D - PRSMP IS-MND Addendum-MPSP Appendices B-F — Cupertino City Council, April 3, 2024

CITY OF CUPERTINO

PARKS AND RECREATION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN

INITIAL STUDY -

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

ADDENDUM

APPENDICES B - F
ATTACHMENT D
Attachment D
Tree Inventory Report. Memorial Park, Cupertino. Page 1 David J. Powers & Associates November 2022

HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company 2550 Ninth Street Suite 112, Berkeley, CA, 94710, 925.484.0211 ● www.hortscience.com

Tree Inventory Report

Memorial Park
Cupertino, CA

PREPARED FOR:

David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.
1871 The Alameda, Suite 200
San Jose, CA 95126

PREPARED BY:

HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
2250 Ninth St. Suite 112
Berkeley, CA 94710

November, 2022
ATTACHMENT D APPENDIX B
- HORT SCIENCE
w BARTLET T CON SU LT I NG
Tree Inventory Report. Memorial Park, Cupertino. Page 2 David J. Powers & Associates November 2022

HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company 2550 Ninth Street Suite 112, Berkeley, CA, 94710, 925.484.0211 ● www.hortscience.com

Tree Inventory Report
Memorial Park
Cupertino, CA

Table of Contents

Page

Introduction and Overview 1

Assessment Methods 1

Description of Trees 2

Suitability for Preservation 9

Tree Preservation Guidelines 11

List of Tables

Table 1. Tree condition and frequency of occurrence 3

Table 2. Tree suitability for preservation 10

Attachments

Tree Inventory Map

Tree Assessment Form

HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company

Tree Inventory Report
Memorial Park
Cupertino, CA

Introduction and Overview
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. in conjunction with Gates+Associates are developing a Master Plan for Memorial Park in Cupertino, CA. HortScience | Bartlett Consulting (Divisions of The F.A. The Bartlett Expert Tree Company) was asked to prepare a Tree Inventory Report for trees at this location to assist with planning and future development.

This report provides the following information:

1. An assessment of the health and structural condition of the trees within the park’s boundary area based on a visual inspection from the ground.

2. Preliminary guidelines for tree preservation during the design, construction, and maintenance phases of development.

Assessment Methods
Trees were assessed on September 2, 14, and 28, 2022. Tree assessment included trees with diameters of 4 inches or greater located within the boundaries provided by the client. The assessment procedure consisted of the following steps:

1. Identifying the tree species.

2. Tagging trees and recording locations on a map.

3. Measuring the trunk diameter at a point 54 inches above grade.

4. Evaluating the health and structural condition using a scale of 1 – 5:
5 - A healthy, vigorous tree, reasonably free of signs and symptoms of disease, with good structure and form typical of the species.
4 - Tree with slight decline in vigor, small amount of twig dieback, minor str uctural defects that could be corrected.
3 - Tree with moderate vigor, moderate twig and small branch dieback, thinning of crown, poor leaf color, moderate structural defects that might be mitigated with regular care.
2 - Tree in decline, epicormic growth, extensive dieback of medium to large branches, significant structural defects that cannot be abated. 1 - Tree in severe decline, dieback of scaffold branches and/or trunk; most of foliage from epicormics; extensive structural defects that cannot be abated.

5. Rating the suitability for preservation as “high”, “moderate” or “low”. Suitability for preservation considers the health, age and structural condition of the tree, and its potential to remain an asset to the site for years to come.

High: Trees with good health and structural stability that have the potential for longevity at the site.

Moderate: Trees with somewhat declining health and/or structural defects than can be abated with treatment. The tree will require more intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter life span than those in ‘high’ category.

Low: Trees in poor health or with significant structural defects that cannot be mitigated. Tree is expected to continue to decline, regardless of treatment. The species or individual may have characteristics that are undesirable for landscapes, and generally are unsuited for use areas.

Tree Inventory Report. Memorial Park, Cupertino. Page 2 David J. Powers & Associates November 2022

HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company

Description of Trees
Five hundred sixty (560) trees representing thirty-four species were assessed (Table 1). Overall, 357 trees were in good condition, 148 were in fair condition, 53 were in poor condition, and two were dead. In general species were ornamental, non-native and commonly observed in the region. While coast redwood, coast live oak, and western sycamore are native to the area, trees were not indigenous to the site. Trees #340, 370 and 371 were located off-site but were included because their canopy overhung the western park boundary. Descriptions of each tree can be found in the Tree Assessment Form and approximate locations are shown on the Tree Inventory Map (see Attachments).

Memorial Park is a 28-acre public park with open grass fields, sports courts, pedestrian pathways, playground, amphitheater, picnic areas, and other public amenities including Quinlan Community Center and Cupertino Sports Center. The landscape varied from irrigated turf with lush redwoods to dry non-irrigated hillsides.

Coast redwood was the most common species with
191 trees (34% of the population). One hundred
eleven (111) trees were in good condition (58%) with a
full healthy crown. The remaining redwoods (42%)
were in fair (63 trees) and poor (15 trees) condition,
and trees #399 and 429 were dead. Age and size
ranged from young to mature and from 5 to 60 inches
in diameter. In general, the trees in good condition
were growing in irrigated turf (PPhoto 1). Many of the trees in fair and poor condition were suffering from
drought stress with moderate to extreme canopy
dieback (PPhoto 2). Coast redwoods are not drought
tolerant and will show signs of water stress if
supplemental irrigation is not provided. Redwoods in
fair condition may recover from drought if adequate
irrigation is applied.

Photo 1. (above) Redwood #445
was growing in irrigated turf and was
in good condition with a full healthy
crown.

Photo 2. (right) Redwoods #360 –
364 (pictured left to right) were water
stressed and had sparse crowns.

Tree Inventory Report. Memorial Park, Cupertino. Page 3 David J. Powers & Associates November 2022

HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company

Table 1: Tree condition and frequency of occurrence.

Memorial Park. Cupertino, CA.

Common Name Scientific Name Condition Total
Dead
(0)
Poor
(1-2)
Fair
(3)
Good
(4-5)

Red maple Acer rubrum - - - 19 19
African fern-pine Afrocarpus falcatus - - 11 9 20
Silk tree Albizia julibrissin - - - 3 3
Blue atlas cedar Cedrus atlantica 'Glauca' - - - 1 1
Deodar cedar Cedrus deodara - - 3 18 21
Red ironbark Eucalyptus sideroxylon - - 1 - 1
Raywood ash Fraxinus angustifolia 'Raywood' - - 1 4 5
Evergreen ash Fraxinus uhdei - - - 8 8
Honey locust Gleditsia triacanthos - 7 7 - 14
Leyland cypress x Hesperotropis leylandii - - 1 - 1
California black walnut Juglans hindsii - 14 2 - 16
Hollywood juniper Juniperus chinensis 'Kaizuka' - 2 3 - 5 Crape myrtle Lagerstroemia indica - - - 2 2
Crabapple Malus sylvestris - - 1 - 1
Photinia Photinia fraseri - - 2 - 2
Canary Island pine Pinus canariensis - - 2 22 24
Italian stone pine Pinus pinea - - 8 3 11
Monterey pine Pinus radiata - 1 - - 1
Scot's pine Pinus sylvestris - 2 2 - 4
Chinese pistache Pistacia chinensis - - 4 21 25
Tobira Pittosporum tobira - - 2 - 2
Western sycamore Platanus racemosa - - 1 3 4
London plane Platanus x hispanica - - 1 6 7
Purpleleaf plum Prunus cerasifera - - - 12 12
Jap. flowering cherry Prunus serrulata - 7 1 18 26
Callery pear Pyrus calleryana - - 14 46 60
Evergreen pear Pyrus kawakamii - 2 8 2 12
Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia - - 6 32 38
Holly oak Quercus ilex - - - 1 1
Southern live oak Quercus virginiana - 2 1 2 5
Coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 2 15 63 111 191
Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia - - 2 9 11
Mexican fan palm Washingtonia robusta - - - 1 1
Sawleaf zelkova Zelkova serrata - 1 1 4 6

Total 2 53 148 357 560

Tree Inventory Report. Memorial Park, Cupertino. Page 4 David J. Powers & Associates November 2022

HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company

Callery pear was the next most common species with 60 trees representing 10% of the population. Trees were in good (46 trees) and fair (14) condition. Most of the pears (40 trees) were located along the perimeter of a grassy field with the remainder in parking lot planting strips and scattered throughout the park. Pears were young to semi-mature in development with an average diameter of 14 inches.

Thirty-two of 38 coast live oaks
were in good condition and six
trees were fair. Age and size
ranged from young to mature
with diameters from 7 to 59
inches. Tree #338 was the
largest and most mature of the
oaks. It had a full healthy crown
and areas of decay on the trunk
and branches (Photo 3).

Japanese flowering cherries
comprised approximately 4% of the
population (26 trees). Trees were
young with an average diameter of
four inches. The cherries were in
good (18 trees) and poor (7 trees)
condition with tree #331 in fair.

Many of the cherries had marginal
leaf burn from a period of recent
high temperatures (Photo 4).

Of 26 Chinese pistaches, 21 were in good condition with four in fair condition. Trees were young to semi-mature in development with an average diameter of seven inches. In general, trees had good structure and a full round crown.

Most (91%) of the 24 Canary Island pines were in good condition (22 trees), with two in fair condition. Age and size ranged from young to mature with diameter from 8 to 28 inches. Trees had good structure and upright columnar form typical of the species.

Photo 3. (right) Coast live oak
#338 was a striking mature
tree. Despite areas of decay in
the trunk and branches, it had a
full healthy crown.

Photo 4. A recent period of high
temperatures caused leaf burn
in many of the Japanese
flowering cherries (tree #274).

Tree Inventory Report. Memorial Park, Cupertino. Page 5 David J. Powers & Associates November 2022

HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company

Twenty-one (21) deodar
cedars were located around
the Sports Center tennis
courts. Trees were young to
semi-mature in development.

Size ranged from four to 26
inches in diameter. Most of
the cedars were in good
condition (18 trees) with three
trees in fair condition.

African fern-pines comprised
approximately 3% of the
population (20 trees). Half
(10 trees) were located
around Quinlan Community
Center and half (10 trees)
were located in the Sports
Center parking lot (Photo 5).

Trees were young to semi-
mature with an average
diameter of 14 inches. Nine
(9) trees were in good
condition with 11 trees fair.

Nineteen (19) red maples were
located around the Veteran’s
Memorial. The maples were
young with an average diameter
of eight inches. All trees were in
good condition with a full
healthy crown.

Sixteen (16) California black
walnuts were located around the
playground. Most (14 trees)
were in poor condition with
moderate to severe twig and
branch dieback. Two trees
were in fair condition (Photo 6).

Age and size ranged from semi-
mature to mature with diameter
from 12 to 38 inches.

Honey locusts (14 trees) were
located around a group picnic
area. Trees were young with an
average diameter of seven
inches. Half (7 trees) were in
fair condition and half (7 trees)
were in poor condition with
extensive trunk wounds and
basal decay.

Photo 5. (above) African fern-pines #102 – 104 (pictured left to right) were located around Quinlan Community Center.

Tree #104 had a slightly chlorotic but full crown, while trees #102 & 103 had thinner crowns.

Photo 6. California black walnut #449 was in poor
condition with significant twig and branch dieback.

Tree Inventory Report. Memorial Park, Cupertino. Page 6 David J. Powers & Associates November 2022

HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company

Purpleleaf plums (12 trees) were in a semi-circle west of the Community Center building. The plums were in good condition with a full healthy crown. Trees were young in development with an average diameter of six inches.

Twelve (12) evergreen pears were present. Trees were young to semi-mature, and diameter ranged from five to 14 inches. Most pears were in fair (8 trees) condition with two trees in fair and poor condition respectively.

Italian stone pines were in
fair (8 trees) and good (3
trees) condition. Trees
were semi-mature to
mature in development with
an average trunk diameter
of 25 inches. Seven pines
had large codominant
stems. Tree #421 had
large heavy lateral
branches that extended
over the baseball field’s
bleachers (Photo 7).

Eleven (11) Chinese elms were located
around the west entrance to the
Community Center and along Anton
Way. Trees were in good (9 trees) and
fair (2 trees) condition. The young
trees had an average trunk diameter of
six inches.

Evergreen ashes were in good (8 trees)
condition with a vigorous full crown
(Photo 8). Trees were semi-mature to
mature in development with diameters
ranging from 14 to 38 inches. Ashes
were located around the newly filled-in
pond (6 trees) and adjacent to the
playground (2 trees).

Photo 8. Evergreen ash #276 was in
good condition and had a full
vigorous crown.

Photo 7. Italian stone
pine #421 was a
mature tree with
codominant trunks and
large lateral branches
that hung over the
baseball bleachers.

Tree Inventory Report. Memorial Park, Cupertino. Page 7 David J. Powers & Associates November 2022

HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company

Six of seven London planes were in good condition with a full healthy crown. Tree #479 was fair condition with a slightly sparse crown. Trees were semi-mature in development with an average diameter of 14 inches.

Four (4) sawleaf zelkova were in
good condition, tree #262 was
fair, and tree #345 was poor.

Trees were semi-mature to
mature in development with
diameters ranging from 13 to 25
inches. Multiple branch
attachments arose between 5
and 8 feet on the trees. Tree
#263 was an especially beautiful
tree with a dense wide-
spreading crown (Photo 9).

Hollywood junipers were in fair (3 trees) and
poor (2 trees) condition. The average trunk
diameter was 13 inches. Trees were small in
stature with an average height of 13 feet.

Four (4) Raywood ash were in good condition
with a full healthy crown. Tree #309 was fair
with dieback on the north side. Age and size
ranged from young to semi-mature and from 4
to 11 inches in diameter.

Southern live oaks (5 trees) were located
along Stevens Creek Boulevard. Trees were
in good (2 trees) and poor (2 trees) condition,
and tree #504 was fair. Oaks were young to
semi-mature with an average diameter of 10
inches.

Scot’s pines (4 trees) were located along
Anton Way. The average diameter was 10
inches. Trees were in fair (2 trees) and poor
(2 trees) condition and were water stressed
with small to significant needle dieback.

Four (4) western sycamore were growing in
parking lot planters. Age and size ranged
from young to semi-mature and from seven to
24 inches in diameter. Three (3) trees were
in good condition with a fully healthy crown.

Tree #353 was fair with a thin sinuous central
leader. The sycamores had large surface
roots typical of unsuitable soil conditions
(Photo 10).

Photo 9. (right) Sawleaf
zelkova #263 was a striking
tree with a dense wide-
spreading crown.

Photo 10. Western sycamore #353 was
growing in a parking lot planter. It had a thin
sinuous central leader and large surface
roots.

Tree Inventory Report. Memorial Park, Cupertino. Page 8 David J. Powers & Associates November 2022

HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company

Three (3) silk trees were growing in a parking lot planting strip. Trees were in good condition with a full healthy crown. They were young with an average diameter of seven inches (Photo 11).

The remaining species were represented by two trees or fewer:

• Blue Atlas cedar #521 measured 12 inches in diameter and was in good condition.

• Crabapple #299 was in fair condition with basal and root decay. It was 12 inches in diameter.

• Crape myrtles #322 and 323 were young and in good condition.

• Holly oak #546 was in good condition with a fully healthy crown. It was semi-mature with multiple stems arising from the base.

• Leyland cypress #119 was in fair condition with small twig and branch dieback. It was semi-mature and measured 21 inches in diameter.

• Mexican fan palm #380 was mature in development. It was in good condition with a full healthy crown.

• Monterey pine #370 was in poor condition with significant twig and branch dieback. It was semi-mature with a diameter of 17 inches.

• Photinias #348 and 350 were in fair condition. The young trees had an average diameter of 5 inches.

• Red ironbark #530 was mature in development with a diameter of 31 inches. The tree was in fair condition with a history of branch failures.

Photo 11. Silk trees #19 – 21 (pictured right to left) were good young trees with a dense vigorous crown.

Tree Inventory Report. Memorial Park, Cupertino. Page 9 David J. Powers & Associates November 2022

HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company

• T obiras #351 and 352 were in fair condition. The young trees had a diameter of 7 inches.

The City of Cupertino protects private trees that meet certain criterion (Chapter 14.18.050), and all public trees (Chapter 14.12). According to City Ordinance 14.12, public tree is defined as park trees and street trees collectively; and park trees are defined as all woody vegetation in public parks owned by the City, or to which the public has access as a park. Based on this definition, all trees in Memorial Park are Protected.

Additionally, City Ordinance Chapter 14.18.050 protects Heritage trees in all zoning districts.

Heritage trees have an identification tag on them which designates their status (Chapter

14.18.090). Based on this designation, no tree in Memorial Park has Heritage status.

Suitability for Preservation
Before evaluating the impacts that will occur during development, it is important to consider the quality of the tree resource itself, and the potential for individual trees to function well over an extended length of time. Trees that are preserved on development sites must be carefully selected to make sure that they may survive development impacts, adapt to a new environment and perform well in the landscape. Our goal is to identify trees that have the potential for long- term health, structural stability, and longevity within the proposed development.

Evaluation of suitability for preservation considers several factors:

 Tree health
Healthy, vigorous trees are better able to tolerate impacts such as root injury, demolition of existing structures, changes in soil grade and moisture, and soil compaction than are non-vigorous trees. For example, coast redwoods with a full healthy crown will tolerate impacts from construction better than redwoods that are drought stressed.

 Structural integrity
Trees with significant amounts of wood decay and other structural defects that cannot be corrected are likely to fail. Such trees should not be preserved in areas where damage to people or property is likely. For example, honey locust #238 had extensive trunk wounds and basal decay and had low suitability for preservation.

 Species response
There is a wide variation in the response of individual species to construction impacts and changes in the environment. Coast redwood, Canary Island pine, and coast live oak are tolerant of root severance and general construction impacts while California black walnut is intolerant. Callery pear and Chinese pistache are moderate in response.

 Tree age and longevity
Old trees, while having significant emotional and aesthetic appeal, have limited physiological capacity to adjust to an altered environment. Young to semi-mature coast live oaks would be better able to generate new tissue and to respond to change than mature oak #338.

 Invasiveness
Species that spread across a site and displace desired vegetation are not always appropriate for retention. This is particularly true when indigenous species are displaced.

The California Invasive Plant Inventory Database (http://www.cal-ipc.org/paf/) lists species identified as being invasive. Cupertino is part of the Central West Floristic Tree Inventory Report. Memorial Park, Cupertino. Page 10 David J. Powers & Associates November 2022

HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company

Province. Of the assessed species, Mexican fan palm is moderately invasive and purpleleaf plum has limited invasiveness.

Each tree was rated for suitability for preservation based upon its age, health, structural condition, and ability to safely coexist within a development environment (Table 2). We consider trees with high suitability for preservation to be the best candidates for preservation. We do not recommend retention of trees with low suitability for preservation in areas where people or property will be present. Retention of trees with moderate suitability for preservation depends upon the intensity of proposed site changes.

Table 2: Tree suitability for preservation
Memorial Park. Cupertino, CA

High Trees in this category had good health and structural stability that have the potential for longevity at the site. Two hundred ninety-three (293) trees had high suitability for preservation: 114 coast redwoods, 34 coast live oaks, 24 Chinese pistaches, 19 red maples, 13 Japanese flowering cherries, 12 purpleleaf plums, African fern-pines #16, 17, 52, 56, 65, and 102 – 104; evergreen ashes #176, 382 – 386, 447, and 448; London planes #297, 298, 314, 329, 337, and 339; western sycamores #354 – 357; Callery pears #305 and 537, Chinese elms #488 and 489, crape myrtles #322 and 323, evergreen pears #315 and 534, Italian stone pine #484, sawleaf zelkova #261 and 263, Leyland cypress #119, Mexican fan palm #380, and Raywood ash #336.

Moderate Trees in this category have fair health and/or structural defects that may be abated with treatment. Trees in this category require more intense management and monitoring and may have shorter lifespans than those in the “high” category. One hundred seventy-two (172) trees had moderate suitability for preservation: 58 coast redwoods, 47 Callery pears, 10 African fern-pines, 10 Italian stone pines; Chinese elms #57 – 64 and 73; evergreen pears #341 – 343, 346, 347, and 349; Japanese flowering cherries #332, 375, 376, 485, and 486; sawleaf zelkovas #262, 275, and 344; silk trees #19 – 21; coast live oaks #434 and 442; Scot’s pines #469 and 487; Chinese pistache #12, London plane #479, and tobira #351.

Low Trees in this category are in poor health or have significant defects in structure that cannot be abated with treatment. These trees can be expected to decline regardless of management. The species or individual tree may possess either characteristics that are undesirable in landscape settings or be unsuited for use areas. Ninety-five (95) trees had low suitability for preservation: 19 coast redwoods, 16 California black walnuts, 14 honey locusts, 11 Callery pears, Japanese flowering cherries #69 – 72, 260, 300, 330, and 331; Hollywood junipers #473 - 475, 477, and 478; evergreen pears #547 – 550; African fern-pines #556 and 558; coast live oaks #369 and 441; photinias #348 and 350; Scots’ pines #467 and 468; crabapple #299, Monterey pine #370, Raywood ash #309, sawleaf zelkova #345, tobira #352, and western sycamore #353.

Tree Inventory Report. Memorial Park, Cupertino. Page 11 David J. Powers & Associates November 2022

HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company

Tree Preservation Guidelines
The goal of tree preservation is not merely tree survival during development but maintenance of tree health and beauty for many years. Trees retained on sites that are either subject to extensive injury during construction or are inadequately maintained become a liability rather than an asset.

The response of individual trees depends on the amount of excavation and grading, care with which demolition is undertaken, and construction methods. Coordinating any construction activity inside the T
REE PROTECTION ZONE can minimize these impacts.

The following recommendations will help reduce impacts to trees from development and maintain and improve their health and vitality through the clearing, grading and construction phases.

Tree Protection Zone

1. A TREE PROTECTION ZONE shall be identified for each tree to be preserved on the Tree Protection Plan prepared by the project arborist.
a. Fence all trees to be retained to completely enclose the TREE PROTECTION ZONE prior to demolition, grubbing or grading. Fences shall be 6 ft. chain link with posts sunk into the ground or equivalent as approved by the City.
b. Fences must be installed prior to beginning demolition and must remain until construction is complete.
c. No grading, excavation, construction, or storage or dumping of materials shall occur within the T
REE PROTECTION ZONE.
d. No underground services including utilities, sub-drains, water, or sewer shall be placed in the TREE PROTECTION ZONE.

Design recommendations

1. Plot accurate locations of all trees to be preserved on all project plans. Identify the TREE PROTECTION ZONE for each tree. Focus on preserving trees that have high suitability for preservation.

2. Plan for tree preservation by designing adequate space around trees to be preserved. This is the TREE PROTECTION ZONE: No grading, excavation, construction, or storage of materials should occur within that zone. Route underground services including utilities, sub -drains, water, or sewer around the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. For design purposes, the TREE PROTECTION ZONE trees shall be defined as the tree dripline.

3. Consider the vertical clearance requirements near trees during design. Avoid designs that would require pruning more than 20% of a tree’s canopy.

4. All plans affecting trees shall be reviewed by the Consulting Arborist with regard to tree impacts. These include, but are not limited to, demolition plans, grading plans, drainage plans, utility plans, and landscape and irrigation plans.

5. Tree Preservation Guidelines prepared by the Consulting Arborist, which include specifications for tree protection during demolition and construction, should be included on all plans.

6. Do not lime the subsoil within 50’ of any tree. Lime is toxic to tree roots.

7. As trees withdraw water from the soil, expansive soils may shrink within the root area.

Therefore, foundations, footings, and pavements on expansive soils near trees should be designed to withstand differential displacement.

