HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 12-16-2025 Item No. 10 Development Project United Furniture Site_Desk ItemCC 12-16-2025
#10
Development Project
United Furniture Site
Desk Item
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308
CUPERTINO.GOV
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DESK ITEM
Meeting: December 16, 2025
Agenda Item #10
Subject
Consideration of a new residential development project consisting of 55 -townhome-
condominium units and 10 ADUs, housed within ten three -story buildings, on three
contiguous parcels, totaling 2.72-acres, located on the south side of Stevens Creek
Boulevard at the present location of the United Furniture site. (Application No(s): DP -
2024-004, ASA-2024-008, TM-2024-005, & U-2025-004; Applicant(s): Nick Kosla (Toll
Brothers); Location: 10075 E. Estates & 19610 Stevens Creek Blvd. (A.P.N.: 369-06-002, -
003, -004)
Recommended Action
1. Find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
2. Approve the following permits:
a. Adopt Resolution No. 25-___ approving Development Permit (DP-2024-004)
(Attachment A);
b. Adopt Resolution No. 25-___ approving Use Permit (U-2025-004) (Attachment
B);
c. Adopt Resolution No. 25-___ approving Architectural & Site Approval Permit
(ASA-2024-008) (Attachment C);
d. Adopt Resolution No. 25-___ approving Tentative Final Map (TM-2024-005)
(Attachment D)
Background:
Staff’s responses to questions received from councilmember are shown in italics.
Q1: The Staff Report states "A Fiscal Impact Analysis was provided by the applicant and
peer reviewed by the City’s third-party consultant." But I did not find them in the agenda
attachments.
Staff response: Included are Attachment H, Cupertino Idlewild Fiscal Impact Analysis, drafted by
BAE and dated July 25, 2024, and Attachment I, Fiscal Impact Peer Review for Cupertino
Idlewild, drafted by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) and dated April 9, 2025.
Q2: The Fiscal Impact of any commercial site should include the revenue generated from
the site when in full operation, rather than comparing with the current state when the site
has intentionally been left vacant for a few years. Please provide the revenue co mparison
with a comparable shopping mall with a competent management team, for example the
one next door, the Marketplace, so that we understand and put on the record the loss of
revenue for the City.
Staff response: The EPS peer review of BAE’s memo provided the fiscal impact of multiple scenarios,
which include existing conditions and the center is re-leased to sales-tax-generating tenants, or
assumes that retail market conditions and the competitiveness of the center result in obsolescence
and full vacancy.
Q3: Attachment "E - Categorical Exemption Memorandum" is a report justifying the CEQA
exemption. The report states "Pursuant to CMC Chapter 17.04, development projects must
submit technical reports for air quality, hazardous materials, vehicle miles traveled (VMT),
and construction vibration. ... These technical studies were also peer reviewed by
PlaceWorks on behalf of the City of Cupertino." But I cannot find any section that shows
the peer review of those reports.
Please point me to the relevant sections with the peer review and point me to where to find
the submitted technical reports being reviewed?
Staff response: Placeworks has been retained by the City of Cupertino to peer review relevant studies
that had been submitted by the developer, and if those studies were not provided, their firm completed
them on behalf of the City for review and conformance with CEQA and the municipal code
requirements. Please refer to Attachment J, Third-party peer review of the applicant-prepared
technical reports for the Idlewild Townhomes Project, drafted by Terri McCracken and Vivian Kha
of Placeworks, dated April 25, 2025.
Q4: The staff report states "The project scope falls within the Class 32 CEQA Exemption".
