 feet from the center of the court.
• Pickleball activities – average hourly noise levels of 55 dBA Leq at a distance of 120 feet from the center of the four courts; with maximum noise levels up to 70 dBA Lmax. • Playground activities – average hourly noise levels of 59 to 67 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet from the center of the playground, with maximum noise levels up to 75 dBA Lmax.

Noise levels generated by the sports activities and other park activities were calculated at the nearest receptors. The composite park noise level was assumed to occur from sunrise to 10:00 p.m., and the estimated Leq and Lmax noise levels for each sports park activity, as propagated to the 1235
CC 04-03-2024
1235 of 1277
22 surrounding receptor property lines, are summarized in Table 5. Additionally, the worst-hour Leq is also provided in the table, assuming multiple activities occurring simultaneously.

The proposed changes to the amphitheater and tennis courts and the addition of the bocce ball court, two new picnic areas, DOLA, and class 1 bike lanes would not generate substantial noise above existing conditions.

Hourly average noise levels are not expected to exceed the 65 dBA threshold at the property lines of the residential land uses during individual activities and simultaneous use. The maximum noise level threshold of 84 dBA is not expected to be exceeded at any of the receptors.

Maximum noise levels could reach 71 dBA Lmax at the property lines of the residential land uses nearest the pickleball courts. As an option, an 8-foot noise barrier could be added along the northern and eastern boundaries of the pickleball courts to reduce the maximum noise levels at the residential land uses to 61 dBA Lmax.
1236
CC 04-03-2024
1236 of 1277
28 TABLE 5 Estimated Park Activity Noise Levels at Nearby Land Uses Park Activity
West Multi-Family Residential North Single Family Residential East Single Family Residential Distance from
Center of
Park Activity
Area (feet)
Hourly
Leq
(dBA)
Lmax
(dBA)
Distance from
Center of
Park Activity
Area (feet)
Hourly
Leq
(dBA)
Lmax
(dBA)
Distance from
Center of
Park Activity
Area (feet)
Hourly
Leq
(dBA)
Lmax
(dBA)
Basketball 365 43 - 435 42 - 200 49 -
Pickleball
(8 Courts) 500 43 58 1,000 37 52 110 5646c
71 61c
All Abilities
Playground 215 54 62 665 45 53 315 51 59
Nature Playground 215 54 62 950 41 49 285 52 60
Combined WorstHoura - 58 62b - 48 53b - 59
49c
71b
61c
a
Combined worst-hour levels would include activities on the basketball court, all 8 pickleball courts, the All Abilities playground, and the Nature playground. b Lmax noise levels will not be combined, instead the loudest noise level is used. c Noise levels account for an optional 8-foot noise barrier along the northern and eastern boundaries of the pickleball courts. 1237
CC 04-03-2024
1237 of 1277
29 To assess the permanent noise increase due to future park activities, the worst-case CNEL noise levels generated by the sports activity were calculated at the nearest residences located north, west and east of the park and compared to the existing ambient noise levels documented at sites LT-1 and LT-2 (58 dBA CNEL and 56 to 57 dBA CNEL, respectively). Assuming worst-case conditions, the basketball court and pickleball activities are assumed in use from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The playgrounds are assumed from 9:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. The estimated park CNEL noise levels propagated to the nearest property lines of the surrounding land uses are summarized in Table 6.

TABLE 6 Estimated Noise Level Increase of Existing Plus Project Park Activity Over Future Noise Levels at Receptors in the Project Vicinity Receptor Future CNEL
(dBA)
Worst-Case Park
Activity CNEL
(dBA)
Worst-Case
Future Combined
CNEL (dBA)
Noise Level
Increase, CNEL
(dBA)
West Multi-family
Residential 58 to 60 55 60 to 62 1 to 2
North Single Family
Residential 58 to 60 46 58 to 60 0
East Single Family
Residential 60 to 61 57 62 to 63 2
Since future exterior noise levels are expected to be greater that 60 dBA CNEL a 3 dBA CNEL increase would be considered significant. Permanent noise level increases were estimated to range from 0 to 2 dBA CNEL. Therefore, this would be a less-than-significant impact.

Parking Activities
Nine new parallel parking stalls will be located along Anton Way adjacent to the new pickleball courts. Noise associated with the use of the parking stalls would include engines, door slams, and human voices. The hourly average noise levels resulting from all of these noise-generating activities in a small parking area typically range from 50 to 52 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet from the center of the parking area. The worst-case CNEL was calculated, assuming maximum parking activities every other hour between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.

Table 7 summarizes the estimated parking noise at the surrounding receptors when the noise source is centered at the new parking area on the project site.

TABLE 7 Estimated Noise Level Increase of Existing Plus Project Parking Activities Over Existing Noise Levels at Receptors in the Project Vicinity Receptor
Distance from
Center of Nearest
Parking Area (feet)
Hourly
Leq (dBA)
CNEL
(dBA)
Noise Level
Increase,
CNEL (dBA)
East Single Family
Residential 55 49 to 51 50 0
1238
CC 04-03-2024
1238 of 1277
30 Noise levels resulting from parking activities would be below the City’s noise level standards and ambient noise levels documented at site LT-1. Additionally, proposed parking activities would not measurably contribute to ambient noise levels in the area (0 dBA CNEL increase) at the west and north residences. This is a less-than-significant impact.

Project Traffic
Since future exterior noise levels are expected to be greater than 60 dBA CNEL a 3 dBA CNEL increase would be considered significant. The project’s traffic and parking analysis 2 included vehicular trip generation estimates. The project is anticipated to generate 1.7 trips per parking space on weekdays and 1.16 trips per parking space on weekends. Based upon traffic counts conducted during our measurements, existing hourly traffic volume along Anton Way was 32 automobiles and along Stevens Creek Boulevard was 1,492 automobiles. Development of the projects parking activities would not measurably contribute to ambient noise levels in the area (0 dBA CNEL increase). This is a less-than-significant impact.

Total Combined Project-Generated Noise
Table 8 summarizes the noise level increases for each project-generated noise source, as well as the total combined increase. The total noise level increase would range from 0 to 2 dBA at all surrounding receptors. This is less than 3 dBA, which is the threshold for residential receptors with future exterior noise levels above 60 dBA CNEL.

While the worst-hour hourly average noise level would exceed the Municipal Code threshold of 55 dBA at the residential receptors to the west and to the north, this would not be considered a significant impact since the park is owned and operated by a public entity. This is a less-thansignificant impact.

TABLE 8 Estimated Noise Level Increase of Existing Plus Project Over Existing at Receptors in the Project Vicinity
Receptor
Increase Due to
Park Activities,
CNEL (dBA)
Increase Due to
Parking Noise,
CNEL (dBA)
Increase Due to
Project Traffic,
CNEL (dBA)
Total Noise Level
Increase, CNEL
(dBA)
West Residential 1 to 2 0 0 1 to 2
North Residential 0 0 0 0
South Residential 2 0 0 0 to 2
Mitigation Measure 1a: None required.
2 TJKM, “Trip Generation for New Parking Lot at Cupertino Memorial Park in Cupertino, CA,” August 2, 2023. 1239
CC 04-03-2024
1239 of 1277
31 Impact 1b: Temporary Construction Noise. Existing noise-sensitive land uses would be exposed to a temporary increase in ambient noise levels due to project construction activities but would not exceed the City’s standards. This is a less-than-significant impact.

Noise impacts resulting from construction depend upon the noise generated by various pieces of construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise-generating activities, and the distance between construction noise sources and noise-sensitive areas. Construction noise impacts primarily result when construction activities occur during noise-sensitive times of the day (e.g., early morning, evening, or nighttime hours), the construction occurs in areas immediately adjoining noise-sensitive land uses, or when construction lasts over extended periods of time.