Tree Inventory Report. Memorial Park, Cupertino. Page 12 David J. Powers & Associates November 2022

HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company

Pre-demolition and pre-construction treatments and recommendations

1. The demolition and construction superintendents shall meet with the Consulting Arborist before beginning work to review all work procedures, access routes, storage areas, and tree protection measures.

2. Fence all trees to be retained to completely enclose the TREE PROTECTION ZONE prior to demolition, grubbing or grading. Fences shall be 6 ft. chain link with posts sunk into the ground or equivalent as approved by the City.

3. Fences are to remain until all grading and construction is completed.

4. Tree(s) to be removed that have branches extending into the canopy of tree(s) or located within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE of tree(s) to remain shall be removed by a Certified Arborist or Certified Tree Worker and not by the demolition contractor. The Certified Arborist or Certified Tree Worker shall remove the trees in a manner that causes no damage to the tree(s) and understory to remain. Stumps shall be ground below grade.

Summary
Five hundred sixty (560) trees representing thirty-four species were assessed. Coast redwood was the most common species with 191 trees (34% of the population). Tree condition varied by species. Overall, 357 trees were in good condition, 148 were in fair condition, 53 were in poor condition, and two were dead. Trees age ranged from young to mature in development. Tree size ranged from 4 inches to 60 inches in diameter with an average of 17 inches.

In general, trees that are the best candidates for preservation are those in good condition with good to moderate suitability for preservation (354 trees). Trees in poor health with low suitability for preservation (55 trees) should be considered for removal. If trees are to be retained, it is imperative to provide sufficient irrigation to relieve the current water-stress of the coast redwoods.

Maintenance of impacted trees
Preserved trees will experience a physical environment different from that pre-development. As a result, tree health and structural stability should be monitored. Occasional pruning, fertilization, mulch, pest management, replanting and irrigation may be required. In addition, provisions for monitoring both tree health and structural stability following construction must be made a priority.

Inspect trees annually and following major storms to identify conditions requiring treatment to manage risk associated with tree failure.

Our procedures included assessing trees for observable defects in structure. This is not to say that trees without significant defects will not fail. Failure of apparently defect-free trees does occur, especially during storm events. Wind forces, for example, can exceed the strength of defect-free wood causing branches and trunks to break. Wind forces coupled with rain can saturate soils, reducing their ability to hold roots, and blow over defect-free trees. Although we cannot predict all failures, identifying those trees with observable defects is a critical component of enhancing public safety.

Furthermore, trees change over time. Our inspections represent the condition of the tree at the time of inspection. As trees age, the likelihood of failure of branches or entire trees increases.

Annual tree inspections are recommended to identify changes to tree health and structure. In addition, trees should be inspected after storms of unusual severity to evaluate damage and structural changes. Initiating these inspections is the responsibility of the client and/or tree owner.

Tree Inventory Report. Memorial Park, Cupertino. Page 13 David J. Powers & Associates November 2022

HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company

HortScience | Bartlett Consulting

Brenda Wong
Consulting Arborist and Urban Forester
ISA Certified Arborist WE12933A
ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified

If you have any questions regarding my observations or recommendations, please contact me.

HortScience | Bartlett Consulting

Attachments

Tree Inventory Map

Tree Assessment Form

��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
1 Callery pear 20 Yes 3 25 45 Moderate Surface roots; poor structure; multiple attachments @ 6’; 25.
2 Coast redwood 25 Yes 3 70 22 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; small leaf dieback.
3 Coast redwood 22 Yes 3 70 24 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; small leaf dieback.
4 Coast redwood 23 Yes 3 70 24 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; small leaf dieback.
5 Coast redwood 22 Yes 2 70 24 Low Surface roots; good upright form & structure; significant canopy dieback.
6 Coast redwood 21 Yes 3 70 25 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; small leaf dieback.
7 Coast redwood 25 Yes 3 70 26 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; small leaf dieback.
8 Coast redwood 24 Yes 3 70 26 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; small leaf dieback.
9 Coast redwood 24 Yes 3 70 26 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; small leaf dieback.
10 Callery pear 18 Yes 3 25 28 Moderate Surface roots; poor structure; multiple attachments @ 6’.
11 Coast redwood 11 Yes 4 30 18 Moderate Surface roots; good upright form & structure; small leaf dieback.
12 Chinese pistache 8 Yes 4 20 30 Moderate Large surface roots; good structure; full healthy crown.

Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022

Page 1 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
13 Chinese pistache 7 Yes 4 15 28 High Large surface roots; good structure; full healthy crown.
14 Chinese pistache 6 Yes 4 15 20 High Multiple attachments @ 6’; full healthy crown.
15 African fern-pine 15 Yes 3 30 25 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 6’; chlorotic crown; good form & structure.
16 African fern-pine 14 Yes 3 30 25 High Multiple attachments @ 6’; good form & structure; small twig dieback.
17 African fern-pine 22 Yes 4 40 36 High Multiple attachments @ 6’; good form & structure; full healthy crown.
18 Coast redwood 22 Yes 4 40 28 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy crown.
19 Silk tree 6 Yes 4 12 14 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 6’; healthy crown.
20 Silk tree 7 Yes 4 12 24 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 6’; healthy crown.
21 Silk tree 8 Yes 4 12 20 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 6’; full healthy crown.
22 Callery pear 15 Yes 4 20 36 Moderate Surface roots; poor structure; multiple attachments @ 6’.
23 Callery pear 18 Yes 4 25 40 Moderate Surface roots; poor structure; multiple attachments @ 6’; healthy crown.
24 Coast redwood 17 Yes 3 40 20 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; small twig & leaf dieback.

Page 2 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
25 Coast redwood 23 Yes 3 40 25 Low Surface roots; dead central leader; otherwise healthy crown.
26 Coast redwood 24 Yes 4 60 30 High Group of 5; surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy crown.
27 Coast redwood 25 Yes 4 60 22 High Group of 5; surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy crown.
28 Coast redwood 22 Yes 4 60 24 High Group of 5; good upright form & structure; full healthy crown.
29 Coast redwood 28 Yes 5 60 30 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
29 Coast redwood 25 Yes 4 65 28 High Group of 5; good upright form & structure; small top dieback; otherwise
full healthy crown.
30 Coast redwood 23 Yes 5 60 24 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
30 Coast redwood 28 Yes 4 65 34 High Group of 5; good upright form & structure; full healthy crown.
31 Callery pear 8 Yes 4 15 12 Low 5’ parking lot planter; surface roots; poor structure; multiple attachments @
6’; healthy crown.
32 Callery pear 10 Yes 4 15 18 Low 5’ parking lot planter; surface roots; poor structure; multiple attachments @
6’; healthy crown.

Page 3 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
33 Callery pear 11 Yes 4 20 28 Low 5’ parking lot planter; surface roots; poor structure; multiple attachments @
6’; healthy crown.
34 Callery pear 10 Yes 3 20 25 Low 5’ parking lot planter; poor structure; multiple attachments @ 6’; sparse
crown.
35 Chinese pistache 7 Yes 4 15 30 High Surface roots; good structure; full healthy crown.
36 Chinese pistache 7 Yes 4 20 15 High Surface roots; suppressed; small twig dieback.
37 Coast redwood 5 Yes 4 15 14 High Surface circling roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
38 Coast redwood 26 Yes 4 65 26 High Group of 4; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
39 Coast redwood 18 Yes 4 50 22 High Group of 4; surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
40 Coast redwood 27 Yes 4 65 30 High Group of 4; surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
41 Coast redwood 24 Yes 4 65 28 High Group of 4; surface roots; good upright form & structure; small top dieback;
otherwise full healthy canopy.

Page 4 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
42 Coast redwood 26 Yes 4 65 30 High Group of 8; surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
43 Coast redwood 31 Yes 4 65 30 High Group of 8; surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
44 Coast redwood 29 Yes 4 65 32 High Group of 8; surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
45 Coast redwood 25 Yes 4 65 28 High Group of 8; surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
46 Coast redwood 24 Yes 4 65 28 High Group of 8; surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
47 Coast redwood 26 Yes 4 65 32 High Group of 8; surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
48 Coast redwood 25 Yes 4 65 30 High Group of 8; surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
49 Chinese pistache 6 Yes 4 15 26 High Surface roots; suppressed; good structure; small twig dieback.
50 Chinese pistache 8 Yes 4 15 30 High Surface roots; codominant trunks @ 6’; small twig dieback.

Page 5 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
51 Chinese pistache 5 Yes 4 15 25 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; full healthy crown.
52 African fern-pine 18 Yes 4 35 28 High Multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow attachments; full healthy canopy.
53 Chinese pistache 6 Yes 3 15 18 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; suppressed.
54 Chinese pistache 5 Yes 3 15 20 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; suppressed.
55 Chinese pistache 8 Yes 4 20 22 High Surface roots; codominant trunks @ 7’; healthy crown.
56 African fern-pine 15 Yes 4 35 32 High Multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow attachments; full slightly chlorotic
canopy.
57 Chinese elm 4 Yes 3 12 18 Moderate Codominant trunks @ 5’; small twig dieback.
58 Chinese elm 5 Yes 3 12 18 Moderate Codominant trunks @ 5’; small twig dieback.
59 Chinese elm 7 Yes 4 15 26 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 6’; healthy crown.
60 Chinese elm 6 Yes 4 15 20 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 6’; healthy crown.
61 Chinese elm 7 Yes 4 15 25 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 6’; healthy crown.
62 Chinese elm 5 Yes 4 12 24 Moderate Codominant trunks @ 5’; healthy crown.

Page 6 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
63 Chinese elm 6 Yes 4 12 20 Moderate Codominant trunks @ 5’; small twig dieback.
64 Chinese elm 6 Yes 4 12 25 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 6’; small twig dieback.
65 African fern-pine 16 Yes 4 25 24 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; full crown.
66 Chinese pistache 9 Yes 4 20 22 High Large surface roots; codominant trunks @ 6’; full crown.
67 Chinese pistache 7 Yes 3 15 22 High Large surface roots; codominant trunks @ 6’; small twig dieback.
68 African fern-pine 16 Yes 3 25 26 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; narrow unions; slightly chlorotic
crown.
69 Japanese flowering cherry 5 Yes 2 10 12 Low Multiple attachments @ 3’; significant branch dieback.
70 Japanese flowering cherry 4 Yes 2 10 8 Low Codominant trunks @ 3’; significant branch dieback.
71 Japanese flowering cherry 4 Yes 2 10 6 Low Codominant trunks @ 3’; significant branch dieback.
72 Japanese flowering cherry 4 Yes 2 10 6 Low Codominant trunks @ 3’; significant branch dieback.
73 Chinese elm 6 Yes 4 15 24 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 6’; healthy crown.
74 Coast redwood 27 Yes 4 70 28 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy crown.

Page 7 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
75 Coast redwood 22 Yes 4 70 24 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy crown.
76 Coast redwood 24 Yes 4 70 28 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy crown.
77 Coast redwood 24 Yes 4 70 40 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy crown.
78 Coast redwood 24 Yes 4 70 28 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy crown.
79 Coast redwood 23 Yes 4 70 20 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy crown.
80 Coast redwood 19 Yes 3 70 20 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; moderate leaf discoloration.
81 Coast redwood 17 Yes 3 70 20 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; small leaf
discoloration/dieback.
82 Coast redwood 23 Yes 3 70 22 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; small leaf
discoloration/dieback.
83 Coast redwood 22 Yes 2 70 24 Low Mostly dead.
84 Coast redwood 24 Yes 2 70 24 Low Severe canopy dieback. 85 Coast redwood 27 Yes 3 70 22 Moderate Good form & structure; moderate canopy dieback.
86 Coast redwood 22 Yes 3 70 22 Moderate Good upright form & structure; moderate canopy dieback.

Page 8 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
87 Coast redwood 23 Yes 3 70 26 Moderate Good upright form & structure; moderate canopy dieback.
88 Coast redwood 22 Yes 3 70 26 Moderate Good upright form & structure; small canopy dieback.
89 Coast redwood 17 Yes 2 70 20 Low Good upright form & structure; moderate canopy dieback.
90 Coast redwood 21 Yes 2 70 24 Low Good upright form & structure; moderate canopy dieback.
91 Coast redwood 17 Yes 2 70 24 Low Good upright form & structure; significant canopy dieback.
92 Coast redwood 22 Yes 3 70 28 Moderate Good upright form & structure; moderate canopy dieback.
93 Coast redwood 19 Yes 2 70 20 Low Good upright form & structure; moderate canopy dieback.
94 Coast redwood 23 Yes 3 70 28 Moderate Good upright form & structure; moderate canopy dieback.
95 Coast redwood 17 Yes 3 70 22 Moderate Good upright form & structure; top dieback & moderate canopy dieback.
96 Chinese pistache 6 Yes 4 25 15 High Multiple attachments @ 6’; suppressed; healthy crown.
97 Chinese pistache 8 Yes 4 25 26 High Codominant trunks @ 6’; surface roots; suppressed; healthy crown.
98 Chinese pistache 8 Yes 4 20 28 High Multiple attachments @ 6’; full healthy canopy.

Page 9 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
99 Chinese pistache 6 Yes 3 30 15 High Codominant trunks @ 7’; slight trunk lean; small twig dieback.
100 Chinese pistache 11 Yes 4 25 38 High Codominant trunks @ 6’; full healthy canopy.
101 Chinese pistache 7 Yes 4 20 30 High Codominant trunks @ 6’; full healthy canopy.
102 African fern-pine 15 Yes 3 30 30 High Multiple attachments @ 7’; full slightly chlorotic canopy.
103 African fern-pine 15 Yes 3 25 30 High Multiple attachments @ 4’; sparse canopy; moderate twig dieback.
104 African fern-pine 18 Yes 3 40 34 High Multiple attachments @ 6’; sparse canopy; moderate twig dieback.
105 Callery pear 7 Yes 3 12 12 Low Parking lot planting strip; multiple attachments @ 6’; poor structure;
sparse canopy.
106 Callery pear 7 Yes 3 15 18 Low Parking lot planting strip; multiple attachments @ 6’; poor structure;
healthy canopy.
107 Callery pear 9 Yes 3 15 16 Low Parking lot planting strip; multiple attachments @ 6’; poor structure;
healthy canopy.
108 Callery pear 20 Yes 4 30 40 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 7’; poor structure; full healthy canopy.
109 Coast redwood 26 Yes 4 60 24 High Group of 8; good upright form & structure; full healthy crown.

Page 10 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
110 Coast redwood 25 Yes 4 70 25 High Group of 8; good upright form & structure; full healthy crown.
111 Coast redwood 25 Yes 4 70 30 High Group of 8; good upright form & structure; full healthy crown.
112 Coast redwood 25 Yes 4 70 28 High Group of 8; good upright form & structure; full healthy crown.
113 Coast redwood 24 Yes 3 70 28 High Group of 8; good upright form & structure; top dieback otherwise full
healthy crown.
114 Coast redwood 24 Yes 3 70 28 High Group of 8; good upright form & structure; top dieback otherwise full
healthy crown.
115 Callery pear 14 Yes 3 25 18 Low Multiple attachments @ 7’; poor structure; slight trunk lean; suppressed.
116 Coast redwood 26 Yes 4 70 30 High Group of 8; good upright form & structure; full healthy crown.
117 Coast redwood 29 Yes 4 70 28 High Group of 8; good upright form & structure; full healthy crown.
118 Callery pear 17 Yes 3 30 30 Low Multiple attachments @ 7’; poor structure; slight trunk lean.
119 Leyland cypress 21 Yes 3 35 30 High Surface roots; small branch flagging & leaf dieback; poor structure.
120 Callery pear 13 Yes 3 30 25 Low Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 8’; poor structure.

Page 11 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
121 Coast redwood 26 Yes 3 60 28 Moderate Group of 7; good upright form & structure; small twig dieback.
122 Coast redwood 19 Yes 3 60 28 Moderate Group of 7; good upright form & structure; small twig dieback.
122 Coast redwood 21 Yes 3 60 26 Moderate Group of 7; good upright form & structure; sparse canopy.
124 Coast redwood 20 Yes 3 60 26 Moderate Group of 7; good upright form & structure; moderate twig & leaf
dieback.
125 Coast redwood 22 Yes 3 60 26 High Group of 7; good upright form & structure; moderate twig & leaf
dieback.
126 Coast redwood 22 Yes 3 60 24 Moderate Group of 7; good upright form & structure; moderate twig & leaf
dieback.
127 Coast redwood 25 Yes 3 60 28 Moderate Group of 7; good upright form & structure; moderate twig & leaf
dieback.
128 Coast redwood 24 Yes 5 60 28 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
131 Coast redwood 25 Yes 5 60 28 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy; displacing hardscape.
132 Coast redwood 18 Yes 5 50 28 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.

Page 12 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
133 Coast redwood 17 Yes 5 50 26 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
134 Coast redwood 18 Yes 5 50 22 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
135 Coast redwood 17 Yes 5 50 20 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
136 Coast redwood 17 Yes 5 50 22 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
137 Coast redwood 15 Yes 5 50 20 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
138 Coast redwood 16 Yes 5 50 20 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
139 Coast redwood 18 Yes 5 50 20 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
140 Coast redwood 18 Yes 5 50 22 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
141 Coast redwood 18 Yes 5 50 22 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
142 Coast redwood 16 Yes 5 50 20 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
143 Coast redwood 15 Yes 5 50 20 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
144 Coast redwood 18 Yes 5 50 20 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.

Page 13 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
145 Coast redwood 16 Yes 5 50 18 High Surface root; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
146 Coast redwood 17 Yes 5 50 18 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
147 Coast redwood 22 Yes 5 50 18 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy; displacing hardscape.
148 Coast redwood 24 Yes 5 50 28 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
149 Coast redwood 18 Yes 2 50 18 Low Good upright form & structure; sparse canopy; significant dieback.
150 Coast redwood 26 Yes 4 60 22 High Good upright form & structure; small twig dieback.
151 Coast redwood 29 Yes 4 60 24 High Good upright form & structure; roots displacing sidewalk; small growing
space 4’; small twig dieback.
152 Coast redwood 21 Yes 4 60 22 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; small twig dieback.
153 Coast redwood 24 Yes 4 60 22 High Good upright form & structure; multiple attachments; small twig dieback.
154 Callery pear 22 Yes 4 35 25 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; full healthy canopy.
155 Callery pear 18 Yes 4 35 25 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; full healthy canopy.

Page 14 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
156 Callery pear 14 Yes 4 35 25 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; full healthy canopy.
157 Callery pear 17 Yes 4 35 30 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; history of branch failure.
158 Callery pear 18 Yes 4 35 30 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; healthy canopy.
159 Callery pear 18 Yes 4 35 30 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; history of branch failure.
160 Callery pear 18 Yes 4 35 25 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; healthy canopy.
161 Callery pear 15 Yes 4 35 25 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; healthy canopy.
162 Callery pear 15 Yes 4 35 25 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; healthy canopy.
163 Callery pear 18 Yes 4 35 30 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; healthy canopy.
164 Callery pear 17 Yes 4 35 30 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow branch unions; healthy
canopy.
165 Callery pear 16 Yes 4 35 25 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow branch unions; healthy
canopy.
166 Callery pear 11 Yes 3 35 22 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow branch unions; suppressed.

Page 15 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
167 Callery pear 15 Yes 4 35 25 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow branch unions.
168 Callery pear 17 Yes 4 35 25 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow branch unions; healthy
canopy.
169 Purpleleaf plum 5 Yes 4 18 12 High Multiple attachments @ 5’; full healthy canopy.
170 Purpleleaf plum 6 Yes 4 18 20 High Small surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; full healthy canopy.
171 Purpleleaf plum 6 Yes 4 18 16 High Small surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; full healthy canopy.
172 Purpleleaf plum 6 Yes 4 18 20 High Small surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; full healthy canopy.
173 Purpleleaf plum 6 Yes 4 18 16 High Small surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; full healthy canopy.
174 Purpleleaf plum 7 Yes 4 18 18 High Small surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; full healthy canopy.
175 Purpleleaf plum 6 Yes 4 18 18 High Small surface roots; small trunk wound; multiple attachments @ 6’; full healthy
canopy.

Page 16 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
176 Purpleleaf plum 7 Yes 4 18 14 High Small surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow branch
union; full healthy canopy.
177 Purpleleaf plum 7 Yes 4 18 14 High Small surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow branch
unions; full healthy canopy.
178 Purpleleaf plum 7 Yes 4 18 16 High Small surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow branch
unions; full healthy canopy.
179 Purpleleaf plum 6 Yes 4 18 12 High Small surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow branch
unions; full healthy canopy.
180 Purpleleaf plum 7 Yes 4 18 14 High Small surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow branch
unions; full healthy canopy.
181 Chinese pistache 14 Yes 5 20 34 High Surface roots; good structure; multiple attachments @ 6’; full healthy canopy.
182 Chinese pistache 10 Yes 4 20 25 High Surface roots; good structure; multiple attachments @ 6’; small twig & branch
dieback.
183 Coast redwood 16 Yes 4 40 10 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
184 Coast redwood 30 Yes 5 65 24 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.

Page 17 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
185 Coast redwood 30 Yes 5 65 25 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
186 Coast redwood 30 Yes 5 65 25 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
187 Coast redwood 30 Yes 5 65 24 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
188 Coast redwood 15 Yes 4 45 16 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; small twig & branch dieback.
189 Coast redwood 26 Yes 5 65 22 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
190 Coast redwood 31 Yes 5 65 25 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
191 Coast redwood 29 Yes 5 65 26 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
192 Coast redwood 25 Yes 5 65 28 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
193 Coast redwood 30 Yes 5 65 28 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
194 Coast redwood 23 Yes 5 65 24 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
195 Coast redwood 20 Yes 5 55 22 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
196 Coast redwood 13 Yes 5 45 20 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.

Page 18 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
197 Coast redwood 25 Yes 5 65 26 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
198 Coast redwood 27 Yes 5 65 30 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
199 Coast redwood 23 Yes 3 65 26 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; small twig & branch top
dieback.
200 Coast redwood 23 Yes 5 65 28 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
201 Coast redwood 24 Yes 5 65 28 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
202 Callery pear 9,5 Yes 3 25 25 Low Surface roots; codominant trunks @ base & 6’; fire blight.
203 Chinese pistache 8 Yes 5 20 20 High Surface roots; good form & structure; multiple attachments @ 6’; full healthy
canopy.
204 Chinese pistache 7 Yes 5 20 10 High Surface roots; good form & structure; multiple attachments @ 6’; full healthy
canopy.
205 Coast redwood 22 Yes 5 65 28 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
206 Coast redwood 26 Yes 5 65 22 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.

Page 19 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
207 Callery pear 18 Yes 4 35 30 Moderate Surface roots; slight trunk lean S.; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow
branch unions; history of branch failure;
healthy canopy.
208 Callery pear 16 Yes 4 35 25 Moderate Surface roots; slight trunk lean S.; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow
branch unions; healthy canopy.
209 Callery pear 13 Yes 4 35 25 Moderate Surface roots; slight trunk lean S.; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow
branch unions; healthy canopy.
210 Callery pear 17 Yes 4 35 30 Moderate Surface roots; slight trunk lean S.; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow
branch unions; healthy canopy.
211 Callery pear 12 Yes 3 35 22 Moderate Surface roots; slight trunk lean S.; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow
branch unions; sparse canopy.
212 Callery pear 13 Yes 4 35 24 Moderate Surface roots; slight trunk lean S.; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow
branch unions; healthy canopy.
213 Callery pear 17 Yes 4 35 26 Moderate Surface roots; slight trunk lean S.; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow
branch unions; healthy canopy.
214 Callery pear 14 Yes 4 35 26 Moderate Surface roots; slight trunk lean S.; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow
branch unions; healthy canopy.