The Attachment "E - Categorical Exemption Memorandum" claims that "none of the
exceptions to categorical exemptions apply... (e) The project site is not located on a
hazardous waste site;" But then the Attachment E also mentioned that "the project site is
listed as an open cleanup program site (case ID 2023-17s) under the oversight of Santa Clara
County Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEH) and is listed on the Sta te Water
Quality Control Board’s GeoTracker website." Then, how come this site qualifies for Class
32 CEQA Exemption?
Staff response: A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is
included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.So, while the
site is listed as an open remediation “clean-up” program site on the State Water Quality Control
Board’s GeoTracker website, the only portion of the GeoTracker w ebsite that is identified pursuant
to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code is the LUFT (Leaking Underground Fuel Tanks)
listings. The Idlewild site does not meet this standard (it is not a LUFT site) and therefore is not a
qualified Cortese List site and the exemption applies.
A mitigation measure in an EIR or MND would require exactly what is being done now and would
require proof of clean up (below screening levels) from the oversight agency (Santa Clara County
DEH) prior to issuing construction permits. Because Santa Clara Cou nty DEH is the oversight
agency and based on their latest letter, they are not going to allow the applicant to stop the SVE
system until they are satisfied that the site poses no risk. The peer reviews reiterated that the site
was not ready to be closed yet – the soil vapor remediation was not complete - and it appears that
Santa Clara DEH is concurring that more work is necessary. Condition 7 of the draft Development
Permit Resolution clearly states that no grading, construction, or work on the site can be started
until DEH is satisfied with the cleanup and no grading, foundation, or building permits shall be
issued until the Community Development Department has received and approved the required
regulatory clearance documentation from SCCDEH demonstrating that the site is suitable for
residential development.
Q5: The staff report states "As the site was not listed on the Cortese List, the project is still
eligible for a Class 32 CEQA Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guideline Sections 15332 (Infill
Development Projects)." Please provide evidence showing "the site was n ot listed on the
Cortese List".
That finding seems to contract with the fact that the site is listed on one of the data
resources 'identified as meeting the “Cortese List” requirements', per California
Environment Protection Agency (https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/).
The United Furniture site ( under 10045 E. Estates) does appear in List of Leaking
Underground Storage Tank Sites from the State Water Board’s GeoTracker database, the
second of the data resources, identified as meeting the "Cortest List" requirements, with
the status "OPEN - REMEDIATION".
Staff response: Please see response above. The link provided in this question does not list these sites
as a LUST clean-up site. Refer to Attachment K, Response to comments on the Idlewild Townhomes
Project California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Exemption Memo , drafted by Terri
McCracken and Vivian Kha of Placeworks, dated November 11, 2025, for further clarification.
Q6: The staff report states that "Prior to the issuance of any building permits for
residential construction on the project site, the applicant shall obtain written clearance
from the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEH),..."
My understanding is that the City must determine that it is possible clean up/mitigate the
site to a level suitable for unrestricted residential before approving a residential project
on this site. But I did not find such assurance any where. Please point me to the relevant
section.
Staff response: For dry cleaner cleanups in Santa Clara County, oversight is typically coordinated
through the County of Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health (DEH) as they handle
local site mitigation/hazardous materials.
Q7: Please provide letters from the County Department of Environmental Health on this
property, including, but not limited to the Nov. 16 letter, which appeared to have arrived
after the Planning Commission meeting.
Staff response: Please refer to Attachment L, Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health
letters to Idlewild TIC. A letter from DEH, dated November 16 does not exist.
Q8: It was mentioned that the site would require a deed restriction due to the necessary
continued cleanup. Where can I find that information? Is there any disclosure
requirement to future residents, in case some of them have sensitive health issues?
Staff response: It is dependent upon the recommendation of DEH. They may then close the site
with or without deed restrictions.