Section 10.48.053 of the City’s Municipal Code exempts construction noise from the noise limits defined in Section 10.48.040 if activities occur on weekdays during daytime hours, provided that the equipment utilized has high-quality noise muffler and abatement devices installed and are in good condition. The construction activities also need to meet the following two criteria: 1) no individual device shall produce noise levels exceeding 87 dBA at a distance of 25 feet; and 2) the noise level measured at any nearby property shall not exceed 80 dBA. Construction activities are prohibited on weekends, holidays, or during nighttime hours at sites within 750 feet of residential land uses.

Construction activities generate considerable amounts of noise, especially during earth-moving activities when heavy equipment is used. The highest maximum noise levels generated by project construction would typically range from about 80 to 90 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from the noise source. A list of typical maximum instantaneous noise levels measured at 50 feet are provided in Table 9. Table 10 shows the hourly average noise level ranges, by construction phase for various types of construction projects. Construction-generated noise levels drop off at a rate of about 6 dBA per doubling of the distance between the source and receptor. Shielding by buildings or terrain can provide an additional 5 to 10 dBA noise reduction at distant receptors.

Construction would be completed over a period of approximately 15 years as funding is made available for individual improvements. It is anticipated the first five years of construction would include improvements such as the upgrades to the existing parking lot accessed via Mary Avenue and construction of the All-Abilities Playground, Nature Playground, bocce court, pickleball courts, and new parallel parking stalls along Anton Way. The second five-year period would include improvements such as the upgrades to the existing amphitheater, renovation of the parking lot accessed via Alves Drive, construction of the basketball court, and renovation of the existing picnic area. The final five-year period is anticipated to consist of landscaping improvements in the parking lot areas adjacent to the Quinlan Community Center and Senior Center. 1240
CC 04-03-2024
1240 of 1277
32 TABLE 9 Construction Equipment, 50-foot Noise Emission Limits Equipment Category Lmax Level (dBA)1,2 Impact/Continuous Arc Welder
Auger Drill Rig
Backhoe
Bar Bender
Boring Jack Power Unit
Chain Saw
Compressor3
Compressor (other)
Concrete Mixer
Concrete Pump
Concrete Saw
Concrete Vibrator
Crane
Dozer
Excavator
Front End Loader
Generator
Generator (25 KVA or less)
Gradall
Grader
Grinder Saw
Horizontal Boring Hydro Jack
Hydra Break Ram
Impact Pile Driver
Insitu Soil Sampling Rig
Jackhammer
Mounted Impact Hammer (hoe ram)
Paver
Pneumatic Tools
Pumps
Rock Drill
Scraper
Slurry Trenching Machine
Soil Mix Drill Rig
Street Sweeper
Tractor
Truck (dump, delivery)
Vacuum Excavator Truck (vac-truck)
Vibratory Compactor
Vibratory Pile Driver
All other equipment with engines larger than 5 HP
73 85
80 80
80 85
70 80
85 82
90 80
85 85
85 80
82 70
85 85
85 80
90 105
84 85
90 85
85 77
85 85
82 80
80 84
84 85
80 95
85 Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Impact
Impact
Continuous
Impact
Impact
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Notes: 1 Measured at 50 feet from the construction equipment, with a “slow” (1 sec.) time constant. 2 Noise limits apply to total noise emitted from equipment and associated components operating at full power while engaged in its intended operation.
3 Portable Air Compressor rated at 75 cfm or greater and that operates at greater than 50 psi. 1241
CC 04-03-2024
1241 of 1277
33 TABLE 10 Typical Ranges of Construction Noise Levels at 50 Feet, Leq (dBA) Domestic
Housing
Office Building,
Hotel, Hospital,
School, Public
Works
Industrial
Parking Garage,
Religious
Amusement &
Recreations,
Store, Service
Station
Public Works
Roads &
Highways,
Sewers, and
Trenches

I II I II I II I II
Ground
Clearing 83 83 84 84 84 83 84 84
Excavation 88 75 89 79 89 71 88 78
Foundations 81 81 78 78 77 77 88 88
Erection 81 65 87 75 84 72 79 78
Finishing 88 72 89 75 89 74 84 84
I - All pertinent equipment present at site.

II - Minimum required equipment present at site.

Source: U.S.E.P.A., Legal Compilation on Noise, Vol. 1, p. 2-104, 1973.

Based on our experience with similar project equipment expected to be used in each construction phase are summarized in Table 11, along with the quantity of each type of equipment and the reference noise level at 50 feet, assuming the operation of the two loudest pieces of construction equipment for each construction phase.

Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) was used to calculate the hourly average noise levels for each phase of construction, assuming the two loudest pieces of equipment would operate simultaneously, as recommended by the FTA for construction noise evaluations. This construction noise model includes representative sound levels for the most common types of construction equipment and the approximate usage factors of such equipment that were developed based on an extensive database of information gathered during the construction of the Central Artery/Tunnel Project in Boston, Massachusetts (CA/T Project or "Big Dig"). The usage factors represent the percentage of time that the equipment would be operating at full power.

To assess construction noise impacts at the receiving property lines of existing noise-sensitive receptors, the worst-case hourly average noise level, which would result in the noise levels summarized in Table 11, was propagated from the geometrical center of the project site to the nearest property lines of the receptors. These noise level estimates are shown in Table 12. Noise levels in Tables 11 and 12 do not assume reductions due to intervening buildings or existing barriers.
1242
CC 04-03-2024
1242 of 1277
34 TABLE 11 Estimated Construction Noise Levels for the Proposed Park at a Distance of 50 feet
Phase of Construction Construction Equipment
(Quantity)
Estimated
Construction Noise
Level at 50 feet
Demolition
Concrete/Industrial Saw (1)a
Excavators (3)
Rubber-Tired Dozer (2)
84 dBA Leq
Site Preparation Rubber-Tired Dozer (3)a
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe (4)a 82 dBA Leq
Grading/Excavation
Excavator (2)
Grader (1)a
Rubber-Tired Dozer (1)
Scraper (2)
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe (2)a
84 dBA Leq
Building – Exterior
Crane (1)
Forklift (3)
Generator Set (1)a
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe (3)a
Welder (1)
82 dBA Leq
Building – Interior/
Architectural Coating Air Compressor (1)a 74 dBA Leq
Paving
Paver (2)a
Paving Equipment (2)a
Roller (2)
83 dBA Leq
1243
CC 04-03-2024
1243 of 1277
35 TABLE 12 Estimated Construction Noise Levels at Nearby Land Uses Phase
Calculated Hourly Average Leq at
Noise-Sensitive Receptors, dBA Leq
First 5 Years Second 5 Years Third 5 Years
MultiFamily
Residential
West
(230 ft)
Single
Family
Residential
East
(270 ft)
Multi-Family
Residential
West
(370 ft)
Single
Family
Residential
North
(380 ft)
Single
Family
Residential
East
(240 ft)
Single
Family
Residential
North
(230 ft)
Single
Family
Residential
South
(260 ft)
Single
Family
Residential
East
(370 ft)
Demolition 75 73 71 70 74 75 74 71
Site Preparation 71 70 67 67 71 71 70 67
Grading &
Excavation 74 73 70 70 74 74 73 70
Building –
Exterior 70 69 66 66 70 70 69 66
Building –
Interior &
Architectural
Coating
60 59 56 56 60 60 59 56
Paving 71 70 67 67 71 71 70 67
1244
CC 04-03-2024
1244 of 1277
36 These construction noise levels would not exceed the exterior threshold of 80 dBA Leq at the nearby land-uses. While specific construction activities would at times exceed these thresholds when work is conducted near shared property lines, construction would move throughout the project site during the planned period and thus would not constitute a significant temporary increase.