Page 20 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
215 Callery pear 17 Yes 4 35 28 Moderate Surface roots; slight trunk lean S.; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow
branch unions; healthy canopy.
216 Callery pear 18 Yes 4 40 30 Moderate Surface roots; slight trunk lean S.; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow
branch unions; healthy canopy.
217 Callery pear 17 Yes 4 40 30 Moderate Surface roots; slight trunk lean S.; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow
branch unions; healthy canopy.
218 Callery pear 17 Yes 4 40 30 Moderate Surface roots; slight trunk lean S.; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow
branch unions; healthy canopy.
219 Callery pear 16 Yes 4 40 30 Moderate Surface roots; slight trunk lean S.; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow
branch unions; healthy canopy.
220 Callery pear 17 Yes 4 40 30 Moderate Surface roots; slight trunk lean S.; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow
branch unions; healthy canopy.
221 Callery pear 18 Yes 4 40 24 Moderate Surface roots; slight trunk lean S.; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow
branch unions; healthy canopy.
222 Callery pear 17 Yes 4 40 20 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow branch unions; healthy
canopy.

Page 21 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
223 Callery pear 14 Yes 4 40 18 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow branch unions; healthy
canopy.
224 Callery pear 14 Yes 4 40 18 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow branch unions; healthy
canopy.
225 Callery pear 11 Yes 3 40 18 Moderate Surface roots; slight trunk lean SW.; codominant trunks @ 7’; narrow branch
union.
226 Callery pear 15 Yes 4 40 22 Moderate Surface roots; slight trunk leans S.; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow
branch unions; healthy canopy.
227 Callery pear 15 Yes 4 40 26 Moderate Surface roots; slight trunk leans S.; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow
branch unions; healthy canopy.
228 Callery pear 15 Yes 4 40 28 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow branch unions; healthy
canopy.
229 Callery pear 14 Yes 4 40 20 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow branch unions; healthy
canopy.
230 Callery pear 15 Yes 4 40 18 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow branch unions; healthy
canopy.

Page 22 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
231 Callery pear 15 Yes 4 40 20 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow branch unions; healthy
canopy.
232 Honey locust 8 Yes 3 12 20 Low Codominant trunks @ 6’; poor structure; small twig dieback.
233 Honey locust 7 Yes 3 12 20 Low Small trunk wound; multiple attachments @ 5’; poor structure; small
twig dieback.
234 Honey locust 8 Yes 3 12 20 Low Codominant trunks @ 6’; poor branch structure; small twig dieback.
235 Honey locust 8 Yes 2 12 15 Low Multiple attachments @ 5’; poor structure; significant twig & branch
dieback.
236 Honey locust 7 Yes 3 12 14 Low Multiple attachments @ 5’; poor structure; small twig & branch dieback.
237 Honey locust 9 Yes 3 12 18 Low Multiple attachments @ 5’; poor structure; moderate twig & branch
dieback.
238 Honey locust 8 Yes 2 12 14 Low Codominant trunks @ 5’; extensive trunk wounds; basal decay.
239 Honey locust 8 Yes 2 12 12 Low Codominant trunks @ 5’; extensive trunk wounds; basal decay.
240 Honey locust 7 Yes 2 12 12 Low Codominant trunks @ 5’; extensive trunk wounds; basal decay.

Page 23 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
241 Honey locust 7 Yes 2 12 16 Low Multiple attachments @ 5’; extensive trunk wounds; basal decay.
242 Honey locust 5 Yes 3 12 10 Low Multiple attachments @ 5’; small trunk wounds; sparse canopy.
243 Honey locust 8 Yes 3 12 16 Low Multiple attachments @ 5’; small trunk wounds; sparse canopy.
244 Honey locust 6 Yes 1 12 10 Low Multiple attachments @ 5’; extensive trunk wounds & dieback.
245 Honey locust 8 Yes 2 12 14 Low Multiple attachments @ 5’; extensive trunk wounds.
246 Coast redwood 12 Yes 4 35 18 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy; water-stressed.
247 Coast redwood 14 Yes 4 35 20 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
248 Coast redwood 16 Yes 4 35 20 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
249 Coast redwood 46 Yes 3 85 36 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; sparse canopy W.
250 Coast redwood 47 Yes 5 85 40 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
251 Coast redwood 25 Yes 5 85 32 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
252 Coast redwood 27 Yes 3 85 30 Moderate Surface roots; good upright form & structure; sparse twiggy canopy.

Page 24 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
253 Coast redwood 54 Yes 3 85 60 Moderate Surface roots; good upright form & structure; sparse twiggy canopy.
254 Coast redwood 42 Yes 4 85 40 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; thin upper canopy.
255 Coast redwood 43 Yes 3 85 36 Moderate Surface roots; codominant in upper canopy; sparse canopy.
256 Coast redwood 43 Yes 4 85 34 Moderate Surface roots; good upright form & structure; healthy canopy.
257 Coast redwood 19 Yes 4 45 24 Moderate Surface roots; good upright form & structure; healthy canopy.
258 Coast redwood 5 Yes 4 15 12 High Good young tree.
259 Coast redwood 15 Yes 4 30 18 High Good upright form & structure; thin canopy.
260 Japanese flowering cherry 8 Yes 2 10 14 Low Multiple attachments @ 5’; root decay; suppressed.
261 Sawleaf zelkova 15 Yes 5 35 32 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; full healthy canopy.
262 Sawleaf zelkova 25 Yes 3 45 60 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; small twig & branch dieback;
Ganoderma fruiting body on N.
263 Sawleaf zelkova 21 Yes 5 45 60 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; full healthy canopy.
264 Japanese flowering cherry 5 Yes 5 10 20 High Multiple attachments @ 4’; full healthy canopy.

Page 25 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
265 Japanese flowering cherry 5 Yes 4 10 16 High Multiple attachments @ 4’; full canopy; small leaf margin burn.
266 Japanese flowering cherry 4 Yes 4 10 14 High Multiple attachments @ 4’; full canopy; small leaf margin burn.
267 Japanese flowering cherry 5 Yes 4 10 16 High Multiple attachments @ 4’; full canopy; small leaf margin burn.
268 Japanese flowering cherry 4 Yes 4 10 14 High Multiple attachments @ 4’; full canopy; small leaf margin burn.
269 Japanese flowering cherry 4 Yes 4 10 14 High Multiple attachments @ 4’; full canopy; small leaf margin burn.
270 Japanese flowering cherry 5 Yes 4 10 16 High Multiple attachments @ 4’; full canopy; small leaf margin burn.
271 Japanese flowering cherry 4 Yes 4 10 14 High Multiple attachments @ 4’; full canopy; small leaf margin burn.
272 Japanese flowering cherry 4 Yes 4 10 10 High Multiple attachments @ 4’; full canopy; small leaf margin burn.
273 Japanese flowering cherry 4 Yes 4 10 12 High Multiple attachments @ 4’; full canopy; small leaf margin burn.
274 Japanese flowering cherry 4 Yes 4 10 14 High Multiple attachments @ 4’; full canopy; small leaf margin burn.
275 Sawleaf zelkova 13 Yes 4 25 24 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; small twig dieback; water-stressed.
276 Evergreen ash 32 Yes 5 60 42 High Surface roots; codominant trunks @ 8’; full dense crown.

Page 26 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
277 Red maple 7 Yes 5 30 20 High Multiple attachments @ 5’; full healthy canopy.
278 Red maple 8 Yes 5 30 22 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; full healthy canopy.
279 Red maple 9 Yes 5 30 22 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; full healthy canopy.
280 Red maple 9 Yes 5 30 22 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; full healthy canopy.
281 Red maple 7 Yes 5 30 22 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; narrow unions; full healthy canopy.
282 Red maple 9 Yes 5 30 24 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; narrow unions; full healthy canopy.
283 Red maple 10 Yes 5 35 24 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; narrow unions; full healthy canopy.
284 Red maple 10 Yes 5 35 24 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; narrow unions; full healthy canopy.
285 Red maple 9 Yes 5 35 24 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; narrow unions; full healthy canopy.

Page 27 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
286 Red maple 10 Yes 5 35 24 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; narrow unions; full healthy canopy.
287 Red maple 9 Yes 5 35 24 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; narrow unions; full healthy canopy.
288 Red maple 8 Yes 5 35 24 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; narrow unions; full healthy canopy.
289 Red maple 9 Yes 5 35 24 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; narrow unions; full healthy canopy.
290 Red maple 8 Yes 5 35 24 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; narrow unions; full healthy canopy.
291 Red maple 9 Yes 5 35 26 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; narrow unions; full healthy canopy.
292 Red maple 10 Yes 5 35 24 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; narrow unions; full healthy canopy.
293 Red maple 10 Yes 5 35 24 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; narrow unions; full healthy canopy.

Page 28 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
294 Red maple 7 Yes 5 35 20 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; narrow unions; full healthy canopy.
295 Red maple 4 Yes 5 35 10 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 5’; narrow unions; full healthy canopy.
296 Coast live oak 27 Yes 5 35 56 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; multiple attachments @ 6’;
full healthy canopy.
297 London plane 12 Yes 4 40 30 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; codominant trunks @ 8’;
healthy canopy.
298 London plane 18 Yes 5 45 40 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; multiple attachments @ 8’;
healthy canopy.
299 Crabapple 12 Yes 3 15 24 Low Basal & root decay; multiple attachments @ 5’.
300 Japanese flowering cherry 6 Yes 2 12 18 Low Basal & root decay; significant twig & branch dieback.
301 Coast redwood 33 Yes 4 65 30 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
302 Coast redwood 26 Yes 4 65 30 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
303 Coast redwood 24 Yes 4 65 30 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; thin upper canopy.

Page 29 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
304 Coast redwood 29 Yes 4 65 34 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
305 Callery pear 17 Yes 4 45 20 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow branch unions.
306 Coast redwood 22 Yes 4 55 25 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; small twig dieback.
307 Coast redwood 31 Yes 5 65 33 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
308 Coast live oak 10 Yes 5 35 20 High Surface roots; codominant trunks @ 7’; full healthy canopy.
309 Raywood ash 4 Yes 3 20 8 Low Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; canopy dead on N.
310 Raywood ash 9 Yes 4 35 18 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; healthy canopy.
311 Raywood ash 11 Yes 4 35 20 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; healthy canopy.
312 Coast live oak 37 Yes 5 55 64 High Multiple attachments @ 10’; large lateral on W.; healthy canopy.
313 Coast redwood 22 Yes 5 65 24 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy; roots cut for new
sidewalk.
314 London plane 14 Yes 5 60 30 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.

Page 30 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
315 Evergreen pear 7 Yes 3 12 10 High Trunk lean; multiple attachments @ 5’; narrow branch unions; sparse canopy.
316 Coast live oak 36 Yes 5 55 60 High Multiple attachments @ 10’; large lateral on W.; healthy canopy.
317 Coast live oak 25 Yes 5 55 45 High Codominant trunks @ 15’; healthy canopy.
318 Coast live oak 19 Yes 5 55 24 High Multiple attachments @ 10’; healthy canopy.
319 Coast live oak 29 Yes 5 55 50 High Multiple attachments @ 5’; branches extend over sidewalk & road; healthy
canopy.
320 Coast live oak 12 Yes 4 30 15 High Trunk leans W.; old trunk wound; multiple attachments @ 10’ healthy
canopy.
321 Coast live oak 10 Yes 5 20 20 High Trunk leans W.; multiple attachments @ 5’; healthy canopy.
322 Crape myrtle 4 Yes 5 12 10 High Good young tree.
323 Crape myrtle 4 Yes 5 12 10 High Good young tree.
324 Coast live oak 8 Yes 5 15 18 High Good young tree.
325 Coast live oak 13 Yes 5 30 28 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 8’; healthy canopy; branches extend
over sidewalk.

Page 31 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
326 Coast live oak 25 Yes 5 35 50 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 8’; healthy canopy; history of branch
failure; branches extend over sidewalk
& road.
327 Coast live oak 18 Yes 5 35 22 High Multiple attachments @ 8’; trunk leans E.; healthy canopy.
328 Coast live oak 37 Yes 5 55 54 High Codominant trunks @ 5’; healthy canopy.
329 London plane 13 Yes 5 55 28 High Good upright form & structure; healthy canopy.
330 Japanese flowering cherry 5 Yes 2 8 10 Low Large trunk wound; no central leader. 331 Japanese flowering cherry 5 Yes 3 10 10 Low Surface roots; trunk wound; small twig dieback.
332 Japanese flowering cherry 5 Yes 4 10 16 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 2’; small twig dieback.
333 Raywood ash 9 Yes 4 30 22 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 6’; narrow branch unions; full healthy canopy.
334 Japanese flowering cherry 6 Yes 5 12 14 High Surface roots; codominant trunks @ 3’; full healthy canopy.
335 Japanese flowering cherry 5 Yes 5 12 12 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 3’; full healthy canopy.
336 Raywood ash 8 Yes 4 35 22 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 8’; full healthy canopy.

Page 32 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
337 London plane 15 Yes 5 50 34 High Multiple attachments @ 10’; full healthy canopy.
338 Coast live oak 59 Yes 3 65 80 High Cabled; large trunk cavity; multiple attachments @ a 10’; branch decay @
old pruning wounds; wide spreading
canopy; healthy canopy.
339 London plane 16 Yes 5 55 52 High Codominant trunks @ 10’; good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
340 Coast live oak 24 Yes 4 40 28 High Off-site; canopy extends over property 28’; trunk leaning against fence; small
twig dieback.
341 Evergreen pear 10 Yes 4 15 19 Moderate Trunk leans E. over parking lot; codominant trunks @ 6’; suppressed.
342 Evergreen pear 7 Yes 3 12 16 Moderate Codominant trunks @ 5’; sparse canopy.
343 Evergreen pear 8 Yes 3 12 18 Moderate Codominant trunks @ 5’; sparse canopy.
344 Sawleaf zelkova 17 Yes 4 35 48 Moderate Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 8’; small twig dieback; water-stressed.
345 Sawleaf zelkova 17 Yes 2 35 22 Low Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 8’; large sections of bark separating;
water-stressed; significant branch
dieback.

Page 33 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
346 Evergreen pear 14 Yes 3 30 35 Moderate Codominant trunks @ 6’; multiple attachments; small trunk wound; small
twig dieback.
347 Evergreen pear 8 Yes 3 20 20 Moderate Codominant trunks @ 8’; poor structure; small twig dieback.
348 Photinia 4 Yes 3 20 8 Low Codominant trunks @ 5’; significant twig dieback.
349 Evergreen pear 5 Yes 3 15 12 Moderate Codominant trunks @ 5’; small twig dieback.
350 Photinia 6 Yes 3 25 14 Low Topped; small resprouts; small twig dieback.
351 Tobira 7 Yes 3 20 16 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 6’; small twig dieback.
352 Tobira 7 Yes 3 20 20 Low Trunk sweeps upright from base; multiple attachments @ 6’; no central
leader; small twig dieback.
353 Western sycamore 11 Yes 3 35 26 Low Large surface roots; codominant trunks @ 10’; thin sinuous central leader.
354 Western sycamore 24 Yes 5 65 45 High Large surface roots; full healthy canopy.
355 Coast redwood 60 Yes 5 90 66 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
356 Western sycamore 10 Yes 5 40 22 High Surface roots; sinuous central leader; healthy canopy.

Page 34 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
357 Western sycamore 7 Yes 5 40 15 High Sinuous central leader; healthy canopy. 358 Coast redwood 21 Yes 3 65 32 Moderate Good upright form & structure; water- stressed; thin canopy.
359 Coast redwood 49 Yes 3 80 40 Moderate Codominant trunks high in crown; water- stressed; thin canopy.
360 Coast redwood 32 Yes 3 65 40 Moderate Codominant trunks high in crown; water- stressed; thin canopy.
361 Coast redwood 21 Yes 3 70 32 Moderate Good upright form & structure; water- stressed; thin canopy.
362 Coast redwood 24 Yes 3 55 26 Moderate No central leader; water-stressed; thin canopy.
363 Coast redwood 23 Yes 3 65 26 Moderate Good upright form & structure; water- stressed; thin canopy.
364 Coast redwood 20 Yes 3 60 20 Moderate Good upright form & structure; water- stressed; thin canopy.
365 Coast redwood 19 Yes 3 65 20 Moderate Good upright form & structure; water- stressed; thin canopy.
366 Coast live oak 24 Yes 4 60 52 High Codominant trunks @ 8’; small twig dieback, otherwise health canopy.
367 Coast live oak 30 Yes 5 65 65 High Surface roots; Multiple large attachments @ 8’; small twig dieback
otherwise health canopy.

Page 35 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
368 Coast live oak 25 Yes 5 65 60 High Surface roots; Multiple large attachments @ 8’; small twig dieback
otherwise health canopy.
369 Coast live oak 32 Yes 3 65 56 Low Surface roots; Multiple large attachments @ 8’; bring activity in
trunk; significant twig & branch
dieback.
370 Monterey pine 17 Yes 2 60 12 Low Off-site; tagged on fence; significant twig & branch dieback; history of
branch failures.
371 Coast live oak 7 Yes 4 30 15 High Off-site; tagged on fence; trunk will grow into chain link; full healthy
canopy.
372 Coast redwood 27 Yes 3 85 28 Moderate Good upright form & structure; water- stressed; thin canopy.
373 Coast redwood 39 Yes 3 85 28 Moderate Codominant trunks @ 2’; water- stressed; thin canopy.
374 Coast redwood 41,19 Yes 3 85 38 Moderate Water-stressed; thin canopy. 375 Japanese flowering cherry 5 Yes 4 10 16 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 4’; full canopy; margin burn on entire crown.
376 Japanese flowering cherry 5 Yes 4 10 16 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 4’; full canopy; margin burn on entire crown.

Page 36 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
377 Coast redwood 21,17,14 Yes 2 45 34 Low Multiple attachments @ base; water- stressed; compact soil; sparse canopy.
378 Coast redwood 29 Yes 2 60 30 Low Good upright form & structure; water- stressed; compact soil; sparse canopy.
379 Coast redwood 36 Yes 3 60 34 Moderate Good upright form & structure; water- stressed; compact soil; sparse canopy.
380 Mexican fan palm 18 Yes 5 60 10 High 40' of brown trunk; healthy crown. 381 Coast live oak 22,17 Yes 4 55 50 High Codominant trunks @ 2’; healthy canopy.
382 Evergreen ash 27 Yes 5 55 38 High Multiple attachments @ a 7’; branches fused; full healthy canopy.
383 Evergreen ash 38 Yes 4 70 64 High Multiple attachments @ a 10’; narrow branch unions; small twig dieback,
otherwise full healthy canopy.
384 Evergreen ash 25 Yes 4 50 50 High Multiple attachments @ a 10’; small twig dieback, otherwise full healthy
canopy.
385 Evergreen ash 16 Yes 4 50 46 High Codominant trunks @ 10’; small twig dieback, otherwise full healthy canopy.

Page 37 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
386 Evergreen ash 14 Yes 4 50 32 High Codominant trunks @ 10’; small twig dieback, otherwise full healthy canopy.
387 Coast redwood 36 Yes 3 85 45 Moderate Good upright form & structure; water- stressed; thin canopy.
388 Coast redwood 27 Yes 3 85 36 Moderate Good upright form & structure; water- stressed; thin canopy.
389 Coast redwood 15 Yes 3 85 24 Moderate Good upright form & structure; water- stressed; thin canopy.
390 Coast redwood 32 Yes 3 85 44 Moderate Good upright form & structure; water- stressed; thin canopy.
391 Coast redwood 12 Yes 3 75 16 Moderate Good upright form & structure; water- stressed; thin canopy.
392 Coast redwood 18 Yes 3 85 26 Moderate Good upright form & structure; water- stressed; thin canopy.
393 Coast redwood 25,12 Yes 3 85 26 Moderate Good upright form & structure; water- stressed; codominant trunks @ 3’; thin
canopy.
394 Coast redwood 26 Yes 3 55 30 Moderate Good upright form & structure; water- stressed; thin canopy.
395 Coast redwood 7 Yes 2 25 14 Low Good upright form & structure; water- stressed; dead central leader; thin
canopy.
396 Coast redwood 21 Yes 3 65 24 High Good upright form & structure; water- stressed; slightly thin canopy.

Page 38 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
397 Coast redwood 19 Yes 2 55 20 Low Good upright form & structure; water- stressed; thin canopy.
398 Coast redwood 16 Yes 3 40 22 Low Good upright form & structure; water- stressed; thin canopy.
399 Coast redwood 11 Yes 0 55 12 Low Dead.
400 Coast redwood 29,29 Yes 4 85 34 High Root zone had been scraped; broken roots; codominant trunks @ 2’; healthy
canopy.
401 Coast redwood 28 Yes 3 85 40 High Root zone had been scraped; broken roots; codominant trunks @ 2’; water-
stressed; moderate tip dieback.
402 Coast redwood 11 Yes 4 25 20 Moderate Good upright form & structure; water- stressed; small tip dieback.
403 Coast redwood 7 Yes 4 25 10 Moderate Good upright form & structure; water- stressed; small tip dieback.
404 Coast redwood 8 Yes 4 20 10 Moderate Good upright form & structure; water- stressed; small tip dieback.
405 Coast redwood 8 Yes 4 25 10 Moderate Good upright form & structure; water- stressed; small tip dieback.
406 Coast redwood 11 Yes 4 25 12 Moderate Good upright form & structure; water- stressed; small tip dieback.
407 Coast redwood 5 Yes 4 20 8 Moderate Good upright form & structure; water- stressed; good young tree.

Page 39 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
408 Coast redwood 5 Yes 4 20 12 Moderate Good upright form & structure; water- stressed; trunk curves @ 8’;
codominant trunks @ 8’.
409 Coast redwood 6 Yes 4 20 12 Moderate Water-stressed; good young tree; codominant trunks @ 15’.
410 Coast redwood 8 Yes 4 15 12 Moderate Water-stressed; good young tree. 411 Coast redwood 8 Yes 4 15 14 Moderate Water-stressed; good young tree. 412 Coast redwood 9 Yes 4 15 16 Moderate Water-stressed; good young tree. 413 Italian stone pine 22 Yes 4 35 26 Moderate Codominant trunks @ 7’; trunk curves E.; full healthy canopy.
414 Italian stone pine 16 Yes 3 35 22 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 10’; sparse canopy.
415 Italian stone pine 16 Yes 3 35 26 Moderate Surface roots; growing on top of bathroom structure; trunk curves S.;
thin canopy.
416 Italian stone pine 11 Yes 3 25 24 Moderate Surface roots; canopy raised to 15’; trunk curves S.; suppressed on N.
417 Italian stone pine 24 Yes 3 35 36 Moderate Surface roots; codominant trunks @ 6’; full healthy canopy.
418 Italian stone pine 29 Yes 3 40 44 Moderate Surface roots; codominant trunks @ 10’; full healthy canopy.
419 Italian stone pine 21 Yes 3 40 26 Moderate Surface roots; trunk turns W. @ 20’; suppressed on N.