Attachments Provided with Original Staff Report:
A. Draft Resolution for DP-2024-004
B. Draft Resolution for U-2025-004
C. Draft Resolution for ASA-2024-008
D. Draft Resolution for TM-2024-005
E. Categorical Exemption Memorandum
F. Public Comment
G. Project Site Plan and Renderings
Attachments Provided with Supplemental 1:
H. Cupertino Idlewild Fiscal Impact Analysis
I. Fiscal Impact Peer Review for Cupertino Idlewild
J. Third-party peer review of the applicant-prepared technical reports for the Idlewild
Townhomes Project
K. Response to comments on the Idlewild Townhomes Project California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Exemption Memo
L. Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health letters to Idlewild TIC.
bae urban economics
San Francisco Sacramento Los Angeles Washington DC New York City
www.bae1.com
DRAFT Memorandum
To: Nick Kosla, Toll Brothers
Chelsea Guerrero, BAE Urban Economics
July 25, 2024
Cupertino Idlewild Fiscal Impact Analysis
This memorandum presents the findings from a Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) to evaluate the
impacts from the proposed redevelopment of the Idlewild Shopping Center in the City of
Cupertino. The proposed redevelopment consists of demolition of the existing retail space and
construction of a 55-unit townhome community, including ten accessory dwelling units (ADUs).
The proposed project will include eleven units that will be affordable to median-income and
moderate-income households in accordance with the City’s inclusionary requirements. The FIA
estimates the City revenues and expenditures that the Project would generate and the
resulting net fiscal impact on Cupertino’s General Fund. The analysis uses the City’s 2024/25
Proposed Budget and other sources as cited in this report to evaluate existing City revenues
and service costs and estimate the revenue and service costs associated with the proposed
Project. The annual fiscal impacts from the Project are presented in constant 2024 dollars.
• At buildout, the proposed Project will result in a net positive annual fiscal impact on
the City’s General Fund. This analysis estimates that the Project will generate
approximately $137,500 in annual City General Fund revenues and approximately
$109,600 in annual City General Fund expenditures, resulting in a positive net fiscal
impact of approximately $27,900 annually (see Table 1).
• Compared to existing conditions, the proposed Project will have a positive net impact
on the City’s General Fund. As shown in Table 1,the Project site currently has a
positive net annual fiscal impact of $27,500 on the City’s General Fund. At buildout,
the proposed Project will increase this positive net annual fiscal impact by
approximately $400 annually.
2
Table 1: Net Annual Fiscal Impact Summary (2024$)
Source: BAE, 2024.
This section summarizes the projected ongoing annual fiscal impacts from the proposed
Project and provides an overview of the underlying methodologies and assumptions used to
estimate fiscal impacts from the project.
Table 2 shows existing uses on the Project site and the development program for the proposed
Project. The table also presents assumptions regarding the estimated existing employment on
the Project site and the service population generated by the proposed Project at buildout.
Accepted practice in fiscal impact analysis is to define a City’s service population as all
residents plus a portion of the workers who work within the City to reflect the reduced service
demand from commercial uses relative to residential uses. Calculating service population in
this way reflects the fact that employees, who generally spend less time in the community than
residents, tend to generate a smaller share of demand for services. To estimate service
population, each employee is multiplied by ½.
As shown in the table, there are an estimated 36 employees on the Project site, resulting in an
existing service population of roughly eighteen. This analysis estimates that the proposed
Project will accommodate approximately 186 residents at buildout and full occupancy, which
represents an increase of 168 service population members compared to existing conditions.
Existing
Conditions
Proposed
Project
Net
Change
Annual General Fund Revenues $38,069 $137,521 $99,453
Annual General Fund Expenditures $10,608 $109,619 $99,011
Net Annual Fiscal Impact $27,460 $27,902 $442
3
Table 2: Existing Site Conditions and Proposed Development Program
Notes:
(a) Service population equals the resident population plus a portion of the employment population to reflect the reduced
service demand from commercial uses. To estimate service population, each employee is multiplied by 1/2.
(b) Resident population for market-rate townhomes estimated based on the citywide average household size (2.85 persons
per household), according to California Department of Finance estimates for 2024.
(c) Ten of the market-rate townhomes also include an accessory dwelling unit. The fiscal analysis assumes an average
household size of 1.5 persons per ADU unit, based on a recent fiscal analysis prepared by EPS for the Cupertino
Homestead project (2020).