Standard Construction Noise Controls:

Reasonable regulation of the hours of construction, as well as regulation of the arrival and operation of heavy equipment and the delivery of construction material, are necessary to protect the health and safety of persons, promote the general welfare of the community, and maintain the quality of life. The following measures should be used to reduce construction noise levels as low as practical:
• Limit construction activity to weekdays between daytime hours with no construction on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays;
• Utilize "quiet" models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where such technology exists;
• Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment;
• Locate all stationary noise-generating equipment, such as air compressors and portable power generators, as far away as possible from adjacent land uses; • Locate staging areas and construction material areas as far away as possible from adjacent land uses;
• Prohibit all unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines.

Mitigation Measure 1b: None required.

Impact 2: Exposure to Excessive Groundborne Vibration due to Construction.

Construction-related vibration levels resulting from activities at the project site would not exceed 0.3 in/sec PPV at the nearest sensitive receptor. This is a lessthan-significant impact.

The construction of the project may generate vibration when heavy equipment or impact tools (e.g. hoe rams) are used in close proximity to existing buildings. Construction activities would include demolition, site preparation, grading and excavation, building exterior, building interior, and paving. Pile driving, which can cause excessive vibration, is not expected to be required.

For structural damage, the California Department of Transportation recommends a vibration limit of 0.5 in/sec PPV for buildings structurally sound and designed to modern engineering standards,

0.3 in/sec PPV for buildings that are found to be structurally sound but where structural damage is a major concern, and a conservative limit of 0.08 in/sec PPV for ancient buildings or buildings that are documented to be structurally weakened. No known ancient buildings or buildings that are 1245
CC 04-03-2024
1245 of 1277
37 documented to be structurally weakened adjoin the project area. Therefore, conservatively, groundborne vibration levels exceeding 0.3 in/sec PPV would have the potential to result in a significant vibration impact.

Vibration levels would vary depending on soil conditions, construction methods, and equipment used. Table 13 presents typical vibration levels that could be expected from construction equipment at a distance of 25 feet. Project construction activities, such as drilling, the use of jackhammers, rock drills and other high-power or vibratory tools, and rolling stock equipment (tracked vehicles, compactors, etc.), may generate substantial vibration in the immediate vicinity.

Jackhammers typically generate vibration levels of 0.035 in/sec PPV, and drilling typically generates vibration levels of 0.09 in/sec PPV at a distance of 25 feet. Table 13 also summarizes the distances to the 0.08 in/sec PPV threshold for historical buildings and to the 0.3 in/sec PPV threshold for all other buildings.

TABLE 13 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment PPV at 25 ft.
(in/sec)
Minimum Distance
to Meet 0.08 in/sec
PPV (feet)
Minimum Distance
to Meet 0.3 in/sec
PPV (feet)
Clam shovel drop 0.202 56 18
Hydromill (slurry
wall)
in soil 0.008 3 1
in rock 0.017 6 2
Vibratory Roller 0.210 58 19
Hoe Ram 0.089 27 9
Large bulldozer 0.089 27 9
Caisson drilling 0.089 27 9
Loaded trucks 0.076 23 8
Jackhammer 0.035 12 4
Small bulldozer 0.003 2 <1
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and Environment, U.S. Department of Transportation, September 2018, as modified by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., January 2023.

Vibration levels are highest close to the source, and then attenuate with increasing distance at the rate (Dref/D)1.1, where D is the distance from the source in feet, and Dref is the reference distance of 25 feet. Table 14 presents typical vibration levels that could be expected from construction equipment at 25 feet and summarizes the expected vibration levels at the nearest off-site buildings, which would be 20 feet or more from areas of the project site that would be developed as part of the project.

I
I
1246
CC 04-03-2024
1246 of 1277
38 TABLE 14 Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment
PPV at
25 ft.
(in/sec)
Vibration Levels at Nearest Buildings
(in/sec PPV)
Multi-Family
Residential West
(30 ft)
Single-Family
Residential East
(55 ft)
Single-Family
Residential North
(60 ft)
Future Mix-Use
West
(250 feet)
Clam shovel drop 0.202 0.165 0.085 0.077 0.016
Hydromill
(slurry
wall)
In soil 0.007 0.010 0.003 0.003 0.001
In rock

0.014 0.022 0.007 0.006 0.001
Vibratory Roller 0.21 0.172 0.088 0.080 0.017
Hoe Ram 0.089 0.073 0.037 0.034 0.007
Large bulldozer 0.089 0.073 0.037 0.034 0.007
Caisson drilling 0.089 0.073 0.037 0.034 0.007
Loaded trucks 0.076 0.062 0.032 0.029 0.006
Jackhammer 0.035 0.029 0.015 0.013 0.003
Small bulldozer 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.0002
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and Environment, U.S. Department of Transportation, FTA Report No. 0123, September 2018, as modified by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., September 2023. 1247
CC 04-03-2024
1247 of 1277
39 Project-generated vibration levels would fall below the Caltrans recommended threshold of 0.3 in/sec PPV at surrounding conventional buildings located further than 18 feet from the project site.

Neither cosmetic, minor, or major damage would occur at distances of 20 feet or more. At these locations, and in other surrounding areas where vibration would not be expected to cause structural damage, vibration levels may still be perceptible. However, as with any type of construction, this would be anticipated and would not be considered significant, given the intermittent and short duration of the phases that have the highest potential of producing vibration. By use of administrative controls, such as notifying neighbors of scheduled construction activities, annoyance due to perceptible vibration levels can be kept to a minimum.

In summary, the construction of the project would not generate vibration levels exceeding 0.3 in/sec PPV threshold at the nonhistorical buildings surrounding the project site. This would be a less-than-significant impact.

Mitigation Measure 2: None required.

Impact 3: Excessive Aircraft Noise. The project would not expose people to excessive aircraft noise levels. This is a less-than-significant impact.

The San Jose Mineta International Airport is located approximately 6.4 miles northeast of the project site and is the closest airport. The project site lies well outside the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour for 2037. The noise environment at the site would not substantially increase due to aircraft noise from this airport.

Mitigation Measure 3: None required.