Page 40 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
420 Italian stone pine 34 Yes 3 40 50 Moderate Surface roots; codominant trunks @ 8’; canopy raised to 25’; healthy canopy.
421 Italian stone pine 36 Yes 3 50 55 Moderate Surface roots; codominant trunks @ 8’; heavy laterals over baseball bleachers;
asymmetric canopy; roots displacing
concrete; healthy canopy.
422 Coast live oak 22 Yes 4 45 40 High Good upright form & structure; surface roots; only tree growing on mound;
multiple attachments @ 8’; moderate
twig dieback.
423 Coast live oak 17 Yes 4 35 30 High Good upright form & structure; surface roots; growing in tree well; multiple
attachments @ 7’; small twig dieback.
424 Coast live oak 20 Yes 4 45 44 High Good upright form & structure; surface roots; growing on slight slope; multiple
attachments @ 8’; full healthy canopy.
425 Chinese pistache 8 Yes 4 25 28 High Good upright form & structure; surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; full
healthy canopy.
426 Coast live oak 29 Yes 4 50 50 High Surface roots; suppressed on S.; asymmetric crown; codominant trunks
@ 10’; healthy canopy.

Page 41 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
427 Coast redwood 33 Yes 4 80 30 High Surface roots; codominant high in canopy; thin upper canopy.
428 Coast live oak 20 Yes 4 35 35 High Surface roots; slight trunk lean S.; multiple attachments @ 6 & 10’; full
healthy canopy.
429 Coast redwood 20,15 Yes 0 55 35 Low Dead.
430 Coast redwood 9 Yes 1 25 18 Low All but dead.
431 Coast redwood 31 Yes 3 85 40 Moderate Surface roots; good upright form & structure; thin canopy; less than 1’ from
road.
432 Coast redwood 15 Yes 3 50 24 Moderate Surface roots; good upright form & structure; thin canopy; 4’ from road.
433 Coast redwood 11 Yes 2 35 16 Low Surface roots; good upright form & structure; thin canopy; 4’ from road;
water-stressed; significant dieback.
434 Coast live oak 29 Yes 4 40 55 Moderate Surface roots; codominant trunks @ 6’; branches hang E. over road; healthy
canopy.
435 Coast redwood 15 Yes 3 50 20 Moderate Good upright form & structure; water- stressed; thin canopy.
436 Coast redwood 19 Yes 3 65 20 Moderate Good upright form & structure; water- stressed; thin canopy.
437 Coast live oak 16 Yes 3 40 30 High Trunk bows S.; water-stressed; suppressed on N.; healthy canopy.

Page 42 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
438 Coast redwood 32 Yes 4 80 30 Moderate Good upright form & structure; water- stressed; small tip dieback; codominant
high in canopy.
439 Coast live oak 13 Yes 4 35 20 High Asymmetric crown; heavy on W.; suppressed on E.; healthy new growth.
440 Coast live oak 27 Yes 4 45 40 High Multiple attachments @ 10; good upright form & structure; healthy
canopy.
441 Coast live oak 8 Yes 3 10 16 Low Codominant trunks @ 2’; small understory tree.
442 Coast live oak 25 Yes 4 50 34 Moderate Surface roots; codominant trunks @ 6’; full healthy canopy; retaining wall on S.
side; roots growing under wall.
443 Coast live oak 23 Yes 4 30 34 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 6’; suppressed on NE.; otherwise
healthy canopy.
444 Coast redwood 34 Yes 4 70 38 High Good upright form & structure; water- stressed; sparse upper canopy;
otherwise healthy crown.
445 Coast redwood 43 Yes 4 85 36 High Surface roots; good upright form & structure; healthy canopy.
446 Coast redwood 18 Yes 2 60 20 Low Surface roots; water-stressed; significant dieback.

Page 43 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
447 Evergreen ash 23 Yes 4 65 44 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 10’; suppressed on N.; otherwise
healthy canopy.
448 Evergreen ash 24 Yes 4 65 44 High Surface roots; multiple attachments @ 10’; vigorous healthy canopy.
449 California black walnut 22 Yes 2 30 26 Low Significant twig & branch dieback; central leader dead.
450 California black walnut 28 Yes 2 20 18 Low Severe twig & branch dieback. 451 California black walnut 19 Yes 2 20 20 Low Severe twig & branch dieback; trunk decay.
452 California black walnut 12 Yes 1 12 15 Low All but dead. 453 California black walnut 20 Yes 2 25 28 Low Codominant trunks @ 5'; significant twig & branch dieback; trunk decay.
454 California black walnut 18 Yes 2 25 28 Low Significant twig & branch dieback; leaders dead.
455 California black walnut 18 Yes 2 25 26 Low Codominant trunks @ 5'; significant twig & branch dieback; trunk decay.
456 California black walnut 31 Yes 2 30 26 Low Significant twig & branch dieback; dead central leader; trunk decay.
457 California black walnut 32 Yes 2 30 34 Low Codominant trunks @ 5'; significant twig & branch dieback; trunk decay.
458 California black walnut 26 Yes 3 35 38 Low Codominant trunks @ 5'; moderate twig & branch dieback.

Page 44 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
459 California black walnut 22 Yes 2 30 20 Low Codominant trunks @ 10'; significant twig & branch dieback; main stems
dead.
460 California black walnut 26 Yes 2 25 16 Low Codominant trunks @ 5'; large trunk wound; significant twig & branch
dieback; leaders dead.
461 California black walnut 25 Yes 2 25 12 Low Multiple attachments @ 8'; significant twig & branch dieback; leaders dead.
462 Coast redwood 20 Yes 3 55 22 Moderate 7' from street; good upright form & structure; water-stressed; tip dieback.
463 Coast redwood 12 Yes 3 45 20 Moderate Good upright form & structure; water- stressed; moderate tip dieback.
464 Coast redwood 20 Yes 3 50 24 Moderate Good upright form & structure; water- stressed; moderate tip dieback.
465 Coast redwood 31 Yes 4 70 32 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
466 California black walnut 16,15 Yes 2 20 25 Low Codominant trunks @ 5'; significant twig & branch dieback; trunk decay.
467 Scot's pine 7 Yes 2 20 16 Low Surface roots; canopy raised to 8’; significant twig & branch dieback; thin
canopy.
468 Scot's pine 8 Yes 2 15 16 Low Surface roots; canopy raised to 8’; significant twig & branch dieback; thin
canopy.

Page 45 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
469 Scot's pine 14 Yes 3 25 22 Moderate Trunk leans N.; asymmetric crown; multiple attachments; small needle
dieback.
470 Chinese pistache 8 Yes 5 20 26 High Multiple attachments @ 7’; full healthy canopy.
471 Coast live oak 43 Yes 5 45 65 High Good form & structure; multiple attachments @ 8’; full healthy canopy.
472 California black walnut 30 Yes 3 35 34 Low Codominant trunks @ 8’; moderate twig & branch dieback; ground squirrel
holes @ base.
473 Hollywood juniper 12 Yes 3 8 10 Low Multiple attachments @ 1’; suppressed; small understory tree.
474 Hollywood juniper 10 Yes 2 12 8 Low No central leader; small crown; multiple branches removed.
475 Hollywood juniper 7,7,5 Yes 2 15 18 Low Dead central leader; poor structure; vase-shape; small dieback.
476 California black walnut 38 Yes 2 35 34 Low Multiple attachments @ 6’; significant twig & branch dieback; trunk decay.
477 Hollywood juniper 15 Yes 3 12 15 Low Multiple attachments @ 6”; washed out @ base; low wide crown.
478 Hollywood juniper 15 Yes 3 12 15 Low Multiple attachments @ 6”; washed out @ base; low wide crown.

Page 46 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
479 London plane 13 Yes 3 35 30 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 6’; suppressed on N.; branches extend over sidewalk;
sparse canopy.
480 Coast live oak 31 Yes 3 35 60 High Basal decay; multiple attachments @ 6’; suppressed on W.; branches extend
over sidewalk; sparse canopy.
481 Coast live oak 24 Yes 4 40 65 High Good upright form & structure; multiple attachments @ 15’; foliage mostly in
upper crown.
482 Coast live oak 23 Yes 3 40 42 High Good upright form & structure; multiple attachments @ 10’; sparse canopy;
trunk leans slightly N.
483 Italian stone pine 33 Yes 4 50 35 Moderate Codominant trunks @ 8’; canopy lifted to 25’; trunk leans slightly W.; healthy
canopy.
484 Italian stone pine 36 Yes 4 55 65 High Codominant trunks @ 6’; canopy lifted to 25+’; full healthy canopy.
485 Japanese flowering cherry 4 Yes 4 8 14 Moderate Good young tree; healthy canopy. 486 Japanese flowering cherry 5 Yes 4 10 18 Moderate Good young tree; margin burn on entire crown.
487 Scot's pine 12 Yes 3 25 22 Moderate Water-stressed; canopy lifted to 10’; multiple attachments; small needle
dieback.

Page 47 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
488 Chinese elm 11 Yes 4 25 40 High Multiple attachments @ 7’; small twig & branch dieback.
489 Chinese elm 8 Yes 4 20 26 High Multiple attachments @ 8’; good young tree.
490 Canary Island pine 19,17 Yes 4 70 28 High Codominant trunks @ 3’; full healthy canopy; 4’ from street.
491 Canary Island pine 20 Yes 4 70 28 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy; 3’ from street.
492 Canary Island pine 19 Yes 4 70 26 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
493 Deodar cedar 17 Yes 4 50 28 High Trunk leans slightly S.; branches overhang sidewalk & street; full healthy
canopy.
494 Canary Island pine 16 Yes 3 65 22 Low Suppressed on N.; significant dieback on N.; asymmetric canopy.
495 Canary Island pine 14 Yes 3 65 20 Moderate Good upright form & structure; moderate twig & branch dieback.
496 Canary Island pine 27 Yes 5 85 40 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy; branches extend over
street.
497 Deodar cedar 15 Yes 4 55 30 High Good upright form & structure; suppressed on S.; otherwise healthy
canopy.
498 Deodar cedar 23 Yes 3 60 36 High Good upright form & structure; suppressed on W.; sparse canopy.

Page 48 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
499 Southern live oak 4 Yes 4 10 6 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 6’; suppressed N & W.; sparse canopy.
500 Southern live oak 7 Yes 2 12 17 Low Multiple attachments @ 6’; extensive trunk decay; full healthy canopy.
501 Canary Island pine 28 Yes 4 75 40 Moderate Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy; 5’ from sidewalk;
branches extend over street; history of
branch failure.
502 Deodar cedar 22 Yes 4 65 46 High Codominant trunks high in crown; suppressed on S.; full healthy canopy.
503 Canary Island pine 27 Yes 5 85 44 High Good upright form & structure:
branches extend over street; full
healthy canopy.
504 Southern live oak 17 Yes 3 30 40 High Multiple attachments @ 8’; small twig & branch dieback; branches extend over
street.
505 Deodar cedar 24 Yes 3 40 46 High Multiple attachments @ 10’; trunk leans slightly S.; sparse canopy; branches
extend over street.
506 Deodar cedar 26 Yes 3 40 46 High Multiple attachments @ 10’; candelabra form; sparse canopy;
branches extend over street.
507 Southern live oak 13 Yes 1 25 24 Low All but dead.

Page 49 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
508 Southern live oak 13 Yes 4 35 26 High Multiple attachments @ 8’; small twig dieback; branches extend over street.
509 Deodar cedar 26 Yes 4 45 42 High Multiple attachments @ 8’; slight candelabra form; healthy canopy;
branches extend over street.
510 Canary Island pine 21 Yes 5 70 44 High Canopy lifted to 20’; full healthy canopy.
511 Canary Island pine 22 Yes 5 70 36 High Canopy lifted to 20’; suppressed on S.; otherwise full healthy canopy.
512 Canary Island pine 20 Yes 5 70 20 High Canopy lifted to 20’; suppressed on W.; codominant trunks high in crown; full
healthy canopy.
513 Canary Island pine 23 Yes 5 70 30 High Canopy lifted to 25’; suppressed on W.; full healthy canopy.
514 Deodar cedar 12 Yes 4 30 24 High Trunk wound on W.; full healthy canopy.
515 Deodar cedar 13 Yes 5 30 30 High Multiple attachments @ 6’; full healthy canopy.
516 Deodar cedar 18 Yes 5 30 32 High Multiple attachments @ 5’; candelabra form; full healthy canopy.
517 Deodar cedar 7,4 Yes 5 20 16 High Codominant trunks @ base; good young tree.
518 Deodar cedar 4 Yes 4 15 10 Moderate Suppressed understory tree, healthy canopy.

Page 50 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
519 Deodar cedar 15 Yes 4 30 32 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 6’; trunk leans E.; candelabra form; healthy canopy.
520 Deodar cedar 4 Yes 4 20 14 Moderate Suppressed understory tree; healthy canopy.
521 Blue atlas cedar 12 Yes 4 30 26 High Multiple attachments @ 7’; full healthy canopy.
522 Deodar cedar 14 Yes 5 35 30 High Multiple attachments @ 5’; good upright form & structure, full healthy
canopy.
523 Deodar cedar 17 Yes 5 40 26 High Multiple attachments @ 6’; good upright form & structure, full healthy
canopy.
524 Deodar cedar 15 Yes 5 40 30 High Multiple attachments @ 5’; candelabra form; full healthy canopy.
525 Deodar cedar 13 Yes 5 40 26 High Multiple attachments @ 5’; good upright form & structure; full healthy
canopy.
526 Deodar cedar 17 Yes 5 40 34 High Multiple attachments @ 6’; good upright form & structure; full healthy
canopy.
527 Deodar cedar 11 Yes 5 35 20 High Multiple attachments @ 5’; good upright form & structure; full healthy
canopy.

Page 51 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
528 Canary Island pine 21 Yes 5 60 28 High Multiple attachments @ 10’; good upright form & structure; suppressed
on W.; otherwise full healthy canopy;
codominant high in crown.
529 Canary Island pine 22 Yes 4 60 32 High Multiple attachments @ 10’; good upright form & structure; suppressed
on E.; otherwise full healthy canopy;
codominant trunks high in crown.
530 Red ironbark 31 Yes 3 60 40 Low Multiple attachments @ 8’; narrow branch unions; history of branch failure.
531 Canary Island pine 17 Yes 4 45 28 Moderate Codominant trunks @ 8’; trunk 3’ from wall & 4’ from parking lot; full healthy
canopy.
532 Canary Island pine 23 Yes 4 60 38 Moderate Displacing hardscape; trunk 3’ from wall & 4’ from parking lot; full healthy
canopy.
533 Canary Island pine 27 Yes 4 60 32 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 10’; trunk 3’ from wall & 5’ from parking lot; full
healthy canopy.
534 Evergreen pear 9 Yes 4 15 22 High Multiple attachments @ 6’; good young tree; trunk 4’ from wall & 5’ from
parking lot.
535 Canary Island pine 8 Yes 5 30 10 High Good young tree.

Page 52 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
536 Callery pear 20 Yes 3 35 32 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 7’; history of branch failure; small twig dieback;
branches extend over parking lot.
537 Callery pear 4 Yes 5 10 8 High Good young tree.
538 Canary Island pine 19 Yes 4 45 22 High Canopy lifted to 20’; full healthy canopy.
539 African fern-pine 14 Yes 4 25 24 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 5’; trunk 1’ from tennis courts; 3’ from curb;
chlorotic leaves.
540 African fern-pine 14 Yes 4 25 20 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 5’; trunk 1’ from tennis courts; 3’ from curb; full
healthy canopy.
541 African fern-pine 14 Yes 4 30 22 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 8’; slightly chlorotic leaves; full canopy.
542 African fern-pine 15 Yes 4 30 30 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 4’; narrow branch unions; small twig dieback;
trunk 1’ from tennis courts & 1’ from
curb.
543 African fern-pine 8 Yes 3 20 10 Moderate Topped; multiple attachments small crown; trunk 1’ from tennis courts & 1’
from curb.
544 African fern-pine 14 Yes 3 25 24 Moderate Topped; multiple attachments @ 5’; narrow branch unions; trunk 4’ from
tennis courts & 3’ from curb.

Page 53 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
545 African fern-pine 10 Yes 3 25 18 Moderate Topped; multiple attachments @ 8’; narrow columnar form; small crown;
trunk 1’ from tennis courts & 1’ from
curb.
546 Holly oak 5,4,4 Yes 4 15 22 High Multiple attachments @ base; 2’ from tennis courts; full healthy canopy.
547 Evergreen pear 7 Yes 2 12 8 Low Suppressed understory tree; small canopy.
548 Evergreen pear 5 Yes 2 12 8 Low Suppressed understory tree; small canopy.
549 Evergreen pear 6,6 Yes 3 10 12 Low Codominant trunks @ 2’; sparse canopy.
550 Evergreen pear 6 Yes 3 15 14 Low Suppressed understory tree; sparse canopy.
551 Canary Island pine 13 Yes 4 40 24 High Good upright form & structure; canopy lifted to 15’; full healthy canopy.
552 Callery pear 6 Yes 4 30 16 Moderate Codominant trunks @ 5’; suppressed on N.; otherwise healthy canopy.
553 Canary Island pine 15 Yes 4 65 22 Moderate Good upright form & structure; canopy lifted to 20’; small twig dieback.
554 Canary Island pine 28 Yes 4 75 36 Moderate Good upright form & structure; canopy lifted to 20’; small twig dieback.

Page 54 ends

TREE SPECIES TRUNK PRO- CONDITION CANOPY TREE SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER TECTED 0=dead SPREAD HEIGHT for
(in.) TREE 5=excel- (est. feet) (est. feet) PRESERVATION ? lent
Tree Assessment
Memorial Park
Cupertino CA
October 2022
555 Canary Island pine 25 Yes 4 70 38 High Good upright form & structure; canopy lifted to 20’; full healthy canopy.
556 African fern-pine 13 Yes 3 15 14 Low Multiple attachments @ 6’; topped; 4’ planting strip; sparse canopy.
557 African fern-pine 15 Yes 4 30 26 Moderate Multiple attachments @ 7’; 4’ planting strip; full healthy canopy.
558 African fern-pine 13 Yes 3 20 16 Low Multiple attachments @ 6’; topped; 4’ planting strip; sparse canopy.
559 Canary Island pine 18 Yes 4 70 33 High Good upright form & structure; full healthy canopy.
560 Deodar cedar 25 Yes 4 70 40 High Candelabra form; suppressed on W.; otherwise healthy canopy.

Page 55 ends

Geotechnical Evaluation
Memorial Park
21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Cupertino
, California
Gates + Associates
1655 N. Main Street, Suite 365 | Walnut Creek, California 94596 November 3, 2022 | Project No. 404269001
Geotechnical | Environmental | Construction Inspection & Testing | Forensic Engineering & Expert Witness Geo
physics | Engineering Geology | Laboratory Testing | Industrial Hygiene | Occupational Safety | Air Quality | GIS ATTACHMENT D APPENDIX C
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
2149 O’Toole Avenue, Suite 30 | San Jose, California 95131 | p. 408.435.9000 | www.ninyoandmoore.com Geotechnical Evaluation
Memorial Park
211
21 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Cupertino, California
Mr. Michael Freitag
Gates + Associates
1655 N. Main Street, Suite 365 | Walnut Creek, California 94596 November 3, 2022 | Project No. 404269001
Ransom H. Hennefer, PE, GE
Principal Engineer
TBG/RHgvr
November 3, 2022
Geotechnlcal & Environmental Sciences Consultants
~

Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022 i

CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION 1
2 SCOPE OF SERVICES 1
3 SITE DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND 1
4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2
5 SUBSURFACE EVALUATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 2
6 GEOLOGIC AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3

6.1 Regional Geologic Setting 3

6.2 Site Geology 3

6.3 Subsurfa ce Conditions 3

6.3.1 Alluvium 3

6.4 Groundwater 4
7 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS 4

7.1 Seismic Hazards 4

7.1.1 Historical Seismicity 4

7.1.2 Faulting and Ground Surface Rupture 4

7.1.3 Strong Ground Motion 5

7.1.4 Liquefaction and Strain Softening 5

7.1.5 Ground Subsidence 6

7.1.6 Lateral Spread 6

7.1.7 Seismic Slope Stability 6

7.2 Expansive Soil 6

7.3 Static Settlement 6

7.4 Excavation Characteristics 7

7.5 Corrosive/Deleterious Soil 7
8 CONCLUSIONS 7
9 RECOMMENDATIONS 8

9.1 Seismic Design Criteria 8

9.2 Earthwork Recommendations 9

9.2.1 Pre-Construction Conference 9

9.2.2 Site Preparation 9

Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022 ii

9.2.3 Observation and Removals 10

9.2.4 Material Recommendations 10

9.2.5 Subgrade Preparation 11

9.2.6 Fill Placement and Compaction 12

9.2.7 Temporary Excavations and Shoring 13

9.2.8 Utility Trenches 14

9.3 Foundations 15

9.3.1 Spread Footings 15

9.3.2 Slabs-on-Grade 16

9.3.3 Drilled Piers for Minor Structures 16

9.4 Pavements and Flatwork 17

9.4.1 Asphalt Pavement 17

9.5 Concrete Placement 18

9.6 Review of Construction Plans 18

9.7 Construction Observation and Testing 19
10 LIMITATIONS 19
11 REFERENCES 21
TABLES
1 – California Building Code Seismic Design Criteria 9
2 – Recommended Material Requirements 11
3 – Subgrade Preparation Recommendations 11
4– Fill Placement and Compaction Recommendations 12
5– OSHA Material Classifications and Allowable Slopes 13 6– Recommended Bearing Design Parameters for Footings 15 7– Asphalt Concrete Pavement Sections 18

FIGURES
1 – Site Location
2 – Boring and Test Locations
3 – Fault Locations and Earthquake Epicenters
4 – Regional Geology
5 – Seismic Hazard Zone

Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022 iii

APPENDICES
A – Boring Logs
B – Laboratory Testing
C – Corrosivity Testing (CERCO Analytical)

Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022 1

1 INTRODUCTION
In accordance with your request and authorization, we have performed a geotechnical evaluation for the Memorial Park Project located at 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino, California (Figure 1). The purpose of our study was to assess the geotechnical conditions at the site and provide recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed improvements. 2 SCOPE OF SERVICES
The services we performed included the following:
• Review of pertinent background data, including aerial photographs and published geologic, seismic, and soils maps and literature.
• A site reconnaissance to observe the general site conditions and to mark the proposed locations for subsurface exploration.
• Coordination with Underground Service Alert (USA) to locate and mark underground utilities in the vicinity of the subsurface exploration locations. • Subcontract a private underground utility survey to further check the exploration locations for underground utility conflicts.
• Procurement of an encroachment permit from the City of Cupertino’s Department of Public Works.
• Subsurface exploration consisting of seventeen (17) exploratory borings advanced up to 15 feet below existing grade. A representative of Ninyo & Moore logged the subsurface conditions exposed in the borings and collected bulk and relatively undisturbed soil samples for laboratory tests. The borings were backfilled with cement grout , in compliance with the Santa Clara Valley Water District regulations. Drill cuttings were off hauled from the site. • Laboratory testing of selected soil samples to evaluate the geotechnical properties of the subsurface materials including in- situ soil moisture content and density, soil gradation, Atterberg limits, expansion index, R-value, and soil corrosivity. • Data compilation and engineering analysis of the information obtained from our background review, subsurface evaluation, and laboratory testing.
• Preparation of this geotechnical report presenting our findings and conclusions regarding the subsurface conditions encountered at the project site, and our geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed improvements. 3 SITE DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The project site is located at 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino, California (Figure 1).