Cumulative Impacts
From the City’s website,3 the following planned or approved projects are located within 1,000 feet of the proposed project:
• Westport Cupertino – this project is located west of the project site, opposite Mary Avenue at 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard. This project was identified as a future receptor in this report. The Westport Cupertino project would include the demolition of a 71,250 square foot retail center (the Oaks) and construct a mixed-use development consisting of 267 housing units (88 rowhouse/townhomes, 179 senior apartments), 27 memory care rooms, and 20,000 square feet of commercial space. This project is currently under construction. This project is likely to be constructed before the proposed project. The multifamily residential to the west of Cupertino Memorial Park would be a shared receptor for both construction sites. Considering that the Westport Cupertino project is likely to be constructed prior to the Memorial Park Specific Plan project, a cumulative construction impact is not expected.
3 https://mydashgis.com/SanCarlosProjects/map
1248
CC 04-03-2024
1248 of 1277
40 No other projects are located within 1,000 feet of the proposed project site. Therefore, potential cumulative construction impacts would be less-than-significant. 1249
CC 04-03-2024
1249 of 1277
41 APPENDIX A
FIGURE A-1 Daily Trend in Noise Levels at LT-1, Tuesday, August 29, 2023 Noise Levels at Noise Measurement Site LT-1
~ 20 feet From the Center of Anton Way
Tuesday, August 29, 2023
105 ± + + + + E ± + + + + +-- ± ± + + + +- +- ± ± ± ± + + + +- +- + + + .. .. + + .. -t100 + -1- -1- + -1- + .. -1- -1- -1- + + + + +- t +- + + +- + ~ t + + + +- +- E +- ~ t t + + + +- +- -- 95 t ,- + t +- t- t ,- + t +-
f + + + + t +- +- + + E + + + + + + +- +- + + + +- +- + + + + + t +- +- t------ 90 t t + + t t t t t + +
L-+ -1- t + + ± -1- -1- + t t------
-1- ± ± +---' + +- ± t ± ± ± + +- +---- + +
85 + + + + + + -.- + i + + + l •· i + + +
t -.- 80 ,- ,- ,- ---,
L-f + + + + +- +- + I~------, + +--11 +--
t ~ + + +- t ,, ,,
,-... i-----1- + + + +- +- f--~ -+-t ! 75 -1- +--- ,- + ---6.--- Lmax < :i=----t + + + .. ,, ~ ± + + +- 1- \ f----'
"O 70 t ± + + +- ---<>-- L(1)
'-' t + + t ~ ,- + + ,- + + + +- +- ----Q-- L ( 1 0)
t 65 +---+ + +---+ + + +- +-
t I + ~ t --e-- L(50) ..:i ± + + +- +-
60 + + .. c:i, t t - L(90) "' + + + + +- +- ·o -1- +
55 ~ ~
z t + + + - Lrrin
± + t + + ± +- 50 + • Leq (hr) +---+ + +---+ + + +- +- t-t -1- +---' + t +- ± 45 + + + +- +- t t t t + t + + + +-
40 +
:i:--+ + ~ -1- t- + ± + + +
:i:--~ + + + + +- +- t- ± + + + + +- +- +--- + ~. t t +- t- ± + + t t +- +--- 35 + t- t- + + + j:___t t + + + +- +- t ± +- t t t + + + +- +- +-- +--- + + +- .. + + +- + t t + ;: + t- -1- t t + -·- 30 + + 25 000 200 400 600 800 1000 12 00 14 00 1600 1800 2000 2200 Hour Beginning
1250
CC 04-03-2024
1250 of 1277
42 FIGURE A-2 Daily Trend in Noise Levels at LT-1, Wednesday, August 30, 2023 105
100
95 90
85 80
25 t..-- t t- t
ttt
t
+
t
t
t- t- tt--- t-_j --t---- t
+--- t-
::---------+-
ttl:---.-----+
t- ttr-------'
tttt- t- <---------t t-
--+
t---- +- +- ,---------+
--1-----+--· __ ,+ +--
'
i--- '
E r-----+
,-
t
0:00 2 00 4 00
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
600
Noise Levels at Noise Measurement Site LT-1
~ 20 Feet From the Center of Anton Way
Wednesday, August 30, 2023
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ +
+
+
t
t
+
-!-
r
8:00
+--+
+------+ +
+
+ +--+
+ +
1:---------+
1000
t
t
+
t
t
+--+
+----+ +
+
+ +--+
+ +
+
-------:;:
t 1-_____.
+--- --+
+--+
-------:;: +
t
t
12 00
t14 00
Hour Beginning
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
16 00
+
1800
+
+
+
2000
t
t
2200
t---
t
t
t---
+---
t---
~
t
t---
t=
I==
t
+---
+---
t---
t
t---
t=
E
t
---11--- Lmax
--0-- L ( 1 )
---Q.- L(10)
--a-- L(50)
- L(90)
- Lmn
• Leq (hr)
CNEL=58dBA
Ldn =57 dBA
1251
CC 04-03-2024
1251 of 1277
43 FIGURE A-3 Daily Trend in Noise Levels at LT-1, Thursday, August 31, 2023 105
100
95 90
85 80
~ 75
= '.=:, 70 ~ ;.
<I>
..:i 65 <I>
"' ·= 60 z
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 0:00 2:00 4:00 6:00
Noise Levels at Noise Measurement Site LT-1
- 20 feet from the Center of Anton Way
Thursday, August 31, 2023
8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00
Hour Beginning
18:00 20:00 22:00
--<>- L(1)
--+- L(10)
- L(50)
- L(90)
--Lrnn
• Leq (hr)
CNEL=58dBA
Ldo =58dBA
1252
CC 04-03-2024
1252 of 1277
44 FIGURE A-4 Daily Trend in Noise Levels at LT-1, Friday, September 1, 2023 105 ----+ t- t----+ + ---+ t----+ ---I t- I---------+ + 100 +-----------'- + t- + + t- t- t- + +
95 ---+ t- +---+ + ---+ t- t----+ +
90 t- +----+ +
t- t----+ +
---- t
85 t- t- +
80 ---+ t----+ ----+ t- t----+ +
===t ::==:+ < 75 t- +
t- +-- +
= t- +
-= 70
4 _; --- -- ~t~--,--,
- , __ , -1-
~ ,._, __._ +
~ 65 •- •-----+ t---11-t + I
..:l : ·,---+ +
~ 60
"' ·0
z 55
50 45
40 35
30 25
0:00 2:00 4:00
Noise Levels at Noise Measurement Site LT-1
~20 Feet From the Center of Anton Way
Friday, September 1, 2023
+-- -1- -1- t----+ + ---+ -1- t- t=: +----+ -1- -1- t----+ +----+ -1- +----, -1- + I---------+ + t----+ -1- t- -1- -1- -1- -1-
+ t- + E -E t + + E E t- + + t- + + t- + +
t- + + + + +-- ±---+ ! ! +---+ + ---+
i::==-+ ! t----+ + ~ t- +----+ +----+ + t- +---+
+----+
t -1-t -1-
t t----+
t + +----+ t -1-t t-
-1- -1- -1- -1- -1-
t ~
: ~ ,-
~ + : f t- +
t----+ t---cf --+ f==t + t====t I I ~
+-- --+ t t-
~ ---,•--· ±===+
---+---t,- ---=--- --~ -' ,- --" - :- + +
+ :_A
,-.¢: -1- -1- ,_, + + +--'- ' +----+
+
t----:
+
+ +
+ + +----+
+ t + +
t-f ___: t- +
+ + t-
+ +
t- t t
t + + t + + + + + +
-1- -1- J:___ + + + -----, + t t + ~+ + t- +
+ t- + + + + t- + +
----
6 00 8:00 10:00 12 00 14:00 16:00 18:00
Hour Beginning
-1- -1- -1- +----+ -1- + +----, -1- -1- -1-
t -E +
+
t +----+
+
! -1-
t -1-t -1- -1-
f------,
t-
~ t===t +
t +----+ t + +----, -1-
+
-1-
t
+
-1-
t
t +----+ t
t
-1-
t +---------<
t
-1-
-1-
t
t
t
-1-
E t + E + +----+ -1- +----+ t -1- -1- t +----+ t
t
t
t
t t- + t- +
t t- t +
-1-
+ r---------1 +
+
+
20:00 2200
t---
t---
t---
t---
t---
t---
t---
t---
t---
t---
t---
t---
i
i
t---
t---
t---
t---
t---
t---
t---
i==
t---
t---
t---
---6.--- Lmax
--O-- L(1)
--G-- L(10)
--e-- L(50)
---L(90)
- Lmin
• Leq (hr)
1253
CC 04-03-2024
1253 of 1277
45 FIGURE A-5 Daily Trend in Noise Levels at LT-2, Tuesday, August 29, 2023 105
100
95 90
85 80
<' 75 ~
"C
'-' 70 .:
:,.
~
..:l 65 ~ ,,,
·s 60 z
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 0:00 2 00 4:00 600
Noise Levels at Noise Measurement Site LT-1
- 10 Feet From the Edge of the Parking Lot
Tuesday, August 29, 2023
8:00 10:00 1200 14:00 1600
Hour Beginning
---A--- Lmax
- L(1)
--+- L(10)
- l(50)
L(90)
- - Lmn
• Loq (tv)
1800 20:00 22:00
1254
CC 04-03-2024
1254 of 1277
46 FIGURE A-6 Daily Trend in Noise Levels at LT-2, Wednesday, August 30, 2023 105
100
95 90
85 80
,-.._
--r:
=
75 "C ,_, 70 -al
;;,.
<II
...:i 65 <II "'
·o 60 z
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 0:00 2:00 4:00 6:00
Noise Levels at Noise Measurement Site LT-2
- 10 Feet From the Edge of the Parking Lot
Wednesday, August 30, 2023
8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00
Hour Beginning
18:00 20:00 22:00
---• --- Lrrex
---Q-- L(1)
-+- L(10)
-Q- L(50)
- L(90)
- - Lmn
• Leq (Iv)
CNEL - 57dBA
L dn- 57 dBA
1255
CC 04-03-2024
1255 of 1277
47 FIGURE A-7 Daily Trend in Noise Levels at LT-2, Thursday, August 31, 2023 105
100
95 90
85 80
,-..
< =
75 ~ 70 -al
;;,.
~
'"" 65 ~ "' ·o 60 z
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 000 2:00 400 6:00
Noise Levels at Noise Measurement Site LT-2
- 10 Feet From the Edge of the Parking Lot
Thursday, August 31, 2023
800 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00
Hour Beginning
1800 20:00 22:00
- --• --- Lrrax
--L(1)
-+- L(10)
- L(SO)
L(90)
- - Lrrin
• Leq (hr)
CNEL= 56dBA
Ldu = 55dBA
1256
CC 04-03-2024
1256 of 1277
48 FIGURE A-8 Daily Trend in Noise Levels at LT-2, Friday, September 1, 2023 105
100
95 90
85 80
<'
~
75 "Ci
'--' 70 ';J
>
..
~ 65 ..
"' ·s
z 60
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 0:00 2:00 4:00 6:00
Noise Levels at Noise Measurement Site LT-2
- 10 Feet From the Edge of the Parking Lot
Friday, September 1, 2023
8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00
Hour Beginning
···•··· Lmax
--o-- L(1)
-+-l(10)
- L(50)
L(90)
--Lmn
• Leq (hr)
18:00 20:00 22:00
1257
CC 04-03-2024
1257 of 1277
CALIFORNIA | FLORIDA | TEXAS
Corporate Office 4305 Hacienda Drive, Suite 550, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925.463.0611 www.TJKM.com 1 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
The purpose of this memorandum is to present the results of the trip generation analysis conducted for a proposed parking lot to be constructed at the Cupertino Memorial Park in Cupertino, California.

The park currently provides separate parking areas accessed from Mary Avenue and Alves Drive. A new parking lot accessed from Anton Way is proposed. It is expected that the new Anton Way lot, located near the Alves Drive lot, will have similar operational characteristics. Driveway counts collected at the Alves Drive lot were used to estimate the number of new trips generated by the new Anton lot. Based on its location, it is expected that all vehicles using the Anton Way parking lot would access Anton Way from Stevens Creek Boulevard.

Data Collection
Driveway counts were collected at the Alves Drive parking lot on Thursday, June 8 (10 a.m. – 6 p.m.) and Saturday, June 10 (10 a.m. – 1 p.m.), 2023. These periods were selected based on prior occupancy surveys conducted at the Anton lot, which showed the highest parking occupancy for midday through mid-afternoon on a weekday and during midday on a Saturday. Data collection worksheets are attached in the Appendix.

Trip Generation
The existing Alves Drive parking lot provides a total of 50 parking spaces, including two accessible spaces. The peak weekday trip generation was 40 inbound and 45 outbound vehicles (85 total), between 4:15 – 5:15 p.m., which is during the typical p.m. peak analysis period (4 – 6 p.m.). This works out to 1.7 trips per parking space on weekdays. On weekends, the peak trip generation was 30 inbound and 28 outbound vehicles (58 total), between 11:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. This works out to 1.16 trips per parking space on weekends.

Date: August 2, 2023
To: Michael Freitag
Gates & Associates
From: Renee Reavis
TJKM
Subject: Trip Generation for New Parking Lot at Cupertino Memorial Park in Cupertino, CA • ATTACHMENT D • APPENDIX F •
1258
CC 04-03-2024
1258 of 1277
2 The proposed Anton Way parking lot would provide a total of ten spaces, including two accessible spaces. The new parking lot is expected to generate 17 new weekday peak hour trips (8 in, 9 out), and 12 new weekend midday trips (6 in, 6 out).

Weekday PM Weekend Midday
Use Size Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total
Anton Parking Lot 10 Spaces 1.7 8 9 17 1.16 6 6 12
1259
CC 04-03-2024
1259 of 1277
3 Appendix
Driveway Counts
1260
CC 04-03-2024
1260 of 1277
Location: Parking Lot |  Date: 6/8/2023
City: Cupertino, CA Day: Thursday Spaces: 50
Trip
OUTCOME Hourly In Hourly Out Hourly total Hour Start Trips/Space In % Out % 10:00 AM 84 410:15 AM 27 ‐510:30 AM 31 210:45 AM 65 1 19 17 36 10:00 AM11:00 AM 24 ‐2 13 17 30 10:15 AM11:15 AM 53 2 16 13 29 10:30 AM11:30 AM 46 ‐2 17 18 35 10:45 AM11:45 AM 35 ‐2 14 18 32 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 24 ‐2 14 18 32 11:15 AM12:15 PM 12 ‐1 10 17 27 11:30 AM12:30 PM 33 0 9 14 23 11:45 AM12:45 PM 76 1 13 15 28 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 26 ‐4 13 17 30 12:15 PM1:15 PM 66 0 18 21 39 12:30 PM1:30 PM 48 ‐4 19 26 45 12:45 PM1:45 PM 10 2 8 22 22 44 1:00 PM2:00 PM 16 9 7 36 25 61 1:15 PM2:15 PM 13 7 6 43 26 69 1:30 PM2:30 PM 21 1 41 19 60 1:45 PM2:45 PM 64 2 37 21 58 2:00 PM3:00 PM 75 2 28 17 45 2:15 PM3:15 PM 57 ‐2 20 17 37 2:30 PM3:30 PM 89 ‐1 26 25 51 2:45 PM3:45 PM 74 3 27 25 52 3:00 PM4:00 PM 94 5 29 24 53 3:15 PM4:15 PM 614 ‐8 30 31 61 3:30 PM4:30 PM 915 ‐6 31 37 68 3:45 PM4:45 PM 12 11 1 36 44 80 4:00 PM5:00 PM 13 5 8 40 45 85 4:15 PM 1.7 47% 53%5:15 PM 12 7 5 46 38 84 4:30 PM5:30 PM 712 ‐5 44 35 79 4:45 PM5:45 PM 36 ‐3 35 30 65 5:00 PM Totals 203 192 11
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
Trip Gen Study