The site is an “L” shape d lot that is bounded to the north by Christensen Drive, to the east by North Stelling Road and Anton Way, to the west by residential properties, and to the south Stevens Creek Boulevard and Alves Drive. Memorial Park is the largest and most well -used park in Cupertino. The 22-acre site includes lawns, a gazebo, an amphitheater, a lighted softball field,

Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022 2

and six lighted tennis courts. Memorial Park houses the Cupertino Veterans Memorial which honors local veterans, and is adjacent to the Cupertino Senior Center, Quinlan Community Center, and Cupertino Sports Center. The site is relatively flat and lies at elevations of approximately between 286 to 296 feet above mean sea level (Google Earth, 2022). 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Based on documents provided by the city (City of Cupertino, 2022), the plan for the park is the following. The ponds at the site are in the process of being removed. The City has also identified improvements required for the amphitheater. The Memorial Park Specific Plan will determine how to best meet the future recreation, community gathering, event, and green space needs of citizens through enhancement of the park, following the findings and recommendations of the City’s Parks and Recreation System Master Plan. The Master Plan’s vision for the park highlights expansion of the civic event space and community hub experiences by providing a unifying focus to the surrounding existing City facilities, and by enhancing natural site features. 5 SUBSURFACE EVALUATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
Our field exploration included a site reconnaissance and subsurface exploration of the project site. The subsurface exploration was conducted on August 24 and September 19, 2022 and consisted of seventeen (17) exploratory borings. The locations of the borings are presented on Figure 2. Prior to commencing the subsurface investigation, USA was notified for field marking of existing utilities and a private utility survey was conducted to further assess and locate any utilities that may conflict with the exploration locations.

The borings were advanced to depths of up to approximately 15 feet below the existing grade with a truck -mounted drill rig equipped with hollow -stem augers. A representative of Ninyo & Moore logged the subsurface conditions exposed in the borings and collected bulk and relatively undisturbed soil samples from the borings. The materials encountered in the borings were classified and logged in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification Syst em (USCS). The samples were then transported to our geotechnical laboratory for testing. The borings were backfilled with cement grout and capped off with soil cuttings in accordance with Santa Clara Valley Water District requirements. Detailed logs of the borings are presented in Appendix A.

Laboratory testing of soil samples recovered from the borings included in-situ soil moisture content and density, soil gradation, Atterberg limits, expansion index, R-value, and soil corrosivity.

The results of the in-place moisture content and dry density tests are shown on the boring logs in Appendix A. The results of the other laboratory tests, excluding the corrosivity testing, are

Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022 3

presented in Appendix B. The results and findings of the corrosivity evaluation ar e provided in Appendix C.
6 GEOLOGIC AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

6.1 Regional Geologic Setting
The site is located in the southwest ern portion of Santa Clara Valley, which is part of the Coast Ranges geomorphic province of California. The Coast Ranges are comprised of several mountain ranges and structural valleys formed by tectonic processes commonly found around the Circum- Pacific belt. Basement rocks have been sheared, faulted, metamorphosed, and uplifted, and are separated by thick blankets of Cretaceous and Cenozoic sediments that fill structural valleys and line continental margins. The San Francisco Bay Area has several mountain ranges that trend northwest, parallel to major strike-slip faults such as the San Andreas, Hayward, and Calaveras (Figure 3) . Major tectonic activity associated with these and other faults within this regional tectonic framework consists primarily of right-lateral, strike-slip movement.

6.2 Site Geology
A regional geologic map by Dibblee and Minch (2007) indicates that the site is un derlain by Holocene age surficial sediments. Dibblee and Minch describe this unit as alluvial sand, silt, and gravel deposited in the upper part of the alluvial fans formed along the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains. A map of the regional geology is presented as Figure 4.

6.3 Subsurface Conditions
The following section provides a generalized description of the materials encountered during our subsurface evaluation at the project site. More detailed descriptions are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A.

6.3.1 Alluvium
Alluvium was encountered in all of the borings to the depths explored. The alluvium encountered in the borings generally consisted of light brown to dark brown, dry to wet, loose to very dense, poorly graded gravel, well -graded gravel with clay and sand, clayey gravel, clayey sand; and dark brown to reddish brown, moist, very stiff to hard, lean clay and silty clay.

Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022 4

6.4 Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered during our subsurface exploration. However, groundwater may rise to a higher level due to the relatively low seepage rate in clay and the limited time for observation. Fluctuations in the groundwater level may occur due to seasonal precipitation, variations in topography or subsurface hydrogeologic conditions, or as a result of changes to nearby irrigation practices or groundw ater pumping. In addition, seeps may be encountered at elevations above the historic high groundwater levels due to perched groundwater conditions, leaking pipes, preferential drainage, or other factors not evident at the time of our exploration.

Regional studies by the California Geological Survey (CGS, 2002a) indicate that the depth to historic high groundwater is approximately 50 feet below the ground surface. 7 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
This study considered a number of potential issues relevant to the proposed construction on the subject site, including seismic hazards, expansive soils, static settlement, excavation characteristics, and soil corrosivity. These issues are discussed in the following subsections.

7.1 Seismic Hazards
The seismic hazards considered in this study include the potential for ground rupture due to faulting, seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, and seismic slope stability. These potential hazards are discussed in the following subsections.

7.1.1 Historical Seismicity
The site is located in a seismically active region. Figure 3 presents the location of the site relative to the epicenters of historic earthquakes with magnitudes of 5.0 or more from 1800 to 2000. Records of historic ground effects related to seismic activity (e.g. liquefaction, sand boils, lateral spreading, ground cracking) compiled by Knudsen et al. (2000), indicate that ground effects related to historic seismic activity have not been reported for the site.

7.1.2 Faulting and Ground Surface Rupture
In response to hazards associated with ground rupture, or surface displacement, the State of California enacted the Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (AP Act) in 1972, which regulates development of structures for human occupancy in areas within active fault zones.

The AP Act requires that the State Geologist delineate zones along active faults where evaluation of the potential for ground rupture is required. As defined by the California

Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022 5

Geological Survey (CGS, 2018 ), active faults are faults that have caused surface displacement within Holocene time, or within approximately the last 11,700 years.

The site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone established by the State Geologist (CGS, 2018). The closest active fault and rupture hazard zone is the Monte Vista Shannon 2011 CFM located about 1.5 miles northwest of the site.

Based on our review of the referenced geologic maps, known active faults are not mapped on the site and the site is not located within a fault -rupture hazard zone. Therefore, the probability of damage from surface fault rupture is considered to be low.

7.1.3 Strong Ground Motion
Based on historic activity, the potential for future strong ground motion at the site is considered significant. Seismic design criteria to address ground shaking are provided in Section 9.1. The peak ground acceleration (PGA) associated with the Maximum Considered Earthquake Geometric Mean (MCE
G) was calculated in accordance with the American
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7 -16 Standard and the 2019 California Building Code (CBC). The MCE G peak ground acceleration with adjustment for site class effects (PGAM) was calculated as 1.018g using the USGS seismic design tool (SEAOCC & OSHPD, 2020) that yielded a mapped MCE G peak ground acceleration of 0.848g for the site and a site coefficient (FPGA) of 1.2 for Site Class D – Default and Risk Category II.

7.1.4 Liquefaction and Strain Softening
The site is not located within a liquefaction hazard zone (Figure 5) as established by the California Geological Survey (CGS, 2002b). In addition, regional studies of liquefaction susceptibility by the U.S. Geological Survey (Knudsen et al., 2000; and Witter et al., 2006) indicate that the site has a low susceptibility to liquefaction during a moderate to large magnitude earthquake on a nearby fault. Additionally, we did not encounter groundwater to the depths explored, which also indicates that the site has a low susceptibility to liquefaction.

As such, we do not regard seismically induced strain softening, liquefaction induced reduction in bearing capacity, sand- boil-induced ground subsidence, or lateral spreading as design considerations for the project.

Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022 6

7.1.5 Ground Subsidence
Sand boils that occur when liquefied, near -surface soil escapes to the ground surface, can result in ground subsidence due to a loss of material that is in addition to dynamic settlement.

We do not anticipate liquefaction at the site and as such, we do not anticipate sand boils and related ground subsidence at the site.

7.1.6 Lateral Spread
In addition to vertical displacements, seismic ground shaking can induce horizontal displacements as surficial soil deposits spread laterally by floating atop liquefied subsurface layers. Lateral spread can occur on sloping ground or on flat ground adjacent to an exposed face. The nearest exposed face slope is Stevens Creek , located approximately 1 mile from the western portion of the site. Based on the site location and our liquefaction analysis, we do not anticipate that lateral spreading will occur near the proposed improvements following a significant seismic event.

7.1.7 Seismic Slope Stability
The site and surrounding area are relatively flat and the site in not within a seismic hazard zone for earthquake-induced landslides as mapped by the state geologist (CGS, 2002b).

7.2 Expansive Soil
Some clay minerals undergo volume changes upon wetting or drying. Unsaturated soil containing those minerals will shrink/swell with the removal/addition of water. The heaving pressures associated with this expansion can damage structures and flatwork. Laboratory testing was performed on a sample of the near-surface soil to evaluate the expansion index. The tests were performed in accordance with American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard D 4829 (Expansion Index). The results of our laboratory test i ndicate that the expansion indices of the samples tested were between 6 to 25 . These results are indicative of a very low to low expansion characteristic.

7.3 Static Settlement
Based on documents provided, we understand that the sustained loads for the proposed structures are expected to be relatively light. We anticipate, therefore, that the total static settlement of drilled pier foundations due to sustained loads will be less than ½ inch, provided the recommendations presented in this report are followed.

Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022 7

7.4 Excavation Characteristics
We anticipate that the proposed project will invol ve excavations of up to 15 feet in depth for installation of drilled pier foundations for light poles, shad structures, and play equipment. The soil encountered during our subsurface exploration over this interval generally consisted of firm to stiff clay and medium dense to dense sand and gravel with cobbles . We anticipate that heavy earthmoving equipment in good working condition should be able to make the proposed excavations. Near -vertical cuts or drilled shafts in these materials should not be consider ed stable. Recommendations for excavation stabilization are presented in Section 9.2.8. Excavations are not anticipated to extend below or near historic groundwater levels.

7.5 Corrosive/Deleterious Soil
Corrosivity analysis was performed by CERCO Analytical, Inc. of Concord, California on samples of the near-surface soil from boring B-6a. As reported by CERCO Analytical, the samples were determined t o be corrosive based on resistivity test results. CERCO Analytical’s report (see Appendix C) included the following recommendation: “All buried iron, steel, cast iron, ductile iron, galvanized steel and dielectric coated steel or iron should be properly protected against corrosion depending upon the critical nature of the structure. All buried metallic pressure piping such as ductile iron firewater pipelines should be protected against corrosion.” Please refer to the CERCO Analytical report included in Appendix C for more information regarding their test results and brief evaluation.
8 CONCLUSIONS
Based on our review of the referenced background data, site reconnaissance, subsurface evaluation, and laboratory testing, it is our opinion that the proposed construction is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. Geotechnical considerations include the following:
• The subsurface conditions encountered during our exploration generally consisted of light brown to dark brown, dry to wet, loose to very dense, poorly graded gravel, well-graded gravel with clay and sand, clayey gravel, clayey sand; and dark brown to reddish brown, moist, very stiff to hard, lean clay and silty clay.
• Groundwater was not encountered during our subsurface exploration . Variations in the groundwater level across the site and over time should be anticipated. Regional mapping indicates that the historic high groundwater level is approximately 50 feet below the existing grade.
• We anticipate that the proposed project will involve excavations of up to 15 feet below the existing grade for installation of drilled pier foundations. Stability of excavations will be a concern, particularly where excavation sidewalls are disturbed by construction operations, or

Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022 8

where excavations encounter relatively cohesionless soil or are exposed to water.

Recommendations for excavation stabilization are provided. • Static settlement should be tolerable for the proposed improvements provided that the proposed structures are supported on foundations that con form with our recommendations and fill placement to raise grades is less than 2 feet in height. • Our laboratory test results indicate that the near-surface soil has a very low to low expansion characteristic.
• Based on the results of the soil corrosivity tests during this study, the soils are considered to be corrosive (Appendix C) to buried ferrous metals as is typical for the area. Buried metals, such as play equipment, should be properly protected against corrosion. Corrosion protection measures should be discussed with the equipment manufacturer and may include corrosion resistant paint or other coatings.
9 RECOMMENDATIONS
The following sections present our geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed improvements. The projec t improvements should be designed and constructed in accordance with these recommendations, applicable codes, and appropriate construction practices.

9.1 Seismic Design Criteria
Seismic Site Class D -default was selected. Table 1 presents the Risk -Targeted, Max imum Considered Earthquake (MCE R) spectral response accelerations consistent with the 2019 California Building Code and corresponding site -adjusted and design level spectral response accelerations based on the USGS seismic design maps using the ASCE 7 Hazard Tool (ASCE, 2021). The values provided in the table may be used for structures with a fundamental period of

0.5 seconds or less presuming that the seismic response coefficient is calculated from equation

12.8-2 of ASCE Standard 7- 16 in accordance with E xception 2 in Section 11.4.8 of ASCE Standard 7-16.

Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022 9

Table 1 – California Building Code Seismic Design Criteria Seismic Design Parameter Section 11.4 ASCE 7-16
Site Class D - Default
Site Coefficient, Fa 1.2
Site Coefficient, Fv -
Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2-second period, SS 2.056 Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 1.0-second period, S1 0.735 Site-Adjusted Spectral Acceleration at 0.2-second period, SMS 2.467 g Site-Adjusted Spectral Acceleration at 1.0-second period, SM1 - Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2-second Period, SDS 1.644 g Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1.0-second Period, SD1 - Seismic Design Category for Risk Category I, II, or III -

9.2 Earthwork Recommendations
Earthwork should be performed in accordance with the requirements of applicable governing agencies and the recommendations presented below. The geotechnical consultant should observe foundation excavations and earthwork operations. Evaluations performed by the geotechnical consultant during the course of operations may result in new recommendations, which could supersede the recommendations in this section.

9.2.1 Pre-Construction Conference
We recommend that a pre-construction conference be held to discuss the recommendations presented in the report. Representatives of the District, the design engineer, Ninyo & Moore, and the contractor should be in attendance to discuss project schedule and earthwork requirements.

9.2.2 Site Preparation
Site preparation should begin with the removal of existing vegetation, utility lines, debris and other deleterious materials from areas to be graded. Tree stumps and roots should be removed to such a depth that organic material is generally not present. Clearing and grubbing should extend beyond the proposed excavation and fill areas. Rubble and excavated materials that do not meet criteria for use as fill should be disposed of in an appropriate landfill. Existing utilities in the work area should be relocated away from the proposed structures. Existing utilities to be abandoned should be removed, crushed in place, or backfilled with grout.

Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022 10

Excavations resulting from removal of buried utilities, tree stumps, or obstructions should be backfilled with compacted fill in accordance with the recommendations in the following sections.

9.2.3 Observation and Removals
Prior to placement of fill, or the placement of forms or reinforcement for foundations, the client should request an evaluation of the exposed subgrade by Ninyo & Moore. Materials that are considered unsuitable shall be excavated under the observation of Ninyo & Moore in accordance with the recommendations in this section or supplemental recommendations by the geotechnical engineer.

Unsuitable materials include, but may not be limited to dry, loose, soft, wet, expansive, organic, or compressible natural soil, and undocumented or otherwise deleterious fill materials. Unsuitable materials should be removed from trench bottoms and below bearing surfaces to a depth at which suitabl e foundation subgrade is exposed, as evaluated in the field by Ninyo & Moore.

9.2.4 Material Recommendations
Materials used during earthwork, grading, and paving operations should comply with the requirements listed in Table 2. Materials should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer for suitability prior to use. The contractor should notify the geotechnical consultant prior to import of materials or use of on -site materials to permit time for sampling, testing, and evaluation of the proposed materials. On-site materials may need to be dried out before re- use as fill. The contractor should be responsible for the uniformity of import material brought to the site.

Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022 11

Table 2 – Recommended Material Requirements
Material and Use Source Requirements1,2,3
General Fill Import or On-
site Borrow
Close-graded with 35 percent or more
passing No. 4 sieve and either:

Expansion Index of 50 or less,
Plasticity Index of 12 or less,
or less than 10 percent, by dry weight,
passing No. 200 sieve
Pipe/Conduit Bedding and Pipe Zone
Material
-material below conduit invert to 12
inches above conduit
Import 90 to 100 percent (by mass) should pass No.
4 sieve, and 5 percent or less should pass
No. 200 sieve
Trench Backfill
- above bedding material
Import or On-
site Borrow
As per general fill and excluding rock/lumps
retained on 4-inch sieve or 2-inch sieve in top
12 inches
Controlled Low Strength
Material (CLSM)
Import CSS5 Section 19-3.02G
Notes:
1 In general, fill should be free of rocks or lumps in excess of 6 inches in diameter, trash, debris, roots, vegetation or other deleterious material.
2 In general, import fill should be tested or documented to be non-corrosive4 and free from hazardous materials in concentrations above levels of concern.
3 The specification of utility owner or local agency may supersede the indicated requirements in this table. 4 Non-corrosive as defined by the Corrosion Guidelines (Caltrans, 2021). 5 CSS is California Standard Specifications (Caltrans, 2018).

9.2.5 Subgrade Preparation
Subgrade below slabs or fill should be prepared as per the recommendations in Table 3 .

Prepared subgrade should be maintained in a moist (but not saturated) condition by the periodic sprinkling of water prior to placement of additional overlying fill. Subgrade that has been permitted to dry out and loosen or develop desiccation cracking, should be scarified, moisture-conditioned, and recompacted as per the requirements above.

Table 3 – Subgrade Preparation Recommendations
Subgrade Location Source
Below Slabs,
Pavement, and General
Fill
• After clearing per Section 9.2.2, check for unsuitable materials as per Section 9.2.4.
• Scarify 8 inches then moisture condition and compact as per Section 9.2.7.
• Keep in moist condition by sprinkling water.

Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022 12

9.2.6 Fill Placement and Compaction
Fill and backfill should be compacted in horizontal lifts in conformance with the recommendations presented in Table 4. The allowable uncompacted thickness of each lift of fill depends on the type of compaction equipment utilized, but generally should not exceed 8 inches in loose thickness.

Table 4– Fill Placement and Compaction Recommendations Fill Type Location
Compacted
Density1
Moisture
Content2
Subgrade
Below pavement (within 12 inches of
finished subgrade) 95 percent + 2 percent or
above
Below slabs or fill and in locations not
already specified 90 percent + 2 percent or
above
General Fill
Below pavement (within 12 inches of
finished subgrade) 95 percent + 2 percent or
above
In locations not already specified 90 percent + 2 percent or above
Bedding and
Pipe Zone Fill
Material below invert to 12 inches above
pipe or conduit 90 percent Within +/- 2
Optimum
Trench Backfill
Top 12 inches below finish subgrade for
areas subject to vehicular loading 95 percent + 2 percent or above
In locations not already specified 90 percent + 2 percent or above
Aggregate Base Below slabs or pavement 95 percent Near Optimum Notes:
1 Expressed as percent relative compaction or ratio of field density to reference density (typically on a dry density basis for soil and aggregate). The reference density of soil and aggregate should be evaluated by ASTM D 1557. 2 Target moisture content at compaction relative to the optimum as evaluated by ASTM D 1557 Compacted fill should be maintained in a moist (but not saturated) condition by the periodic sprinkling of water prior to placement of additional overlying fill. Fill that has been permitted to dry out and loosen or develop desiccation cracking, should be scarified, mois ture- conditioned, and recompacted as per the requirements above.

Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022 13

9.2.7 Temporary Excavations and Shoring
Trench excavations shall be stabilized in accordance with the Excavation Rules and Regulations (29 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR], Part 1926) stipulated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Stabilization shall consist of shoring sidewalls or laying slopes back.

Dewatering pits or sumps should be used to depress the groundwater level (if encountered) below the bottom of the excavation. Table 5 lists the OSHA material type classifications and corresponding allowable temporary slope layback inclinations for soil deposits that may be encountered on site. We encountered granular soils that consisted of loose to very dense, silty sand during our subsurface investigation, which corresponds to OSHA Type C soil. If materials other than those anticipated are encountered, Ninyo & Moore should be provided an opportunity to review subsurface conditions. Alternatively, an internally -braced shoring system or trench shield conforming to the OSHA Excavation Rules and Regulations (29 CFR, Part 1926) may be used to stabilize excavation sidewalls during construction. The lateral earth pressures listed in Table 6 may be used to design or select the internally-braced shoring system or trench shield. The recommendations listed in Table 6 are based upon the limited subsurface data provided by our subsurface exploration and reflect the influence of the environmental conditions that existed at the time of our exploration. Excavation stability, material classifications, allowable slopes, and shoring pressures should be re-evaluated and revised, as-needed, during construction. Excavations, shoring systems and the surrounding areas should be evaluated daily by a competent person for indications of possible instability or collapse.

Table 5– OSHA Material Classifications and Allowable Slopes Formation OSHA
Classification
Allowable
Temporary Slope1,2,3
Lateral Earth
Pressure on
Shoring4 (psf)
Alluvium
(above groundwater) Type C 1½ h:1v (34°) 80×D + 72
Notes:
1 Allowable slope for excavations less than 20 feet deep. Excavation sidewalls in cohesive soil may be benched to meet the allowable slope criteria (measured from the bottom edge of the excavation). The allowable bench height is 4 feet. The bench at the bottom of the excavation may protrude above the allowable slope criteria. 2 In layered soil, layers shall not be sloped steeper than the layer below. 3 Temporary excavations less than 5 feet deep may be made with vertical side slopes and remain unshored if judged to be stable by a competent person (29 CFR, Part 1926.650).
4 ‘D’ is depth of excavation for excavations up to 20 feet deep. Includes a surface surcharge equivalent to two feet of soil.

Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022 14

The shoring system should be designed or selected by a suitably qualified individual or specialty subcontractor. The shoring parameters presented in this report are preliminary design criteria, and the designer should evaluate the adequacy of these parameters and make appropriate modifications for their design. We recommend that the contractor take appropriate measures to protect workers. OSHA requirements pertaining to worker safety should be observed.

Excavations made in close proximity to existing structures may undermine the foundation of those structures and/or cause soil movement related distress to the existing structures.

Stabilization techniques for excavations in close proximity to existing structures will need to account for the addit ional loads imposed on the shoring system and appropriate setback distances for temporary slopes. The contractor should be solely responsible for protection of existing site improvements and provide shoring and/or underpinning as needed.

The excavation bottoms may encounter wet, loose material which may be subject to pumping under heavy equipment loads. The contractor should be prepared to stabilize the bottom of the excavations. In general, unstable bottom conditions may be mitigated by using a stabilizing geogrid, overexcavating the excavation bottom to suitable depths and replacing with compacted fill, or other suitable method. Additionally, aeration of wet soils should be anticipated.

9.2.8 Utility Trenches
Trenches constructed for the installation of underground utilities should be stabilized in accordance with our recommendations in Section 9.2.9. Utility trenches should be backfilled with materials that conform to our recommendations in Section 9.2.5. Trench backfill, bedding, and pipe zone fill should be compacted in accordance with Section 9.2.7 of this report. Bedding and pipe zone fill should be shoveled under pipe haunches and c ompacted by manual or mechanical, hand- held tampers. Trench backfill should be compacted by mechanical means. Densification of trench backfill by flooding or jetting should not be permitted.

Trenches should not be excavated adjacent to footings. If trenches are to be excavated near a continuous footing, the bottom of the trench should be located above a 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) plane projected downward from the bottom of the footing. Utility lines that cross beneath footings should be encased in concret e or CLSM below the footing for a distance equivalent to the depth of the excavation.

Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022 15

9.3 Foundations
Foundations should be designed in accordance with structural considerations and our geotechnical recommendations. In addition, requirements of the governing jurisdictions, practices of the Structural Engineers Association of California, and applicable building codes should be considered in the design of the structures. Maximum static settlement due to building loads is anticipated to be on the order of ½ inch.

9.3.1 Spread Footings
Footings bearing on subgrade prepared as per the recommendations in Section 9.2.6 . The footings may be designed using the criteria listed in Table 6 . The geotechnical engineer should observe the footing excavations to evaluate bearing materials and subgrade condition before the exposed subgrade is covered.

Table 6– Recommended Bearing Design Parameters for Footings Footing Sustained
Loads
Footing
Widths
Bearing
Depth1
Allowable
Bearing
Capacity2
Static
Settlement
Wall Footing 3 kips/foot or
less
12 inches
or more
2 feet
or more 3,000 psf ½ -inch total
Column Footing 12 kips
or less
24 inches
or more
2 feet
or more 3,000 psf ½ -inch total
Notes:
1 Below the adjacent finish grade and the existing grade. 2 Net allowable bearing capacity in pounds per square foot with Safety Factor of 2 or more. Allowable bearing capacity may be increased by one-third for wind or seismic load combinations.

Structures supported on footings consistent with these recommendations should be designed for the total and differential settlements listed in Table 6 for sustained loads.

The spread footings should be reinforced with deformed steel bars as detailed by the project structural engineer. Where footings are located adjacent to utility trenches or other excavations, the footing bearing surfaces should bear below an imaginary plane extending upward from the bottom edge of the adjacent trench/excavation at a 1½:1 (horizontal to vertical) angle above the bottom edge of the footing. Footings should be deepened or excavation depths reduced as-needed. Footing bottoms should not be sloped more than 1- unit vertical to 10 units horizontal. Wall footings may be stepped provided that the bearing grade differential between adjacent steps does not exceed 18 inches and the slope of a series of such steps does not exceed 1-unit vertical to 2 units horizontal.

Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022 16

A lateral bearing pressure of 300 psf per foot of depth up to 3,000 psf may be used to evaluate the resistance of footings to lateral loads. The recommended lateral bearing pressure is for level and gently sloping ground conditions where the ground slope adjacent to the foundation is 5 percent or less. The lateral bearing pressure should be neglected to a depth of 12 inches where the ground adjacent to the foundation is not covered by a slab or pavement. The lateral bearing pressure may be increased by one- third when considering loads of short duration such as wind or seismic forces. A friction coefficient of 0.35 may be assumed for evaluating frictional resistance to lateral loads. A dry unit weight of 90 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for soil, 120 pcf for aggregate and 150 pcf for normal weight concrete may be assumed for this evaluation.

9.3.2 Slabs-on-Grade
Building floor slabs should be designed by the project structural engineer based on the anticipated loading conditions. The subgrade should be prepared in accordance with Section

9.2.6. Where a vapor retarding system is not used, slabs should be constructed on 6 inches, or more, of aggregate base conforming to Section 9.2.5 and placed in accordance with Section 9.2.7. The slab should be reinforced with deformed steel bars. We recommend that masonry briquettes or plastic chairs be used to aid in the correct placement of slab reinforcement in the upper half of the slab. Refer to Section 9.5 for the recommended concrete cover over reinforcing steel. A vapor retarder is recommended in areas where moisture-sensitive floor coverings or conditioned environments are anticipated. Joints consistent with ACI guidelines (ACI, 2020) may be constructed at periodic intervals to reduce the potential for random cracking of the slab.

9.3.3 Drilled Piers for Minor Structures
Drilled piers for minor structures such as fences and light poles embedded 5 to 25 feet below grade may be de signed for an allowable side friction of 300 psf to evaluate resistance to downward axial loads and 200 psf per foot depth for upward axial loads. The allowable skin friction includes a factor of safety of 2 for downward loading and 3 for upward loading. The allowable side friction may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration such as wind or seismic loads. The spacing between adjacent piers should be equivalent to eight pier diameters, or more to mitigate reduction due to group effects.

A lateral bearing pressure of 300 pounds per square foot (psf) per foot depth up to 3,000 psf may be used to evaluate resistance to lateral loads and overturning moments in accordance with Section 1806 of the 2019 CBC. The allowable lateral bearing pressure may be increased

Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022 17

by one-third for wind or seismic load combinations and by an additional factor of two for structures that can accommodate ½ inch of lateral deflection of the top of the pier foundation.

Drilled pier excavations should be cleaned of loose material prior to pouring concrete. Drilled pier excavations that encounter groundwater or cohesionless soil may be unstable and may need to be stabilized by temporary casing or use of drilling mud. Standing water should be removed from the pier exc avation or the concrete should be delivered to the bottom of the excavation, below the water surface, by tremie pipe. Casing should be removed from the excavation as the concrete is placed. Concrete should be placed in the piers in a manner that reduces the potential for segregation of the components. Piers should be completed with concrete the same day as the excavation is completed.

9.4 Pavements and Flatwork
Recommendations for pavement and exterior flatwork are presented in the following sections. A design R-value of 20 was selected based on subsurface soil encountered . The pavement subgrade should be observed by the geotechnical engineer during grading to check the finish subgrade for consistency with the assumed condition. Recommendations for preparation of subgrade are presented in Section 9.2.6.

9.4.1 Asphalt Pavement
Based on the damage observed along the pedestrian pathways, we recommend complete removal of the existing pavement sections and reconstruction with a new section of aggregate base and asphalt concrete. The existing aggregate base and asphalt concrete may be processed to meet Caltrans Class 2 Aggregate Base specifications for re-use.

Ninyo & Moore conducted an analysis to evaluate appropriate asphalt pavement structural sections following the methodology presented in the Highway Design Manual (Caltrans, 2020). Alternative sections were evaluated for pedestrian and vehicular loading. The pavement sections were designed for a 20 -year service life presuming that periodic maintenance, including crack sealing and resurfacing will be performed during the service life of the pavement. Premature deterioration may occur without periodic maintenance. Our recommendations for the pavement sections are presented in Table 7.

Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022 18

Table 7– Asphalt Concrete Pavement Sections
Traffic Index R-Value Alternative 1 Alternative 2
3 (Light Vehicular Traffic) 20 3½ inches AC 2 inches AC 4½ inches AB
6 (Fire Lanes) 20 8 inches AC 3½ inches AC
9½ inches AB
Notes:
1 AC is Type A, Dense-Graded Hot Mix Asphalt complying with Caltrans Standard Specification 39-2 (2018). 2 AB is Class 2 Aggregate Base complying with Caltrans Standard Specification 26-1.02 (2018).

Aggregate base for pavement should be placed in lifts of no more than 8 inches in loose thickness and compacted per Section 9.2.7 . Asphalt concrete should be placed and compacted in accordance with Caltrans Standard Specification and Construction Manual; asphalt concrete should be compacted to between 92 and 96 percent of the theoretical maximum specific gravity and density (Rice gravity – ASTM D 2041) of the material.

Pavements should be sloped so that runoff is diverted to an appropriate collector (concrete gutter, swale, or area drain) to reduce the potential for ponding of water on the pavement.

Concentration of runoff over asphalt pavement should be discouraged.

9.5 Concrete Placement
Concrete in contact with soil or water that contains high concentrations of soluble sulfates can be subject to chemical and/or physical deterioration. The sulfate ion concentration was measured 49 mg/kg and is determined to be insufficient to damage reinforced concrete structures, however due to the potential variability in soil conditions across the site, we recommend that Type V cement with a water/cement ratio of 0.45 or less be considered for the project.

9.6 Review of Construction Plans
The recommendations provided in this report are based on preliminary design information for the proposed construction. We recommend that a copy of the plans be provided to Ninyo & Moore for review before bidding to check the interpretation of our recommendations and that the designed improvements are consistent with our assumptions. It should be noted that, upon review of these documents, some recommendations presented in this report might be revised or modified to meet the project requirements.

Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022 19

9.7 Construction Observation and Testing
The recommendations provided in this report are based on subsurface conditions encountered in discrete exploratory borings. During construction, the geotechnical engineer or his representative in the field should be allowed to check the exposed subsurface conditions. During construction, the geotechnical engineer or his representative should be allowed to:
• Check for unsuitable materials and observe foundation excavations. • Observe preparation and compaction of subgrade.
• Check and test imported materials prior to import to the project site. • Observe placement and compaction of fill.
• Perform field density tests to evaluate fill and subgrade compaction. • Observe placement of reinforcing steel and concrete in drilled piers and slabs.

The recommendations provided in this report assume that Ninyo & Moore will be retained as the geotechnical consultant during the const ruction phase of the project. If another geotechnical consultant is selected, we request that the selected consultant provide a letter to the architect and the owner (with a copy to Ninyo & Moore) indicating that they fully understand Ninyo & Moore’s recommendations, and that they are in full agreement with the recommendations contained in this report. Ninyo & Moore cannot assume responsibility for aspects of construction for which we have not been given an opportunity to observe/test.
10 LIMITATIONS
The field evaluation, laboratory testing, geotechnical analyses, and assessment of geologic hazards presented in this report have been conducted in general accordance with current practice and the standard of care exercised by geotechnical consultants performing si milar tasks in the project area at the time this report was prepared. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made regarding the conclusions, recommendations, and opinions presented in this report. There is no evaluation detailed enough to reveal every subsurface condition. Variations may exist, and conditions not observed or described in this report may be encountered during construction.

Uncertainties relative to subsurface conditions can be reduced through additional subsurface exploration. Additional subsurface evaluation will be performed upon request. Please also note that our evaluation was limited to assessment of the geotechnical aspects of the project, and did not include evaluation of structural issues, environmental concerns, or the presence of hazardous materials.

Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022 20

This document is intended to be used only in its entirety. No portion of the document, by itself, is designed to completely represent any aspect of the project described herein. Ninyo & Moore should be contacted if the reader requires additional information or has questions regarding the content, interpretations presented, or completeness of this document.

This report is intended for design purposes only. It does not provide sufficient data to prepare an accurate bid by contractors. It is suggested that the bidders and their geotechnical consultant perform an independent evaluation of the subsurface conditions in the project areas. The independent evaluations may include, but not be limited to, review of other geotechnical reports prepared for the adjacent areas, site reconnaissance, and additional exploration and laboratory testing.

Our conclusions, recommendations, and opinions are based on an analysis of the observed site conditions. If geotechnical conditions different from those described in this report are encountered, our office should be notified and additional recommendations will be provided, as appropriate. It should be understood that the conditions of a site could change with time as a result of natural processes or the activities of man at the subject site or nearby sites. In addition, changes to the applicable laws, regulations, codes, and standards of practice may occur due to government action or the broadening of knowledge. The findings of this report may, therefore, be invalidated over time, in part or in whole, by changes over which Ninyo & Moore has no control.

This report is intended exclusively for use by the client. Any use or reuse of the findings, conclusions, and/or recommendations of this report by parties other than the client is undertaken at said parties’ sole risk.

Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022 21

11 REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute, 2021, ACI Manual of Concrete Practice.

American Concrete Institute, 2014, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318- 14) - Commentary on Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318R-14).

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2016, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Building and Other Structures, ASCE Standard 7-16.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2021, ASCE 7 Hazard Tool, https://asce7hazardtool.online/
California Building Standards Commission (CBSC), 2019 , California Building Code (CBC), Tit le 24, Part 2, Volumes 1 and 2.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2018, Standard Specifications.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2020, Highway Design Manual, https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/manual-highway-design-manual-hdm.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2021, Corrosion Guidelines, Version 3.2, Division of Engineering Services, Materials Engineering and Testing Services, Corrosion Branch: dated May.

California Geological Survey (CGS), 2002a, Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Cupertino 7.5- Minute Quadrangle, Santa Clara Valley, California, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 068.

California Geological Survey (CGS), 2007, Special Publication 42 - Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps, by Bryant, W.A. and Hart, E.W.

California Geological Survey (CGS), 2018, Earthquake Fault Zones, A Guide for Government Agencies, Property Owners/Developers, and Geoscience Practitioners for Assessing Fault Rupture Hazards in California: California Geologic Survey Special Publication 42.

City of Cupertino, 2022, Memorial Park Specific Plan, EngageCupertino_Draft content , https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o7fSGt_Mt641L-z0oc5RVIlbFFlLzXJoACdY43Ds hYY/edit
Dibblee, T.W., Jr. and Minch, J.A., 2007, Geologic Map of the Cupertino and San Jose West Quadrangles, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties, California: Dibblee Geological Foundation, Dibblee Foundation Map DF-351, scale 1:24,000 Google Earth, 2022, Google Earth Pro 7.3.3.7699, http://earth.google.com/.

Knudsen, K.L., Sowers, J.M., Witter, R.C., Wentworth, C.M., Helley, E.J., Nicholson, R.S., Wright, H.M., and Brown, K.H., 2000, Preliminary Maps of Quaternary Deposits and Liquefaction Susceptibility, Nine-County San Francisco Bay Region, California: a digital database: U.S.

Geological Survey, Open-File Report OF-2000-444, Scale 1:275,000.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), 1989, Occupational Safety and Health Standards – Excavations, Department of Labor, Title 29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 1926, dated October 31.

Witter, R.C., Knudsen, K.L, Sowers, J.M., Wentworth, C.M., Koehler, R.D., and Randolph, C.E., 2006, Maps of Quaternary Deposits and Liquefaction Susceptibility in the Central San Francisco Bay Region, California: U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 2006-1037, Scale 1:200,000 (http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1037/
).

Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022

Appendix A

Photographic Documentation

FIGURES

SITE

MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD

CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA

SITE LOCATION
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
FIGURE 1
NOTE: DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS, AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE I REFERENCE: USGS, 2018 0

SCALE (FEET)
2,000 4,000
N
404269001 I 11/22
404269001.dwg 11/02/2022 AEK
~ ~,
JG<>
1 5i
CG
kl.s::.rp~~" • t., • '" _,r -~j
}~W~
'I;~ -::1 =i ~VM SVONV , ·tj g
?-Js~NEYAVEJ ~ I cl ti:? ,
1 ~-·~··Lj~ ~
DENISON AV£

N STELLING RD

MARY AVESTEVENS CREEK BLVD

PATRIOT WAY
B-1a(1.5')B-1(15.0')B-3a(1.7')B-3(6.5')B-6a(1.2')B-6(6.5') B-10a(1.0')B-10(15.0')B-11a(1.3')B-11(11.5')
B-4(11.5')
B-2(11.5')B-5(6.5')
B-10(10.5')
B-9(15.0')B-8(6.5')

CHRISTENSEN DR

ALVES DR

ANTON WAY
EXPLORATION LOCATIONSGeotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants FIGURE 2
NOTE: DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS, AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE I REFERENCE: GOOGLE EARTH, 20220 SCALE (FEET)200400N 404269001.dwg 11/02/2022 AEK
LEGENDBORING LOCATION (09/19/2022)(TOTAL DEPTH, IN FEET)PROJECT BOUNDARYB-1(15.0') MEMORIAL PARK21121 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARDCUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA404269001 I 11/22 B-1a(1.5')BORING LOCATION (08/24/2022)(TOTAL DEPTH, IN FEET) P a c i fic
O c e an
S a n
P a b lo
B a y
S a n
F r a n c isco
B a y
S u i sun
B a y
SAN

ANDREAS
FAULT
ZONE
HAYW
ARD
FAULT
ZONE

CALAV E
RAS
GR E
EN V
ILLE
FAULT
Z
VA
LLE
Y
FA
U
LT
ZO
N
E
RS
CREEK
FAULT
ZONE

CHABO T
FAUL
N
A
PA
FA
U
LT
ZO
N
E
POINT
REYES
FAULT

CONCORD
FAU L
T

FRANKLIN
FAULT

LAKEVIEW
FAULT

CALVERAS
FAU
LT
ZO
N
E
SERRA
FAULT
ZONE
Oakland
SILV
T
ER
CREEK
FAULT
Z

MISSION
FAULT
ONE
MONTE

VISTA-SHANNON

CASCADE
FAULT
ZONE

STANFORD FAULT

PILARCITOS
FAULT
SA
N
G
R
EG
O
R
IO
FA
U
LT
ZO
N
E
BUTANO

FAULTZ AYA N T E - VE R GEL E S FAULT ZONE

FA U LT Z O N E

BERROCAL
FAULT
ZONE

P IE RC Y
FAULT
S A
N

ANDREAS
FAULT
ZONE
Solano
County
Marin
County
Contra Costa
County
Alameda
County
San Francisco
County
San Mateo
County
Sacramento
County
Colma
Novato Vallejo
Concord
Hayward
Rio Vista
Fairfield
San Mateo
Brentwood
Livermore
San
Francisco
San Jose
18980331

6.4 19060418

7.8 18681021

7.0 18380600

7.4 Morgan
Hill

CALIFORNIA
LEGEND

HOLOCENE ACTIVE

CALIFORNIA FAULT ACTIVITY

HISTORICALLY ACTIVE

LATE QUATERNARY

QUATERNARY

STATE/COUNTY BOUNDARY
MAGNITUDE 5.0 - 5.9
MAGNITUDE 6.0 - 6.9
MAGNITUDE 7.0 - 7.9

EARTHQUAKE EPICENTERS
(DATE/MAGNITUDE)
404269001-Fig3-FL.pdf 10/02/2022 AEK
NOTE: DIRECTIONS, DIMENSIONS, AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE FIGURE 3
0 10 20

SCALE (MILES)
SOURCES: CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, 2010, FAULT ACTIVITY MAP OF CALIFORNIA; CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, 2000, MAP SHEET 49
SITE

FAULT LOCATIONS AND EARTHQUAKE EPICENTERS

MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD

CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
4042696001 | 11/22

SAN
JOSE
FAULT
•
• •
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
•
•
SITE

REGIONAL GEOLOGY
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
FIGURE 4
0 SCALE (FEET)
2,000 4,000
N
404269001.dwg 11/02/2022 AEK
LEGEND
NOTE: DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS, AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE I REFERENCE: DIBBLEE, 2007 Qa ALLUVIAL GRAVEL, SAND,

SILT, & CLAY(HOLOCENE)

STRIKE AND DIP

OF BEDDING

GEOLOGIC CONTACT
FAULT

THRUST FAULTOLDER ALLUVIAL TERRACE

GRAVEL, SAND, & CLAY,

UNDEFORMED (PLEISTOCENE)
Qa.1 ALLUVIAL SAND, SILT,
& GRAVEL (HOLOCENE)
Qoa/
Qt
Qa.2 ALLUVIAL GRAVEL, SAND,

SILT, & CLAY (HOLOCENE)

SANTA CLARA FORMATION/

NONMARINE SEDIMENTARY ROCKS
(PLEISTOCENE/PLIOCENE)
Qsc/
QTs
MONTEREY FORMATION;
SILICEOUS SHALE (MIOCENE)Tm

MATADERO

SANDSTONE
(MIOCENE)
Tms

MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD

CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
404269001 I 11/22
r.- r ~ ,,
1101
IU h ,_
D D D
D D
D D
I • l -:_J
1--!-----r---~-·~ ·=,lf'iVf/lM
1 •-w-1
-~ I
' I
·-
.,,
i
• •
I
}
ort~f i
Sch I 1
-· . . f-rr
j ·-· P·
St J l , • Ll ·
St-h
/~...,/ / r • i
'!l~~J----4
• ..., I
J ~
TTT"f
-------
----
___J_
SITE
SEISMIC HAZARD ZONESGeotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants FIGURE 5
0 SCALE (FEET)2,0004,000N
404269001.dwg 11/02/2022 AEKNOTE: DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS, AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE REFERENCE: CGS, 1974, 2002 LEGEND
EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED LANDSLIDE ZONES:Areas where previous occurrence of landslide movement, or local topographic, geological, geotechnical,and subsurface water conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements such thatmitigation as defined in Public Resources Code Section 2693(c) would be required.

LIQUEFACTION ZONES:Areas where historic occurrence of liquefaction, or localgeological, geotechnical, and groundwater conditionsindicate a potential for permanent ground displacementssuch that mitigation as defined in Public Resources CodeSection 2693(c) would be required.

MEMORIAL PARK21121 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARDCUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA404269001 I 11/22 Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022

APPENDIX A
Boring Logs

Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022

APPENDIX A

BORING LOGS
Field Procedure for the Collection of Disturbed Samples Disturbed soil samples were obtained in the field using the following method.

Bulk Samples
Bulk samples of representative earth materials were obtained from the exploratory borings. The samples were bagged and transported to the laboratory for testing.

Field Procedure for the Collection of Relatively Undisturbed Samples Relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained in the field using the following method.

The Modified Split-Barrel Drive Sampler
The sampler, with an external diameter of 3.0 inches, was lined with 6-inch long, thin brass liners with inside diameters of approximately 2.4 inches. The sample barrel was driven into the ground with the weight of a hammer in general accordance with ASTM D 3550. The driving weight was permitted to fall freely. The approximate length of the fall, the weight of the hammer, and the number of blows per foot of driving are presented on the boring log as an index to the relative resistance of the materials sampled. The samples were removed from the sample barrel in the brass liners, sealed, and transported to the laboratory for testing.

;;;;
SM
CL
%XONVDPSOH
0RGLILHGVSOLWEDUUHOGULYHVDPSOHU
1RUHFRYHU\ZLWKPRGLILHGVSOLWEDUUHOGULYHVDPSOHU
6DPSOHUHWDLQHGE\RWKHUV
6WDQGDUG3HQHWUDWLRQ7HVW
637

1RUHFRYHU\ZLWKD637
6KHOE\WXEHVDPSOH'LVWDQFHSXVKHGLQLQFKHVOHQJWKRIVDPSOHUHFRYHUHGLQLQFKHV 1RUHFRYHU\ZLWK6KHOE\WXEHVDPSOHU
&RQWLQXRXV3XVK6DPSOH
6HHSDJH
*URXQGZDWHUHQFRXQWHUHGGXULQJGULOOLQJ
*URXQGZDWHUPHDVXUHGDIWHUGULOOLQJ
0$-250$7(5,$/7<3(
62,/

6ROLGOLQHGHQRWHVXQLWFKDQJH
'DVKHGOLQHGHQRWHVPDWHULDOFKDQJH
$WWLWXGHV
6WULNH'LS
E
%HGGLQJ
F
&RQWDFW
M
-RLQW
I
)UDFWXUH
)
)DXOW
FV
&OD\6HDP
V
6KHDU
EVV
%DVDO6OLGH6XUIDFH
VI
6KHDU)UDFWXUH
V]
6KHDU=RQH
VEV
6KHDU%HGGLQJ6XUIDFH
7KHWRWDOGHSWKOLQHLVDVROLGOLQHWKDWLVGUDZQDWWKHERWWRPRIWKHERULQJ DEPTH (feet)
Bulk SAMPLESDriven

BLOWS/FOOT
MOISTURE (%)

DRY DENSITY (PCF)
SYMBOL

CLASSIFICATION
U.S.C.S.