TIME IN OUT
1261
CC 04-03-2024
1261 of 1277
Location: Parking Lot  Date: 6/10/2023
City: Cupertino, CA Day: Saturday Spaces: 50
Trip
OUTCOME Hourly In Hourly Out Hourly total Hour Start Trips/Space In % Out % 10:00 AM 34 ‐110:15 AM 71 610:30 AM 10 8 210:45 AM 75 2 27 18 45 10:00 AM11:00 AM 58 ‐3 29 22 51 10:15 AM11:15 AM 10 4 6 32 25 57 10:30 AM11:30 AM 5 10 ‐5 27 27 54 10:45 AM11:45 AM 52 3 25 24 49 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 11 10 1 31 26 57 11:15 AM12:15 PM 96 3 30 28 58 11:30 AM 1.16 52% 48%12:30 PM 73 4 32 21 53 11:45 AM12:45 PM 18 ‐7 28 27 55 12:00 PM Totals 80 69 11
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
Trip Gen Study

TIME IN OUT
1262
CC 04-03-2024
1262 of 1277
Attachment E
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL

ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO A PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED MITIGATED

NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVING THE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF THE MEMORIAL PARK SPECIFIC PLAN (APN: 326 29 006 and 326 54 041). ________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, after consideration of evidence contained in the entire administrative record, at the public hearing on February 18, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 20-024, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Cupertino Parks and Recreation System Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, environmental analysis conducted by David J. Powers & Associates, pursuant to the requirements of California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA") (14 Cal Code. Regs, § 15164), and an addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared which found that no new or substantially increased significant environmental effects; and
WHEREAS, the analysis in the Addendum prepared by David J. Powers & Associates. indicates that the proposed project would not require major revisions to the Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted on February 18, 2020, due to new or substantially increased significant environmental effects. Furthermore, there have been no substantial changes to the approved project, no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which these minor modifications would be undertaken that would require major revisions of the Adopted Mitigation Negative Declaration due to new or substantially increased significant environmental effects, and there has been no discovery of new information of substantial importance that would trigger or require major revisions to the Mitigated Negative Declaration due to new or substantially increased significant environmental effects; and
WHEREAS, the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately identifies all environmental effects and adequate mitigation measures for the proposed modifications to the previously approved project. Therefore, no subsequent or supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration is required prior to approval of the proposed project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of Cupertino is the decision-making body for this Resolution; and
1263
CC 04-03-2024
1263 of 1277
Resolution No. __________________

WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows with regard to this application.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby:

1. Finds that none of the conditions described in 14 Cal Code. Regs, § 15162 calling for subsequent environmental review of the Cupertino Parks and Recreation System Master Plan has occurred; and

2. Adopts the First Addendum to the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (State Clearinghouse Number 2019109066) for the Memorial Park Specific Plan.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 3
rd day of April, 2024, by the following vote:

Members of the City Council
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:
________
Sheila Mohan, Mayor
City of Cupertino
________________________
Date
ATTEST:
________
Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk
________________________
Date
1264
CC 04-03-2024
1264 of 1277

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
23-12672 Agenda Date: 4/3/2024
Agenda #: 10.

Subject: Councilmember Reports
CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 3/27/2024
powered by Legistar™1265
CC 04-03-2024
1265 of 1277
1 CITY COUNCILMEMBER REPORT
Meeting: Wednesday, April 3, 2024
Reporting Councilmember: Councilmember Liang Chao
Report Dates: 3/10/24 to 3/25/24
Section 1: Events Attended (Date, Title, and Description):
(This list does not include internal meetings with staff only, such as prep sessions or meetings with the City Manager.)
2023-03-10 (Day 0) Attended National League of Cities (NLC) Annual Congressional Conference at Washington D.C.
- Members of Asian Pacific American Municipal Officials (APAMO), a caucus within NLC, encouraged me to attend NLC since they need more Asian city councilmembers to join. - This is my first trip to NLC since 2019 when I was elected to the City Council. - I attended a few Advocacy Committee meetings, such as the Transportation and Infrastructure Services Federal Advocacy Committee and Public Safety and Crime Prevention Federal Advocacy Committee..
- I attended the First Tier Suburbs Council Meeting too, where suburbs share their challenges and solutions.
-
2024-03-11 (Day 1) NLC
- President Biden gave a speech (video) at the General Session about the importance of city councils as we are the closest to the people who we serve and the many programs to help the cities.
- In a session where league of cities from different states presented, Arizona League of Cities presented the Housing Data Story: Arizona Housing Challenges: Myths vs Facts - It listed five housing myths to clarify the ways cities and towns can address housing challenges and what is beyond the control of the cities. - In March 2023, Rounds Consulting Group, Inc., released a report, Analyses of Housing Affordability in Arizona . On the impact of government on the current housing crisis, the report notedshows “It is estimated that macroeconomic influences represent between 85 1266
CC 04-03-2024
1266 of 1277
2 to 90 percent of the current housing availability and affordability issues while state, county, and municipal policies may have contributed to the remainder.” 2024-03-12 (Day 2) NLC
- Attended more Deep Dive sessions where speakers from federal agencies talk about programs they offer and how the cities can improve their chances of getting grants. - Attended Federal Agency Office Houses and talked to FEMA, EPA, DOT and DOE and learned about formula grant for energy efficiency improvements allocated to each city, green school bus program to provide electric school bus program. Learned that there is funding for purchasing electric vehicles, but no funding to operate them.
2024-03-13 (Day 3) NLC Hill Day to visit the offices of Congressmen/women and Senators. - Ro Khanna’s office was not able to accommodate a meeting. - Attended a meeting where two Senators from California Sen. Padilla & Sen. Butler gave briefings about their policy initiatives, such as
- “the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) awarded over $510 million to California for drinking water and clean water infrastructure. The funding comes from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law as part of a $5.8 billion investment through the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRF), one of EPA’s signature water investment programs.” (Press Release)
- Joined a meeting with Congresswoman Anna Eshoo mentioned that there is $4.5 billion dollars guaranteed for the Bay Area, as described on her website:
- “The bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act delivers $4.5 billion to the Bay Area in guaranteed funding for roads, bridges, passenger rail and public transit, a 50 percent increase from the current allotment of federal dollars. The Bay Area will also be in a strong position to compete for more than $140 billion in federal grants.” 2024-03-17 Spring Festival and Social by the Distinguished Citizens Society International and Silicon Valley Chapter
- This organization was started in Taiwan in the 1950s and has chapters in many countries now. - The International President Wendy Wu is a Cupertino resident. 2024-03-20 FUHSD Public Hearing on Map Selection for the transition to trustee-area election (attended virtually)
- At the request of residents who reside in the Cupertino High Attendance area, I attended the meeting to speak up for them since the Cupertino High area is divided in all three proposed maps, while the attendance areas of MVHS and LHS have been kept together almost entirely. The residents in the Cupertino High area are mostly unaware of this transition and that they will only be able to vote for one seat every 4 years, rather than voting for all 5 seats on the FUHSD Board. - In response to the concerns of many residents on the potential of school closure based on a 3-to-2 split vote as the CUSD Board has done, I have requested at this meeting that the FUHSD Board to adopt a policy to require supermajority vote for any school closure decision so that the Board would slow down and resolve differences when there is a split vote on such a costly and impactful decision.
2024-03-21 FUHSD CTAD Community Meeting at Calabasas Park (attended virtually) - After hearing the comments from the attendees, I realized that it does not help to insist on supporting or opposing anyone of the proposed three maps since none of them are acceptable 1267
CC 04-03-2024
1267 of 1277
3 and we have another chance to submit suggestions for modifications on the maps to the CTAD Committee. Then, the CTAD Committee will make another set of recommendations to the Board on April 8. Thus, I suggested that everyone should focus on the features we like or dislike in each map in the hopes that the new set of maps could address those issues of concern without losing the features we like.
- Suggestions for how to modify the maps can be submitted to [email protected]. - Final Map adoption will be at the April 24 FUHSD Board meeting. 2024-03-23 Annual Ramadan organized by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community (AMC) Silicon Valley: The theme of this year is: Voices for Peace
- “During the holy month of Ramadan, which starts this year on Thursday, March 12, 2024, Muslims around the world abstain from food and drink from dawn to sunset… .The meal at sunset to break the fast is called "iftar," …It's an opportunity for our community to come together and reflect upon the essential messages of Ramadan—compassion, humanity, and humility.” - Assemblymember Marc Berman presented the 2024 Voices for Peace Award to the County Supervisor: Cindy Chavez. Both have attended this annual event for several years.