BORING LOG EXPLANATION SHEET

BORING LOG

20 !BORING lOG EXIPlANA l!ON ~[H[E[El
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
Soil Classification Chart Per ASTM D 2488
Primary Divisions
Secondary Divisions
Group Symbol Group Name

COARSE-

GRAINED
SOILS
more than
50% retained
on No. 200
sieve
GRA
VEL
more than
50% of
coarse
fraction
retained on
No. 4 sieve

CLEAN GRA
VEL
less than 5% fines
GW well-graded GRAVEL
GP poorly graded GRAVEL
GRAVEL with
DUAL

CLASSIFICATIONS
5% to 12% fines
GW-GM well-graded GRAVEL with silt
GP-GM poorly graded GRAVEL with silt
GW-GC well-graded GRAVEL with clay
GP-GC poorly graded GRAVEL with
GRAVEL with
FINES
more than
12% fines
GM silty GRAVEL
GC clayey GRAVEL
GC-GM silty, clayey GRAVEL
SAND
50% or more
of coarse
fraction

passes
No. 4 sieve

CLEAN SAND
less than 5% fines
SW well-graded SAND
SP poorly graded SAND
SAND with
DUAL

CLASSIFICATIONS
5% to 12% fines
SW-SM well-graded SAND with silt
SP-SM poorly graded SAND with silt
SW-SC well-graded SAND with clay
SP-SC poorly graded SAND with clay
SAND with FINES
more than
12% fines
SM silty SAND
SC clayey SAND
SC-SM silty, clayey SAND
FINE-

GRAINED
SOILS
50% or
more passes
No. 200 sieve
SIL
T and
CLAY
liquid limit
less than 50%

INORGANIC
CL lean CLAY

ML SILT
CL-ML silty CLAY

ORGANIC
OL (PI > 4) organic CLAY
OL (PI < 4) organic SILT
SILT and
CLAY
liquid limit
50% or more

INORGANIC
CH fat CLA Y
MH elastic SILT

ORGANIC
OH (plots on or
above “A”-line) organic CLAY
OH (plots
below “A”-line) organic SILT
Highly Organic Soils PT Peat

USCS METHOD OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION
Apparent Density - Coarse-Grained Soil
Apparent
Density
Spooling Cable or Cathead Automatic Trip Hammer
SPT
(blows/foot)
Modified
Split Barrel
(blows/foot)
SPT
(blows/foot)
Modified
Split Barrel
(blows/foot)
Very Loose < 4 < 8 < 3 < 5
Loose 5 - 10 9 - 21 4 - 7 6 - 14
Medium
Dense 11 - 30 22 - 63 8 - 20 15 - 42
Dense 31 - 50 64 - 105 21 - 33 43 - 70
Very Dense > 50 > 105 > 33 > 70
Consistency - Fine-Grained Soil
Consis-
tency
Spooling Cable or Cathead Automatic Trip Hammer
SPT
(blows/foot)
Modified
Split Barrel
(blows/foot)
SPT
(blows/foot)
Modified
Split Barrel
(blows/foot)
Very Soft < 2 < 3 < 1 < 2
Soft 2 - 4 3 - 5 1 - 3 2 - 3
Firm 5 - 8 6 - 10 4 - 5 4 - 6
Stiff 9 - 15 11 - 20 6 - 10 7 - 13
Very Stiff 16 - 30 21 - 39 11 - 20 14 - 26
Hard > 30 > 39 > 20 > 26
LIQUID LIMIT (LL), %
PLASTICITY INDEX (PI), %
0 10
10 7
4 20
30 40
50 60
70 0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
MH or OH
ML or OLCL - ML
Plasticity Chart
Grain Size
Description Sieve
Size Grain Size Approximate

Size
Boulders > 12” > 12” Larger than
basketball-sized
Cobbles 3 - 12” 3 - 12” Fist-sized to
basketball-sized
Gravel
Coarse 3/4 - 3” 3/4 - 3” Thumb-sized to
fist-sized
Fine #4 - 3/4” 0.19 - 0.75” Pea-sized to
thumb-sized
Sand
Coarse #10 - #4 0.079 - 0.19” Rock-salt-sized to
pea-sized
Medium #40 - #10 0.017 - 0.079” Sugar-sized to
rock-salt-sized
Fine #200 - #40 0.0029 -

0.017”
Flour-sized to
sugar-sized
Fines Passing
#200 < 0.0029” Flour-sized and
smaller
CH or OH
CL or OL
/
/ ,./
V /
,,,
/ /"
V ,./
/ A
7 /
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
0 5
10 15
20 20
53 67
50/6"
50/3"

7.1 114.0
GC
SC
ALLUVIUM:

Dark brown, wet, loose, clayey GRAVEL. Gravel up to 2.5 inches in diameter, subangular.

Medium dense, moist.

Dense.

Light brown, dry, very dense, clayey SAND.

Gray, very dense.

Total Depth: 15 feet stopped at planned depth.

Backfilled with soil immediately after boring on 9/19/2022.

Notes: Groundwater was not encountered in boring at time of borings. It may rise higher due to relatively slow rate of seepage in clay and several other factors, as discussed in the report. Ground elevation shown above is an estimation only. It is based on our interpretation of published maps and other documents reviewed for the purposes of this evaluation. It is not sufficiently accurate for preparing constuction bids and design documents (Google, 2022).

FIGURE A- 1

CUPERTINO MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
404269001 | 11/22
DEPTH (feet)
Bulk SAMPLESDriven

BLOWS/FOOT
MOISTURE (%)

DRY DENSITY (PCF)
SYMBOL

CLASSIFICATION
U.S.C.S.

DATE DRILLED 9/19/22 BORING NO. B-1
GROUND ELEVATION 265'± (MSL) SHEET 1 OF

METHOD OF DRILLING HOLLOW STEM AUGER
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs (SPOOLING CABLE) DROP 30 IN

SAMPLED BY CDS LOGGED BY CDS REVIEWED BY RH

DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
1 Geotecbnlcill & Environmental sc;e.nces Consultants
0 5
10 15
20 GC Brown, dry, dense, clayey GRAVEL with sand.

Total Depth: 1.5 feet stopped on refusal.

Backfilled with soil shortly after boring on 8/24/2022.

Notes: Groundwater was not encountered in boring at time of augering. It may rise higher due to relatively slow rate of seepage in clay and several other factors, as discussed in the report. Ground elevation shown above is an estimation only. It is based on our interpretation of published maps and other documents reviewed for the purposes of this evaluation. It is not sufficiently accurate for preparing constuction bids and design documents(Google, 2022).

FIGURE A- 2

CUPERTINO MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
404269001 | 11/22
DEPTH (feet)
Bulk SAMPLESDriven

BLOWS/FOOT
MOISTURE (%)

DRY DENSITY (PCF)
SYMBOL

CLASSIFICATION
U.S.C.S.

DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 8/24/2022 BORING NO. B-1a
GROUND ELEVATION 265'± (MSL) SHEET 1 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING Hand Auger

DRIVE WEIGHT DROP

SAMPLED BY CDS LOGGED BY CDS REVIEWED BY RH
1 Geotecbnlcill & Environmental sc;e.nces Consultants
0 5
10 15
20 37
30 34
75 6.7 110.4
GW-GC ALLUVIUM:

Brown, moist, medium dense, well-graded GRAVEL with clay and sand. Gravel up to 0.5" in diameter, subrounded.

Dense.

Total Depth: 11.5 feet stopped at planned depth.

Backfilled with soil and cement immediately after boring on 9/19/2022.

FIGURE A- 3

CUPERTINO MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
404269001 | 11/22
DEPTH (feet)
Bulk SAMPLESDriven

BLOWS/FOOT
MOISTURE (%)

DRY DENSITY (PCF)
SYMBOL

CLASSIFICATION
U.S.C.S.

DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 9/19/2022 BORING NO. B-2
GROUND ELEVATION 270'± (MSL) SHEET 1 OF

METHOD OF DRILLING HOLLOW STEM AUGER
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 LBS (SPOOLING CABLE) DROP 30 INCHES

SAMPLED BY CDS LOGGED BY CDS REVIEWED BY RH
1 Geotecbnlcill & Environmental sc;e.nces Consultants
0 5
10 15
20 35
59 11.0 116.1
CL
GP
ALLUVIUM:

Dark brown, moist, very stiff, gravelly LEAN CLAY with trace sand.

Brown, dry, medium dense, poorly graded GRAVEL with sand and clay.

Total Depth: 6.5 feet stopped at planned depth.

Backfilled with soil immediately after boring on 9/19/2022.

FIGURE A- 4

CUPERTINO MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
404269001 | 11/22
DEPTH (feet)
Bulk SAMPLESDriven

BLOWS/FOOT
MOISTURE (%)

DRY DENSITY (PCF)
SYMBOL

CLASSIFICATION
U.S.C.S.

DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 9/19/2022 BORING NO. B-3
GROUND ELEVATION 276'± (MSL) SHEET 1 OF

METHOD OF DRILLING HOLLOW STEM AUGER
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 LBS (SPOOLING CABLE) DROP 30 IN

SAMPLED BY CDS LOGGED BY CDS REVIEWED BY RH
1 Geotecbnlcill & Environmental sc;e.nces Consultants
0 5
10 15
20 CL Brown, dry to moist, firm, sandy CLAY with gravel. Gravel up to 2" in diameter, subangular.

Very hard.

Total Depth: 1.7 feet stopped on refusal.

Backfilled with soil shortly after boring on 8/24/2022.

FIGURE A- 5

CUPERTINO MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
404269001 | 11/22
DEPTH (feet)
Bulk SAMPLESDriven

BLOWS/FOOT
MOISTURE (%)

DRY DENSITY (PCF)
SYMBOL

CLASSIFICATION
U.S.C.S.

DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 8/24/2022 BORING NO. B-3a
GROUND ELEVATION 276'± (MSL) SHEET 1 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING Hand Auger

DRIVE WEIGHT DROP

SAMPLED BY CDS LOGGED BY CDS REVIEWED BY RH
1 Geotecbnlcill & Environmental sc;e.nces Consultants
0 5
10 15
20 32
64 41
72 14.4 119.7
GC
CL
GC
ALLUVIUM:

Brown, moist, medium dense, clayey GRAVEL with sand.

Dense.

Brown, moist, hard, LEAN CLAY with gravel.

Brown, moist, dense, clayey GRAVEL with SAND.

Total Depth: 11.5 feet stopped at planned depth.

Backfilled with soil immediately after boring on 9/19/2022.

FIGURE A- 6

CUPERTINO MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
404269001 | 11/22
DEPTH (feet)
Bulk SAMPLESDriven

BLOWS/FOOT
MOISTURE (%)

DRY DENSITY (PCF)
SYMBOL

CLASSIFICATION
U.S.C.S.

DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 9/19 BORING NO. B-4
GROUND ELEVATION 277'± (MSL) SHEET 1 OF

METHOD OF DRILLING HOLLOW STEM AUGER
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 LBS (SPOOLING CABLE) DROP 30 IN

SAMPLED BY CDS LOGGED BY CDS REVIEWED BY RH
1 Geotecbnlcill & Environmental sc;e.nces Consultants
0 5
10 15
20 27
37 7.3 115.3
GC ALLUVIUM:

Dark browm, moist, medium dense, clayey GRAVEL with sand.

Total Depth: 6.5 feet stopped at planned depth.

Backfilled with soil immediately after boring on 9/19/2022.

FIGURE A- 7

CUPERTINO MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
404269001 | 11/22
DEPTH (feet)
Bulk SAMPLESDriven

BLOWS/FOOT
MOISTURE (%)

DRY DENSITY (PCF)
SYMBOL

CLASSIFICATION
U.S.C.S.

DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 9/19/2022 BORING NO. B-5
GROUND ELEVATION 273'± (MSL) SHEET 1 OF

METHOD OF DRILLING HOLLOW STEM AUGER
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 LBS (SPOOLING CABLE) DROP 30 IN

SAMPLED BY CDS LOGGED BY CDS REVIEWED BY RH
1 Geotecbnlcill & Environmental sc;e.nces Consultants
0 5
10 15
20 36
22 10.9 119.2
GC ALLUVIUM:

Dark brown, moist, medium dense, clayey GRAVEL with sand.

Total Depth: 6.5 feet stopped at planned depth.

Backfilled with soil immediately after boring on 9/19/2022.

FIGURE A- 8

CUPERTINO MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
DEPTH (feet)
Bulk SAMPLESDriven

BLOWS/FOOT
MOISTURE (%)

DRY DENSITY (PCF)
SYMBOL

CLASSIFICATION
U.S.C.S.

DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 9/19/22 BORING NO. B-6
GROUND ELEVATION 280'± (MSL) SHEET 1 OF

METHOD OF DRILLING HOLLOW STEM AUGER
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 LBS (SPOOLING CABLE) DROP 30 IN

SAMPLED BY CDS LOGGED BY CDS REVIEWED BY RH
1 404269001 | 11/22Geotecbnlcill & Environmental sc;e.nces Consultants 0 5
10 15
20 GC Brown, dry to moist, dense to very dense, clayey GRAVEL with sand.

Total Depth: 1.2 feet stopped on refusal.

Backfilled with soil shortly after boring on 8/24/2022.

FIGURE A- 9

CUPERTINO MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
404269001 |11/2022
DEPTH (feet)
Bulk SAMPLESDriven

BLOWS/FOOT
MOISTURE (%)

DRY DENSITY (PCF)
SYMBOL

CLASSIFICATION
U.S.C.S.

DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 8/24/2022 BORING NO. B-6a
GROUND ELEVATION 280'± (MSL) SHEET 1 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING Hand Auger

DRIVE WEIGHT DROP

SAMPLED BY CDS LOGGED BY CDS REVIEWED BY RH
1 Geotecbnlcill & Environmental sc;e.nces Consultants
0 5
10 15
20 75
46 88
73 11.4 125.3
CL-ML
GC
GP
ALLUVIUM:

Reddidh brown, moist, hard, silty CLAY with trace sand and gravel.

Brown.

Brown, moist, very dense, clayey GRAVEL with sand.

Brown, moist, very dense, GRAVEL with sand and gravel.

Total Depth: 10.5 feet stopped at planned depth.

Backfilled with soil immediately after boring on 9/19/2022.

FIGURE A- 10

CUPERTINO MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
404269001 | 11/22
DEPTH (feet)
Bulk SAMPLESDriven

BLOWS/FOOT
MOISTURE (%)

DRY DENSITY (PCF)
SYMBOL

CLASSIFICATION
U.S.C.S.

DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 9/19/22 BORING NO. B-7
GROUND ELEVATION 272'± (MSL) SHEET 1 OF

METHOD OF DRILLING HOLLOW STEM AUGER
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 LBS (SPOOLING CABLE) DROP 30 IN

SAMPLED BY CDS LOGGED BY CDS REVIEWED BY RH
1 Geotecbnlcill & Environmental sc;e.nces Consultants
0 5
10 15
20 70
72 4.2 113.1
GP ALLUVIUM:

Brown, dry, dense, poorly graded GRAVEL with clay and sand.

Total Depth: 6.5 feet stopped at planned depth.

Backfilled with soil immediately after boring on 9/19/2022.

FIGURE A- 11

CUPERTINO MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
404269001 | 11/22
DEPTH (feet)
Bulk SAMPLESDriven

BLOWS/FOOT
MOISTURE (%)

DRY DENSITY (PCF)
SYMBOL

CLASSIFICATION
U.S.C.S.

DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 9/19/22 BORING NO. B-8
GROUND ELEVATION 278'± (MSL) SHEET 1 OF

METHOD OF DRILLING HOLLOW STEM AUGER
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 LBS (SPOOLING CABLE) DROP 30 IN

SAMPLED BY CDS LOGGED BY CDS REVIEWED BY RH
1 Geotecbnlcill & Environmental sc;e.nces Consultants
... ,.
'.•.! :.• ... . •· . .. . ... ... '··· .,
0 5
10 15
20 23
76 78
88 86

3.7 106.0
GP
SC
ALLUVIUM:

Brown, moist, medium dense, poorly graded GRAVEL with sand. Gravel up to 1/ 2" inches, subrounded. Fine- to medium-grained sand.

Dry.

Very dense, cobbles.

Brown, moist, very dense, clayey SAND.

Total Depth: 15 feet stopped at planned depth.

Backfilled with soil immediately after boring on 9/19/2022.

FIGURE A- 12

CUPERTINO MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
404269001 | 11/22
DEPTH (feet)
Bulk SAMPLESDriven

BLOWS/FOOT
MOISTURE (%)

DRY DENSITY (PCF)
SYMBOL

CLASSIFICATION
U.S.C.S.

DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 9/19/22 BORING NO. B-9
GROUND ELEVATION 277'± (MSL) SHEET 1 OF

METHOD OF DRILLING HOLLOW STEM AUGER
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 LBS (SPOOLING CABLE) DROP 30 IN

SAMPLED BY CDS LOGGED BY CDS REVIEWED BY RH
1 Geotecbnlcill & Environmental sc;e.nces Consultants
0 5
10 15
20 70
65 82
80 100

5.1 3.9
124.2
113.4
GP ALLUVIUM:

Brown, moist, dense, poorly graded GRAVEL with clay and sand. Clast supported.

Increasing sand content. Very dense.

Total Depth: 15 feet stopped at planned depth.

Backfilled with soil immediately after boring on 9/19/2022.

FIGURE A- 13

CUPERTINO MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
404269001 | 11/22
DEPTH (feet)
Bulk SAMPLESDriven

BLOWS/FOOT
MOISTURE (%)

DRY DENSITY (PCF)
SYMBOL

CLASSIFICATION
U.S.C.S.

DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 9/19/22 BORING NO. B-10
GROUND ELEVATION 286'± (MSL) SHEET 1 OF

METHOD OF DRILLING HOLLOW STEM AUGER
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 LBS (SPOOLING CABLE) DROP 30 IN

SAMPLED BY CDS LOGGED BY CDS REVIEWED BY RH
1 Geotecbnlcill & Environmental sc;e.nces Consultants
.... , ..
•-:_ .. ·
" I
... . . . . ..
~ ... : ... , . .
0 5
10 15
20 GC Brown, dry, dense, clayey GRAVEL with sand.

Total Depth: 1.0 feet stopped on refusal.

Backfilled with soil shortly after boring on 8/24/2022.

FIGURE A- 14

CUPERTINO MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
404269001 | 11/22
DEPTH (feet)
Bulk SAMPLESDriven

BLOWS/FOOT
MOISTURE (%)

DRY DENSITY (PCF)
SYMBOL

CLASSIFICATION
U.S.C.S.

DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 8/24/2022 BORING NO. B-10a
GROUND ELEVATION 286'± (MSL) SHEET 1 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING Hand Auger

DRIVE WEIGHT DROP

SAMPLED BY CDS LOGGED BY CDS REVIEWED BY RH
1 Geotecbnlcill & Environmental sc;e.nces Consultants
0 5
10 15
20 55
38 81
64 4.0 112.3
GC ALLUVIUM:

Dark brown, moist, medium dense, clayey GRAVEL with sand.

Brown, moist, medium dense, GRAVEL with sand and clay
Dense. Rock.

Total Depth: 11.5 feet stopped at planned depth.

Backfilled with soil immediately after boring on 9/19/2022.

FIGURE A- 15

CUPERTINO MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
404269001 | 11/22
DEPTH (feet)
Bulk SAMPLESDriven

BLOWS/FOOT
MOISTURE (%)

DRY DENSITY (PCF)
SYMBOL

CLASSIFICATION
U.S.C.S.

DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 9/19/22 BORING NO. B-11
GROUND ELEVATION 286'± (MSL) SHEET 1 OF

METHOD OF DRILLING HOLLOW STEM AUGER
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 LBS (SPOOLING CABLE) DROP 30 IN

SAMPLED BY CDS LOGGED BY CDS REVIEWED BY RH
1 Geotecbnlcill & Environmental sc;e.nces Consultants
0 5
10 15
20 CL Brown, dry to moist, firm to stiff, sandy lean CLAY with gravel.

Total Depth: 1.3 feet stopped on refusal.

Backfilled with soil shortly after boring on 8/24/2022.

FIGURE A- 16

CUPERTINO MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
404269001 | 11/22
DEPTH (feet)
Bulk SAMPLESDriven

BLOWS/FOOT
MOISTURE (%)

DRY DENSITY (PCF)
SYMBOL

CLASSIFICATION
U.S.C.S.

DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 8/24/2022 BORING NO. B-11a
GROUND ELEVATION 286'± (MSL) SHEET 1 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING Hand Auger

DRIVE WEIGHT DROP

SAMPLED BY CDS LOGGED BY CDS REVIEWED BY RH
1 Geotecbnlcill & Environmental sc;e.nces Consultants
Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022

3. Description

3. D
escription

APPENDIX B
Laboratory Testing

Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TESTING
Classification
Soils were visually and texturally classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) in accordance with ASTM D 2488. Soil classifications are indicated on the logs of the exploratory borings in Appendix A.

In-Place Moisture and Density
The moisture content and dry density of relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the exploratory borings were evaluated in accordance with ASTM D 2937. The test results are presented on the logs of the exploratory borings in Appendix A.

Gradation Analysis
Gradation analysis tests were performed on selected representative soil samples in accordance with ASTM D 422. The grain-size distribution curves are shown on Figures B-1 through B-4. These test results were utilized in evaluating the soil classifications in accordance with the USCS.

Atterberg Limits
Tests were performed on selected representative fine-grained soil samples to evaluate the liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index in accordance with ASTM D 4318. These test results were utilized to evaluate the soil classification in accordance with the USCS. The test results and classifications are shown on Figure B-5.

Expansion Index
The expansion index of a selected material was evaluated in accordance with ASTM D 4829. The specimen was molded under a specified compactive energy at approximately 50 percent saturation (plus or minus 1 percent). The prepared 1 inch thick by 4 inch diameter specimen was loaded with a surcharge of 144 pounds per square foot and inundated with tap water. Readings of volumetric swell were made for a period of 24 hours. The test results are presented on Figure B-6.

Coarse
3" 2" 1-1/2" 1" 3/4" 3/8" 4 10 30 50 200 PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422 / D6913 Group Name: Clayey SAND Soak Time: 2.0 % Gravel
% Sand
% Fines
13 FINES
Fine
Passing
No. 200
(percent)

CLAYSILT
-- -- 13 SC
Medium
14 73

GRAVEL SAND
FineCoarse
16 100
-- --
Sample
Location
Depth
(ft)
Liquid
Limit
Plastic
Limit
 B-1 10.0-10.5 -- -- 0.72
404269001 | 11/22

CUPERTINO MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
Plasticity
Index USCS

0.23 D10 D30 D60 Cu CcSymbol
FIGURE B-1

GRADATION TEST RESULTS
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100

PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
f'-,_
1,1 I
t
I
I
r--.._
I
I
I'-..

I
I
",
N 1:1
,,
I
~ I
I
' Ill I '1
I
\ I
! I!
i i
\
i
I!
I I \ I
!
: 11 I
! '\ ! :

I I I I
N
I

I I I I I
I I
1:1
I I
I

I I I I
: "
I
I I I I ~ I
:

I I I I I
~ I I I I I

I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I
I I I
1:1
I I I
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
Coarse
3" 2" 1-1/2" 1" 3/4" 3/8" 4 10 30 50 200 PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422 / D6913 Group Name: Well-graded GRAVEL with clay and sand Soak Time: 2.0 % Gravel
% Sand
% Fines

GRAVEL SAND FINES
Coarse Fine Medium Fine SILT CLAY
16 100
Symbol Sample
Location
Depth
(ft)
Liquid
Limit
Plastic
Limit
Plasticity
Index USCS
 B-2 10.0-10.5 -- -- -- 0.13 1.10
D10 D30 D60 Cu Cc
Passing
No. 200
(percent)
404269001 | 11/22

8. 04 62.1 1.2 7 GW-GC
FIGURE B-2
49 44
7 GRADATION TEST RESULTS

CUPERTINO MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100

PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
rl\
I 1:1
I
~
I
1;1
:\:

I
•
!\1:1
\~
1:1 I\
1',i.
! I!
i I'\. i
I!
I I'\. I
!
: 11 I
)N
! :

I I I I I

I I I I
""-,
I
I I
1:1
I I

I I I I
"'
I

I I I I
"'
I
:

I I I I
r---.l.._ 1: I I I I

I I I I I I
"

I I I I I I I
I I I
1:1
I I I
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
Coarse
3" 2" 1-1/2" 1" 3/4" 3/8" 4 10 30 50 200 PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422 / D6913 Group Name: Clayey GRAVEL with sand Soak Time: 2.0 % Gravel
% Sand
% Fines

GRAVEL SAND FINES
Coarse Fine Medium Fine SILT CLAY
16 100
Symbol Sample
Location
Depth
(ft)
Liquid
Limit
Plastic
Limit
Plasticity
Index USCS
 B-5 6.0-6.5 -- -- -- -- 0.45
D10 D30 D60 Cu Cc
Passing
No. 200
(percent)
404269001 | 11/22

6. 86 -- -- 15 GC
FIGURE B-3
44 41
15 GRADATION TEST RESULTS

CUPERTINO MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100

PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
\i
I 1,1
I I
I
1!1
I I I
~
I I
I I
I I
I
:' ~
I
I I
I I 1!1
I I
"
I
I I
~~
I I
I I
I I 1,1
!'-.I'. I I I
r-.... I I I
! I!
i
I""
i
I! :'--,. I I
!
: 11 I ...
! : .... ~
'-
I I I
"
I I
I I I .....__ I I
I I
1!1 i-...' I
I
I I I ; ........ ~ ~ I I I
:

I I I I

I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I
I I I
1!1
I I
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
Coarse
3" 2" 1-1/2" 1" 3/4" 3/8" 4 10 30 50 200 PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422 / D6913 Group Name: Clayey SAND Soak Time: 2.0 % Gravel
% Sand
% Fines

GRAVEL SAND FINES
Coarse Fine Medium Fine SILT CLAY
16 100
Symbol Sample
Location
Depth
(ft)
Liquid
Limit
Plastic
Limit
Plasticity
Index USCS
 B-9 10.5-11.0 -- -- -- -- 0.09
D10 D30 D60 Cu Cc
Passing
No. 200
(percent)
404269001 | 11/22

0. 57 -- -- 28 SC
FIGURE B-4
13 59
28 GRADATION TEST RESULTS

CUPERTINO MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100

PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
.............. 1:1 I I
i~
I I
I I 1;1
r,.11., I
I
I'-.

I
I
" ~ 1:1
1"
I ~
I
''I I
1:1 I
"'\
I
I
! I!
i i
"'
I!
I I I\.
!
: 11 I
! ~~ :

I I I I I

I I I I I
I I
1:1
I I
I

I I I I I

I I I I I
:

I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I
I I I
1:1
I I
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
404269001 - Cupertino - Master Labs CDS

PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 4318
FIGURE B-5

ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTS
SYMBOL LOCATION DEPTH (ft) LIQUID
LIMIT

PLASTIC
LIMIT

PLASTICITY
INDEX
USCS

USCSCLASSIFICATION
(Fraction Finer Than
No. 40 Sieve)
CL-MLB-7 3.5-4.0 19 15 4 CL-ML
404269001 | 11/22

CUPERTINO MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
CH or OH
CL or OL MH or OH
ML or OLCL - ML
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

PLASTICITY INDEX, PI

LIQUID LIMIT, LL
V /
/ / /
V /
/
V ~/
V / /
/ ,/
,, .,
V I
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 4829
FIGURE B-6

EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS

CUPERTINO MEMORIAL PARK
21121 STEVENS BLVD, CUPERTINO, CA
404269001 | 11/22
B-11a 0.0-1.3 11.9 102.5 23.1 0.025 25 Low
B-7 2.5-3.0 8.9 114.2 15.2 0.008 8 Very Low
B-3 2.5-3.0 9.4 111.8 17.9 0.006 6 Very Low
SAMPLE

LOCATION
SAMPLE
DEPTH (ft)

INITIAL

MOISTURE
(percent)

COMPACTED DRY
DENSITY (pcf)
FINAL

MOISTURE
(percent)

VOLUMETRIC
SWELL (in)

EXPANSION
INDEX

POTENTIAL

EXPANSION
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
Ninyo & Moore | 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California | 404269001 | November 3, 2022

APPENDIX C
Corrosivity Testing (CERCO Analytical)
7 September, 2022
Ms. Tatiana Gospe
Ninyo & Moore
2149 O'Toole Avenue, Suite 30
San Jose, CA 95131
Subject: Project No.: 404269001
Job No. 2208054
Cust. No.13270
CERCO
~· a n a I y t i c a I
1100 Willow Pass Court, Suite A
Concord, CA 94520-1006
925 462 2771 Fax. 925 462 2775
www.cercoanalytical.com
Project Name: Memorial Park, 21121 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, CA Corrosivity Analysis -ASTM Test Methods
Dear Ms. Gospe:

Pursuant to your request, CERCO Analytical has analyzed the soil sample submitted on August 29, 2022.

Based on the analytical results, this brief corrosivity evaluation is enclosed for your consideration.

Based upon the resistivity measurement, this sample is classified as "corrosive". All buried iron, steel, cast iron, ductile iron, galvanized steel and dielectric coated steel or iron should be properly protected against corrosion depending upon the critical nature of the structure. All buried metallic pressure piping such as ductile iron firewater pipelines should be protected against corrosion.

The chloride ion concentration is 78 mg/kg and is determined to be insufficient to attack steel embedded in a concrete mortar coating.

The sulfate ion concentration is 49 mg/kg and is determined to be insufficient to damage reinforced concrete structures and cement mortar-coated steel at this location.

The pH of the soil is 7.32, which does not present corrosion problems for buried iron, steel, motiar-coated steel and reinforced concrete structures.

The redox potential is 200-m V and is indicative of potentially "moderately corrosive" soils resulting from anaerobic soil conditions.

This corrosivity evaluation is based on general corrosion engineering standards and is non-specific in nature. For specific long-term corrosion control design recommendations or consultation, please call JDH Corrosion Consultants, Inc. at (925) 927-6630.

We appreciate the opportunity of working with you on this project. If you have any questions, or if you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Very truly yours,
CERCO ANALYTICAL, INC.
~ ~ -Hv, J. Darby Howard, Jr., P.E.

President
JDH/jdl
Enclosure
Client:

Client's Project No.:

Client's Project Name:

Date Sampled:

Date Received:

Matrix:

Authorization:

Job/Sample No.
2208054-001
Method:

Reporting Limit:

Date Analyzed:

Sherri Moore
Chemist
Ninyo & Moore
404269001
Memorial Park, 21121 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, CA 24-Aug-22
29-Aug-22
Soil
Signed Chain of Custody
Samplel.D.

B-6/0.0-1.2'
Redox
(mV)
200
ASTMD1498
-
2-Sep-2022
pH

7.32 ASTMD4972
-
2-Sep-2022
Conductivity
(umhos/cm)*
-
ASTMD1125M
10 -
* Results Reported on "As Received" Basis
N.D. - None Detected
Oualitv Control Summarv -AIHaboratory quality control parameters were found to be within established limits Resistivity
(100% Saturation)
(ohms-cm)
1,800
ASTMG57
-
2-Sep-2022
Sulfide
(mg/kg)*
-
ASTMD4658M
50 -
CERCO
analytical
1100 Willow Pass Court, Suite A
Concord, CA 94520-1006
925 462 2771 Fax. 925 462 2775
www.cercoanalytical.com
Date of Report:

Chloride
(mg/kg)*
78 ASTMD4327
15 2-Sep-2022
7-Sep-2022
Sulfate
(mg/kg)*
49 ASTMD4327
15 2-Sep-2022
PageNo.1
Chain of Custody
Job No. CU# Client Project I.D.

I 404269001 l~l I
Full Name Phone 4084359000 X 15319
Tatiana Gospe Fax
Company and/or Mailing Address Cell
Ninyo & Moore 2149 O'Toole Avenue Suite 30 San Jose CA 181 Sample Source
Memorial Park, 21121 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, CA Lab No. Sample I.D. , Date Time Matrix Contain. Size Preserv. Qtv.

I i B-6/0.0-1.2' /', l l
~ 1J..,f{; 1/i/ s !
I
I I\
I
I,
I
i
I
I
:1
I
',
I
I
DW - Drinking Water
rJ)
HB-Hosebib f--<
CJ z ""'
Total No. of Containers
GW - Ground Water 0 PV - Petcock Valve .....

CJ ~ -
i;a:i
Rec'd Good Cond/Cold SW - Surface Water E-< PT - Pressure Tank u Q::;
WW - Waste Water --i: PH - Pump House
i;a:i
CJ
f--< s:

Q::;
Conforms to Record
~ Water RR - Restroom i;a:i
(;al ..;;/
CJ SL- Sludge ~ GL-Glass ""' Temp. at Lab -'C
~ ;;;: S - Soil ~ PL- Plastic -< Sampler j Product -<::: ST- Sterile "' Comments:

THERE IS A. 'l' ADDITIONAL CHARGE FOR EXTRUDING SOIL FROM METAL TUBES Email Ad~ [email protected]
Schedule I
Analvter I
1100 Willow Pass Court
Concord, CA 94520-1006
9254622n1
Fax: 925 4622n5

ANALYSIS
"2 ~ = 0 0 ·.p 0 ·~ = -<l) I ;:I ..... .-2"0 "2 0 <l) A., > <l) > <l) "O ·.p ~ i::t:i X:
- ·;::
0 <E 0 "' ,_ <...,
"O -- ;:I .2
- 3 :a "' -<l) >-"-< ~~
,_
~ 0.. U'.l u i:o

X X X X X X
Relinquished By: ~ ,e Date
- -~ ' Received By: .Ji/ {j)j /) ~;11/tf te
Relinquished By:
(/(~
Date
Received By: Date
Relinquished By: Date
Received By: Date
Date Sampled Date Due
I 8/24/22
ASTM
8/26/22 Time 12:30
r) /)t{ / c/J---:l-me //)!J. 0
I I Time
Time
Time
Time

Geotechnlcal & Environmental Sciences Consultants

TYPE OF SERVICES Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
LOCATION Cupertino Memorial Park, 10185 North Stelling Road and 21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Cupertino, California
CLIENT David J. Powers & Associates
PROJECT NUMBER 118-139-1
DATE October 13, 2022

ATTACHMENT D APPENDIX D

CORNERSTONE

EARTH GROUP

Type of Services Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Location Cupertino Memorial Park, 10185 North Stelling Road and 21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Cupertino, California

Client David J. Powers & Associates
Client Address 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200
San Jose, California 95126

Project Number 118-139-1
Date October 13, 2022

Prepared by Ron L. Helm, C.E.G.

Senior Principal Geologist

CORNERSTONE

EARTH GROUP
1259 Oakmead Parkway I Sunnyvale, CA 94085
T 408 245 4600 I F 408 245 4620
www.cornerstoneearth.com
1220 Oakland Boulevard, Suite 220 I Walnut Creek, CA 94596 T 925 988 9500 I F 925 988 9501
■

Cupertino Memorial Park, 10185 North Stelling Road and
21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California
118-139-1
Page i

Table of Contents
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1

1.1 PURPOSE ............................................................................................................. 1

1.2 SCOPE OF WORK................................................................................................ 2

1.3 ASSUMPTIONS .................................................................................................... 2

1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL .................................................................. 2 SECTION 2: SITE DESCRIPTION .................................................................................. 3

2.1 LOCATION AND OWNERSHIP ............................................................................ 3

2.2 CURRENT/PROPOSED USE OF THE SITE ......................................................... 3

2.3 SITE SETTING AND ADJOINING PROPERTY USE ............................................ 3 SECTION 3: USER PROVIDED INFORMATION ............................................................ 3

3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL LIENS OR ACTIVITY AND USE LIMITATIONS .................... 4

3.2 SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE AND COMMONLY KNOWN OR REASONABLY ASCERTAINABLE INFORMATION ............................................................................ 4 SECTION 4: RECORDS REVIEW .................................................................................. 4

4.1 STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD SOURCES ........................................ 4

4.1.1 On-Site Database Listings ............................................................................ 5

4.1.2 Adjoining Property Database Listings and Nearby Spill Incidents ........... 5

4.2 ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD SOURCES ...................................... 5

4.2.1 City and County Agency File Review .......................................................... 5

4.2.2 Geologic Energy Management Division Maps ............................................ 6 SECTION 5: PHYSICAL SETTING ................................................................................. 6

5.1 RECENT USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ................................................................ 6

5.2 HYDROGEOLOGY ............................................................................................... 6 SECTION 6: HISTORICAL USE INFORMATION ........................................................... 6

6.1 HISTORICAL SUMMARY ..................................................................................... 6

6.1.1 City Directory Review ................................................................................... 8 SECTION 7: SITE RECONNAISSANCE ......................................................................... 8

7.1 METHODOLOGY AND LIMITING CONDITIONS .................................................. 8

7.2 OBSERVATIONS .................................................................................................. 9

7.2.1 Site Photographs ........................................................................................ 10 SECTION 8: ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE AND INTERVIEWS .................... 12

8.1 ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE / CURRENT OWNER AND OCCUPANT INTERVIEW .............................................................................................................. 12

8.2 INTERVIEWS WITH PREVIOUS OWNERS AND OCCUPANTS ........................ 12

8.3 INTERVIEWS WITH STATE AND/OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS...... 12 SECTION 9: FINDINGS, OPINIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS (WITH
RECOMMENDATIONS) ................................................................................................ 13 9 .1 HISTORICAL SITE USAGE ................................................................................ 13

9.2 CHEMICAL STORAGE AND USE ...................................................................... 13

9.3 AGRICULTURAL USE ........................................................................................ 13

9.4 LEAD-BASED PAINT AND TERMITE CONTROL PESTICIDES ........................ 13

9.5 ASBESTOS CONTAINING BUILDING MATERIALS (ACBMS) ......................... 14

9.6 IMPORTED SOIL ................................................................................................ 14

9.7 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS WITHIN THE SITE VICINITY ..... 14

9.8 DATA GAPS ....................................................................................................... 14

9.9 DATA FAILURES ............................................................................................... 14

9.10 RECOGNIZED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS ............................................ 15

CORNERSTONE

EARTH GROUP

Cupertino Memorial Park, 10185 North Stelling Road and
21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California
118-139-1
Page ii

SECTION 10: LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................ 15

10.1 REPORT VIABILITY ......................................................................................... 16

FIGURE 1 – VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 2 – SITE PLAN

APPENDIX A – DATABASE SEARCH REPORT
APPENDIX B – HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND MAPS
APPENDIX C – LOCAL STREET DIRECTORY SEARCH RESULTS
APPENDIX D – QUESTIONNAIRE

CORNERSTONE

EARTH GROUP

Cupertino Memorial Park, 10185 North Stelling Road and
21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California
118-139-1

Page 1 ends

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 condition
1 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

Cupertino Memorial Park, 10185 North Stelling Road and
21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California
118-139-1

Page 2 ends

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

Cupertino Memorial Park, 10185 North Stelling Road and
21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California
118-139-1

Page 3 ends

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

Cupertino Memorial Park, 10185 North Stelling Road and
21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California
118-139-1

Page 4 ends

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

Cupertino Memorial Park, 10185 North Stelling Road and
21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California
118-139-1

Page 5 ends

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

Cupertino Memorial Park, 10185 North Stelling Road and
21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California
118-139-1

Page 6 ends

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

Cupertino Memorial Park, 10185 North Stelling Road and
21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California
118-139-1

Page 7 ends

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

Cupertino Memorial Park, 10185 North Stelling Road and
21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California
118-139-1

Page 8 ends

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

Cupertino Memorial Park, 10185 North Stelling Road and
21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California
118-139-1

Page 9 ends

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

Cupertino Memorial Park, 10185 North Stelling Road and
21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California
118-139-1

Page 10 ends

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

Cupertino Memorial Park, 10185 North Stelling Road and
21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California
118-139-1

Page 11 ends

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

Cupertino Memorial Park, 10185 North Stelling Road and
21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California
118-139-1

Page 12 ends

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

Cupertino Memorial Park, 10185 North Stelling Road and
21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California
118-139-1

Page 13 ends

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

Cupertino Memorial Park, 10185 North Stelling Road and
21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California
118-139-1

Page 14 ends

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

Cupertino Memorial Park, 10185 North Stelling Road and
21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California
118-139-1

Page 15 ends

(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 Conditions

2.  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

Cupertino Memorial Park, 10185 North Stelling Road and
21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California
118-139-1

Page 16 ends

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 D
ate 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
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 WayAlves 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 Loopq,
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,
Anton WayAnton Way
Alves DriveAlves Drive
North Stelling RoadNorth Stelling Road
Stevens Creek BoulevardStevens Creek Boulevard
Christensen Drive
Christensen Drive
Mary Avenue
Mary Avenue
Golden Gate DriveGolden Gate Drive
Alves DriveAlves Drive
Approximate
Site Boundary
Approximate
Site Boundary
Base by Google Earth, dated 08/15/2020
Project Number
Figure Number
Date Drawn By
Figure 2
118-139-1
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
ResidentialResidential
Cupertino Sports CenterCupertino Sports Center
Mixed-use development
(under construction)
Mixed-use development
(under construction)
De Anza CollegeDe Anza College
ResidentialResidential
ResidentialResidential
ResidentialResidential
w a.

Z :>
o o
I- n: en c, et:

W I
Z t
o:: n:
0 <(
U w
mi

APPENDIX A – DATABASE SEARCH REPORT

Ii!

CORNERSTONE

EARTH GROUP

APPENDIX B – HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND MAPS

Ii!

CORNERSTONE

EARTH GROUP

APPENDIX C – LOCAL STREET DIRECTORY SEARCH RESULTS

Ii!

CORNERSTONE

EARTH GROUP

APPENDIX D – QUESTIONNAIRE

Ii!

CORNERSTONE

EARTH GROUP

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

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 c ontained 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 applic ation 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 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, installi ng 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 adjace nt 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., a pproximately 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
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 A- weighted 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 L eq. The most common averaging period
is hourly, but Leq can describe any series of noise events of arbitrary duration. 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 L dn) is essentially the same as CNEL,
with the exception that the evening time period is dropped and all occurrences during this three - hour 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 L
dn. 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 L
dn 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 tel evision, house vibrations, and interference with sleep and rest. The L
dn 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 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 L
dn. 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 L dn 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 L
dn 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 leve l 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,
L
dn 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.
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.

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.

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 maximu m 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 o f 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 ind ividual 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 dama ge. 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.

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 L eq at residential land uses, 85 dBA L eq 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.
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 cons truction 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.

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,
Neighbo rhood 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
-(l.,,, or CNEL. dB)
55 60 65 70 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
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
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 th e 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, publ ic 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, area s 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 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 le ast 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.

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 6 8 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 we re 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 L eq during
daytime hours and from 37 to 53 dBA L eq during the nighttime hours. Unusually high hourly average noise level s 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 L eq). 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 we re 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 L
eq.

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 4 7 dBA L
eq. Eight automobiles and 1 medium truck passed
along Christensen Drive during th is 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 w ere 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 L
eq. 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.

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 L
eq.

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 Park-
Picnic 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

17 FIGURE 1 Aerial Image of the Project Site and Surrounding Area with the Noise Measurement Locations Identified

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-Abiliti es 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 emoria l Pork
,v,.1n11N o (, Alt" Septembe, 2023

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 on- site 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 ac tivity 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;

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 L eq 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 worst- case 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 L
eq (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 dual - lined 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 updat e 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 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 L eq 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 L
eq and Lmax noise levels for each sports park activity, as propagated to the 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 L
max 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.

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 56
46c
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 Worst-
Houra - 58 62b - 48 53b - 59
49c
71b
61c
aCombined 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.

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 prope rty 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 L eq 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

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 Ant on 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 publi c entity. This is a less-than- significant 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. 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. Co nstruction 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 abate ment 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 L max 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 re novation 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.

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.
3Portable Air Compressor rated at 75 cfm or greater and that operates at greater than 50 psi.

33 TABLE 10 Typical Ranges of Construction Noise Levels at 50 Feet, L eq (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 1 1, 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.

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

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
Multi-
Family
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

36 These construction noise levels would not exceed the exterior threshold of 80 dBA L eq 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 tem porary 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 less- than-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 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

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.

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 consider ed 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 approximatel y 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 multi- family 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
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.

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 ± + + + + +--
± ± + + + +- +- ± ± ± ± + + + +- +-+ + + .. .. + + .. -t- 100 + -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 + + + - Lrri n
± + 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
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
t
t-
t t
+
t t
t- t- t-
t--- t-_j
--t---- t
+--- t-
::---------+-
t-
t-
l:---.-----+
t- t-
t-
r-------'
t-
t
t-
t- 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
t-
14 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
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
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 M easurement 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-
t ~
-1- -1- -1- -1- -1-
: ~
,-
~
+
: 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
+ +----+ t -1- +----+ -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)
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
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 Meas urement Site LT-2
- 10 Feet F rom the Edge of the Parkin g 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
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 Beginnin g
1800 20:00 22:00
- --• --- Lrrax
--L(1)
-+- L(10)
- L(SO)
L(90)
- - Lrrin
• Leq (hr)
CNEL = 56dBA
Ldu = 55dBA
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 M easurement 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

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

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

3 Appendix
Driveway Counts
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 4
10:15 AM 27 ‐5
10:30 AM 31 2
10:45 AM 65 1 19 17 36 10:00 AM
11:00 AM 24 ‐2 13 17 30 10:15 AM
11:15 AM 53 2 16 13 29 10:30 AM
11:30 AM 46 ‐2 17 18 35 10:45 AM
11:45 AM 35 ‐2 14 18 32 11:00 AM
12:00 PM 24 ‐2 14 18 32 11:15 AM
12:15 PM 12 ‐1 10 17 27 11:30 AM
12:30 PM 33 0 9 14 23 11:45 AM
12:45 PM 76 1 13 15 28 12:00 PM
1:00 PM 26 ‐4 13 17 30 12:15 PM
1:15 PM 66 0 18 21 39 12:30 PM
1:30 PM 48 ‐4 19 26 45 12:45 PM
1:45 PM 10 2 8 22 22 44 1:00 PM
2:00 PM 16 9 7 36 25 61 1:15 PM
2:15 PM 13 7 6 43 26 69 1:30 PM
2:30 PM 21 1 41 19 60 1:45 PM
2:45 PM 64 2 37 21 58 2:00 PM
3:00 PM 75 2 28 17 45 2:15 PM
3:15 PM 57 ‐2 20 17 37 2:30 PM
3:30 PM 89 ‐1 26 25 51 2:45 PM
3:45 PM 74 3 27 25 52 3:00 PM
4:00 PM 94 5 29 24 53 3:15 PM
4:15 PM 61 4 ‐8 30 31 61 3:30 PM
4:30 PM 91 5 ‐6 31 37 68 3:45 PM
4:45 PM 12 11 1 36 44 80 4:00 PM
5:00 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 PM
5:30 PM 71 2 ‐5 44 35 79 4:45 PM
5:45 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
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 ‐1
10:15 AM 71 6
10:30 AM 10 8 2
10:45 AM 75 2 27 18 45 10:00 AM
11:00 AM 58 ‐3 29 22 51 10:15 AM
11:15 AM 10 4 6 32 25 57 10:30 AM
11:30 AM 51 0 ‐5 27 27 54 10:45 AM
11:45 AM 52 3 25 24 49 11:00 AM
12:00 PM 11 10 1 31 26 57 11:15 AM
12:15 PM 96 3 30 28 58 11:30 AM 1.16 52% 48%
12:30 PM 73 4 32 21 53 11:45 AM
12:45 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

Cupertino City CouncilApril 3, 2024

Cupertino City Council
April 3, 2024