Section 3: Committee Assignment
- No committee assignment during this period
Section 2: Other Activities to Serve the Community: (This list includes other activities I have spent time on to “represent the community I am elected to serve”, “to respond to community needs and complaints,” and “to communicate policies and programs to residents,” among other responsibilities.)

1. Housing Element Update:
- The third Housing Element draft was posted for the mandatory 7-day public review and comment in early February. After informal comments from HCD, on March 20, the revised third Housing Element draft was posted on the City’s website at engagecupertino.org/public-documents for the 7-day public review and comment. The comments are due by the end of business March Submit comments to [email protected].

2. FUHSD By-Trustee-Area Election in November 2024
- The CTAD Committee has presented three recommended maps to the FUHSD Board at the March 20 Board Meeting.
- Upcoming meetings:
- Monday, April 8, 2024 CTAD Committee (6 p.m.) - to make another set of recommendations to the Board
- Wednesday April 24, 2024 FUHSD Board Meeting (6 p.m.) - likely final adoption of the trustee-area maps
(Last Activity Report in the March 19, 2024 Council Meeting Agenda.) 1268
CC 04-03-2024
1268 of 1277

CITY COUNCILMEMBER REPORT
Meeting: April 3, 2024
Reporting Councilmember: Vice Mayor J.R. Fruen
Report Dates: 3/12/24 to 3/25/24
Event Date, Title, and Description:

Event 1. March 14, 2024 – VTA Policy Advisory Committee Meeting – I attended this meeting in my capacity as Cupertino’s representative to the Committee. The Committee received reports on Measure A (2000), the Valley Transportation Plan, and Programmed Project Monitoring. The Committee also examined four informational items for feedback: Equitable VMT Mitigation, 2016 Measure B Innovative Transit Service Model Competitive Grants, 2016 Measure B Bicycle and Pedestrian Education and Encouragement programs for Fiscal Year 2023, and the Countywide Ped-Bike Safety Campaign. Discussion of the Innovative Transit Service Model Competitive Grants focused significantly on what sort of additional funding could go to the Silicon Valley Hopper (formerly Cupertino Via) microtransit program. Staff clarified that funds could be used on further expansion of the program. Cupertino also featured heavily in the discussion of bicycle and pedestrian safety education (Item 12). The agenda and attached items for the meeting are available here.

Event 2. March 14, 2024 – Cities Association of Santa Clara County Legislative Action Committee Meeting – I attended this meeting in my capacity as Cupertino’ representative to the Legislative Action Committee. The Committee received legislative overviews from Assemblymembers Evan Low and Marc Berman. Asm. Low highlighted his bills to address theft and burglaries targeting victims on the basis of race through hate crime sentencing enhancements. Asm. Berman underscored his work on regulation to mitigate negative impacts of AI and particularly noted his work to close a loophole in the State’s penal code dealing with the dissemination and creation of child sexual abuse material created through the use of artificial intelligence. Asm. Berman’s VTA governance reform efforts also received attention and discussion.
1 1269
CC 04-03-2024
1269 of 1277
City Council Councilmember Report
2 On the suggestion of the Chair (Tina Walia, Saratoga), the Committee held off on discussion of any specific bills because many were only placeholder “intent” bills. The Committee will examine these bills for potential positions at its next meeting. The Committee intends, tentatively, to examine and recommend positions on the following bills: SB 1164 (Newman), AB 2814 (Low), AB 1886 (Alvarez), AB 1820 (Schiavo), AB 1779 (Irwin), SB 21 (Umberg), SB 1095 (Becker), SB 1130 (Bradford), AB 1999 (Irwin), AB 1772 (Ramos), AB 2619 (Connolly), and AB 817 (Pacheco). The agenda and related materials from this meeting are available here.

Event 3. March 15, 2024 – Weekly Meeting with the City Manager – I attended my weekly meeting with City Manager Wu to discuss the upcoming council agenda, resident concerns, and items of interest.

Event 4. March 18, 2024 – Capital Improvement Plan Briefing – I attended this briefing and preparatory session offered by Susan Michaels of Public Works. The briefing was informative and useful preparation for the March 19 council discussion of the Capital Improvement Plan budget.

Event 5. March 22, 2024 – Weekly Meeting with the City Manager – I attended my weekly meeting with City Manager Wu to discuss the upcoming council agenda, resident concerns, and items of interest.
1270
CC 04-03-2024
1270 of 1277
1 CITY COUNCILMEMBER REPORT
Meeting:  April 3, 2024
Reporting Councilmember:  Mayor Sheila Mohan
Report Dates:  3/12/24 to 3/25/24
Item Date, Title, and Description:
3/12/24: Worked on a video recording for a message on behalf of the City welcoming the public  to Cupertino’s Cherry Blossom Festival. This year, the festival will be held on April 27 and 28 and, as in previous years, will be hosted by the Cupertino‐Toyokawa Sister Cities, Inc. 3/13/24: Participated in the retirement reception for Girish Balachandran, CEO of Silicon Valley Clean Energy.  The highlight of the program was the musical performance of Elton John’s “Rocket Man” by SVCE’s Board of Directors!
3/13/24: Attended the monthly Board of Director’s meeting of SVCE.  The new CEO, Monica Padilla, assumed the role of CEO last week.  At the March meeting, the board received the 2022‐23 fiscal year (“clean”) audit, approved the mid‐year budget, allocated additional funding to decarbonization programs, and approved a contract to support implementing a single‐family residential install program. 3/14/24: Hosted the quarterly West Valley Mayors and City Managers breakfast meeting at the Community Hall.  Mayors of Sunnyvale, Santa Clara and Mountain View attended.  The roundtable discussion included concerns about possible decline of city services as housing increases, impact on the entire Bay Area of major events such as the Superbowl and World Cup Soccer scheduled to be held in Santa Clara in 2026, and the financial hit city businesses are taking as a result of workplaces continuing to implement remote work.
3/14/24: Attended the Cities Association of Santa Clara County Board of Directors meeting.  Larry Stone, County Assessor was the guest speaker and spoke 1271
CC 04-03-2024
1271 of 1277
City Council Councilmember Report
2 on regulation re: taxation of parklets.  The newly formed JPA and next steps were also discussed.
3/15/24: Attended Assemblymember Evan Low’s Woman of the Year Celebration. This year’s honoree was Diana Ding, Founder and CEO of Silicon Valley Media and Ding Ding TV.     Councilmember Wei was the first Woman of the Year honored by Assemblymember Low in 2015 for her role on the FUHSD Board of Trustees.
3/16/24: Along with Councilmember Moore and school district officials, I attended Congressman Ro Khanna’s town hall meeting at Hyde Middle School.

Questions directed at the Congressman by the public focused mainly on the Israel‐ Palestine conflict.  There were also some comments made by members of the public on The Rise development as well as rail tracks in the Lehigh area. 3/20/24: Conducted the Mayor’s Commissioner meeting on Zoom.  Some of the highlights of the discussion included:  artistic bike racks, 2023 Artist Awards, approval of two public art installations at Westport, community grant funding applications, extension of development agreements for two hotels, a Hazardous Awareness dashboard at the City website, the upcoming Earth and Arbor Day Festival on April 20, the Teen Resource Fair, and possible update of CMC to include issues such as cybersecurity and AI.
3/21/24: Attended the first Audit Committee meeting of 2024, and welcomed new members Councilmember Hung Wei, Eno Schmidt (new chairperson) and Hanyan Wu.  Presentations were made by Chandler Investments, The Pun Group (independent auditors) and Moss Adams (internal auditing firm). The committee also reviewed the Audit Committee’s 2024 schedule and workplan 3/25/24: Attended the Holi festival at Memorial Park organized by the Nepali community.  Residents of Nepali origin gathered to celebrate the event with music, food and poetry reading.  Made a few remarks celebrating the City’s diversity and acknowledging the hard work of the community.
1272
CC 04-03-2024
1272 of 1277
1 CITY COUNCILMEMBER REPORT
Meeting: April 3, 2024
Reporting Councilmember: Councilmember Kitty Moore
Report Dates: 2/23/24 to 3/25/24
Event Date, Title, and Description:

February 23, 2024. First time attendee at the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce Lunar New Year Celebration. Met many our business community leaders including a water retailer where I learned about PFAS being measured in ppt (not ppm, or ppb).

January 8, 2024-present. Begin Winter quarter Environmental Studies courses: Environmental Management Tools: Environmental Management Systems & Environmental Performance Reporting and Environmental Resource Mgmt & Pollution Prevention: Air, Water & Land. Topics: quality management-related ISO 14001 sustainability planning standards, air pollution controls, water law and clean-up standards. This is the start of my third year in Environmental Studies. Class has reviewed our Cupertino GP, Sustainability elements, local Superfund sites, and studied groundwater contamination.

March 5, 2024. City Council Meeting.

March 11, 2024. 2:1 Meeting with City Manager and City Attorney.

March 11, 2024. Wrote city RE PFAS: PFOA and PFOS about online research results https://ca.water.usgs.gov/projects/gama/water-qualityresults/ and how the EPA is currently forming reporting and mitigation guidelines above health risk levels.
1273
CC 04-03-2024
1273 of 1277
City Council Councilmember Report
2 March 10. 2024. Attended League of Women Voters – Cupertino - Sunnyvale “Meet Electeds Mixer” with area electeds in a less formal setting to have a chance to chat.

March 12, 2024. Attended the First Amendment Coalition FOIA training webinar to learn about Federal and State public records law regarding our rights to public records and how to improve public records requests.

March 13, 2024. Attended San Francisco Baykeeper 2024 “State of the Bay” webinar. Various information presented: SF Baykeeper has been around 35 years. The Clean Water Act of 1972 helped the Bay but Nitrogen, Selenium, microplastics continue to harm the Bay. The Bay has a mix of fresh and salt water. SB Baykeeper is a watchdog. 5 oil refineries and 2 coal export hubs impact the Bay. Baykeeper opposes the Delta Tunnel water diversion proposal and dam proposals and holds polluters accountable. 1 foot of sea level rise is expected within the next ten years, and this may leach out toxins into the Bay and inland.

March 14, 2024. Attended the Special Board Meeting of Santa Clara Valley Water, Censure hearing of one of their board members.

March 14, 2024. Attended the Cities Association Legislation Action Committee to hear about legislation from Assemblymember Low and Assemblymember Berman. Attended a portion of the Cities Association Board meeting to hear Tax Assessor Larry Stone and his staff speak about possessory interest which is impacting parklets and closed streets for private commercial use.

March 15, 2024. Attended city CIP prep. Session.

March 16, 2024. Attended Congressman Ro Khanna’s Town Hall event to hear community concerns.

March 16, 2024. Attended APALI Celebration event led by former Cupertino Mayor, Dr. Michael Chang
March 18, 2024. Attended City Manager 1:1 event with two guest students from Lynbrook High School who were learning about city government. 1274
CC 04-03-2024
1274 of 1277
City Council Councilmember Report
3 March 19, 2024. City Council Meeting.

March 22, 2024. CalCities Environmental Quality Policy Committee, inperson in Burbank. State budget expected to have between $38B-$73B deficit to be fixed with delays, shifts, deferrals, and spending reductions.

Mentioned several bills working their way through the legislators including over 400 Public Safety Bills. Still having trouble with SB 1383 implementation in the state. Received an update on “Making Water Conservation a Way of Life.” Received an update on AB 1999 and had a robust discussion on this and the CPUC proposal for fixed charges ultimately resulting in a “watch” position recommendation to the Board.

March 23, 2024. Attended the now record-sized 7th annual Women’s Leadership and Policy Summit 2024 conference at San Jose State University.

There were over 1,000 attendees. This all-day event’s theme was “Unity in Diversity: Women Leading Change” and had many seminars to choose from. “Collaboration through Community” had current information about challenges facing women in the community like human trafficking.

March 25, 2024. Attended 2:1 with City Manager and City Attorney.

March 25, 2024. Attended excellent Carryover and Encumbrance discussion meeting with Staff.
1275
CC 04-03-2024
1275 of 1277
1 CITY COUNCILMEMBER REPORT
Meeting: April 3, 2024
Reporting Councilmember: Councilmember Hung Wei
Report Dates: 3/15/24 to 3/25/24
Item Date, Title, and Description:

Event 1. Friday March 15, 2024 @10:00am, Staff Prep Session on CIP Attended a Staff Prep Session on Capital Improvement Projects with Q & A.

Event 2. Friday March 15, 2024 @11:30am, Assemblymember Evan Low’s Annual Woman of the Year Celebration
Attended Assemblymember Evan Low’s 2024 Woman of the Year Recognition and Celebration Luncheon, congratulated Diana Ding of Ding Ding TV & Innovation Channel as 2024 Woman of the Year of California Assembly District 26.

Event 3. Wednesday March 20, 2024 @ 6:00pm, Palo Alto City Mayor Greer Stone’s State of the City Address at Palo Alto Art Center
Attended Mayor Stone of Palo Alto’s State of the City Address and socialized with elected officials and community members.

Event 4. Thursday March 21, 2024 @ 4:00pm, Audit Committee Meeting at Cupertino City Hall Attended the Audit Committee Meeting, elected Committee Chair and Vice Chair, reviewed the Committee’s roles and responsibilities, received PARS presentation, received investments report from Chandler, received presentations from the Pun Group & Moss Adams, received budget feedback on the City’s current recommended Service Level Reductions, discussed Budget 1276
CC 04-03-2024
1276 of 1277
City Council Councilmember Report
2 Format Review process, and provided input to the 2024 Audit Committee schedule and workplan.

Event 5. Friday March 22, 2024 @ 2:00pm, Cities’ Association of Santa Clara County JPA Executive Committee Meeting at Los Altos Community Center Attended the Cities’ Association of Santa Clara County E-Committee Meeting, received Joint Powers Agency Formation update, discussed the Conflict of Interest Code, identified potential speakers for 2024, took action on Cities Association Website Update, exchanged ideas and planned for June 13 Cities Association Member event, reviewed Agendas for 4/11 Legislative Action Committee and Board of Directors meetings, discussed possible future meeting topics, and received update from Santa Clara County Managers Association and Cities Association Executive Director.

Event 6. Saturday March 23, 2024 @ 4:00pm, A Taste of History hosted by the California History Center and the Euphrat Museum of Art at De Anza College Attended the Annual Taste of History at De Anza College with Keynote Speaker Meesha Goldberg, Multimedia Artist and Poet, enjoyed enchanting musical performance by Diana Gameros and Patrick Wolff, toured the Sacred Terrain Art Exhibition, and connected with elected officials and community members.

1277
CC 04-03-2024
1277 of 1277