(d) Resident population for each BMR unit is equal to the number of bedrooms plus one, which is consistent with the sale
price calculation assumptions provided in the City of Cupertino BMR Housing Mitigation Program Procedural Manual.
Sources: California Department of Finance, 2024; City of Cupertino; BAE, 2024.
Property Tax Revenue
The property taxes that accrue to a City are a function of the assessed value of real property
and the City’s share of the property tax collected on each parcel. Property in California is
subject to a base 1.0 percent property tax rate, which is shared among local jurisdictions
including the County, City, and special districts. The State requires that a portion of property
tax revenues also be allocated to countywide Education Revenue Augmentation Funds
(“ERAF”) to offset state expenditures on local public schools. In the Tax Rate Area (TRA) where
Existing Proposed Net
Conditions Project Change
Total Building Square Footage 31,090 102,510 71,420
Retail Square Footage 31,090 0 (31,090)
Residential Square Footage 0 102,510 102,510
Residential Units (Townhomes)0 55 55
Market-Rate Units 0 44 44
Below Market-Rate (BMR) Units 0 11 11
Service Population (a)18 186 168
Residents 0 186 186
Workers 36 0 (36)
Assumptions
Existing Conditions
Square Sq. Ft. per Est. Existing
Feet Employee Employees
Occupied Retail Space 23,140 650 36
Vacant Retail Space 7,950 N/A 0
Proposed Project
Resident
Number per Unit Population
Market-Rate Units
Townhomes (b)44 2.85 125
Accessory Dwelling Units (c)10 1.50 15
Below Market-Rate Units (d)
2-Bedroom 2 3.00 6
3-Bedroom 5 4.00 20
4-Bedroom 4 5.00 20
Residents
4
the Project site is located, the City receives approximately 6.51 percent of the base 1.0
percent tax after accounting for estimated ERAF reductions.
This analysis estimates property tax revenues based on the anticipated sale prices of the
townhomes, as summarized in Table 3. The estimated assessed values for the market-rate
townhomes are based on recent sale prices for comparable townhomes in Cupertino. Sale
prices for the BMR units were calculated based on the sale price calculation assumptions
provided in the City of Cupertino BMR Housing Mitigation Program Procedural Manual. As
shown below, the total assessed value of the Project at buildout is estimated at approximately
$100.4 million.
Table 3: Estimated Assessed Value of Proposed Project at Buildout
Based on the City’s share of the base 1.0 percent property tax in the TRA in which the Project
site is located (approximately 6.51 percent), the Project site would generate approximately
$65,400 per year in annual General Fund property tax revenue at buildout (see Table 4). The
Project site currently generates approximately $6,300 per year in annual General Fund
property tax revenue under existing conditions.
Total Assessed
Value at Buildout
Median-Income BMR Units $2,441,880
Moderate-Income BMR Units $4,313,084
Market-Rate Units $93,657,150
Total Assessed Value $100,412,114
Assumptions
Median-Income BMR Units Number Avg. Sale Price (a)
2 bedroom 1 $426,617
3 bedroom 2 $481,712
4 bedroom 2 $525,920
Moderate-Income BMR Units Number Avg. Sale Price (a)
2 bedroom 1 $637,702
3 bedroom 3 $716,427
4 bedroom 2 $763,050
Market-Rate Units
Total Unit Net Sq. Ft.81,441
Avg. Sale Price per Sq. Ft. (b)$1,150
5
Table 4: Annual Property Tax Revenue from Project Site
reductions.
Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fee Revenues
Beginning in FY 2005-2006, the State ceased to provide “backfill” funds to counties and cities
in the form of Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Fees (VLF) as it had through FY 2004-2005. As a result of
the financial restructuring enacted as part of the State’s budget balancing process, counties
and cities now receive revenues from the State in the form of property tax in-lieu of vehicle
license fees, or ILVLF. This State-funded revenue source is tied to a city’s total assessed
valuation. In FY 2005-2006, former VLF revenues were swapped for ILVLF revenues, which
set the local jurisdiction’s ILVLF “base.” The base increases each year thereafter in proportion
to the increase in total assessed valuation within the jurisdiction. For example, if total
assessed valuation increases by five percent from one year to the next, the ILVLF base and
resulting revenues would increase by five percent. As shown in Table 5, based on the current
amount of ILVLF revenue generated per $1,000 in total citywide assessed value, the proposed
Project would generate ILVLF revenues at a rate of approximately $33,100 annually. Under
existing conditions, the Project site generates an estimated $3,200 per year in ILVLF
revenues.
Table 5: Projected Annual Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fee (ILVLF)
Revenue from the Project Site
Sources: Santa Clara County Assessor; California State Controller's Office; BAE, 2024.
Existing Proposed Net
Conditions Project Change
Assessed Value of Project Site $9,629,371 $100,412,114 $90,782,743
Base 1% Property Tax Revenue from Project Site $96,294 $1,004,121 $907,827
Annual Prop. Tax Rev. to Cupertino General Fund $6,269 $65,368 $59,100
Assumptions
City of Cupertino Share of Base 1% Property Tax (a)6.51%
Existing Proposed Net
Conditions Project Change
Assessed Value of Project Site $9,629,371 $100,412,114 $90,782,743
ILVLF Revenue from Project Site $3,178 $33,136 $29,958
Assumptions
Total Citywide Taxable Assessed Value, FY 2021-22
FY 2021-2022 ILVLF Revenue $9,401,632
ILVLF Revenue per $1,000 in Assessed Value $0.33
$28,807,715,978
6
Property Transfer Tax Revenue
The City will receive revenue from real estate transfer taxes when the homes on the Project
site are sold. The City’s current tax rate is $0.55 per every $1,000 in value. This analysis
assumes that the homes on the Project site will turn over every eight years, equal to an annual
turnover rate of 12.5 percent. Based on these assumptions, annual property tax revenues are
estimated at $6,900 (see Table 6).
Table 6: Estimated Annual Property Transfer Tax from the Proposed Project
Source: BAE, 2024.
Sales Tax Revenue
The proposed project would generate sales tax revenue from new taxable retail spending by
residents at City retailers. BAE estimated annual taxable expenditures by residents in the
proposed Project based on 2023 taxable sales data for Cupertino and Santa Clara County
from the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. The analysis assumes that new
residents in the proposed Project will spend approximately $8,200 per person on taxable
purchases in Cupertino each year (see Appendix Table 15).
Existing on-site retail sales were estimated based on benchmark taxable sales per square foot
numbers by store type from HdL ECONSolutions California Retail Analytics for 2024. This
source is based on their compilation of information from a mix of similar stores by type for
each store category. The assumptions and calculations are provided in Appendix Table 16.
Table 7 shows the estimated annual taxable sales generated by existing retail tenants on the
Project site and the estimated total annual taxable sales from resident spending in Cupertino
at buildout of the proposed Project. As shown, new residents in the project would collectively
spend approximately $1.5 million per year on taxable purchases in Cupertino, resulting in
General Fund sales tax revenues totaling approximately $15,200 per year. Annual sales tax
revenue from existing on-site retail sales is estimated at approximately $27,000.
Assessed Value of Residential Townhomes $100,412,114
Estimated Annual Property Transfer Tax $6,903
Assumptions
Property Transfer Tax Rate (per $1,000 of Assessed Value)$0.55
Estimated Annual Residential Turnover Rate 12.5%
7
Table 7: Estimated Annual Sales Tax Revenue from the Project Site
Notes:
(a) The taxable sales estimates for the existing tenants were based on information provided by the applicant and benchmark taxable
sales per square foot numbers by store type from HdL ECONSolutions California Retail Analytics for 2024. This source is based on
their compilation of information from a mix of similar stores by type for each store category. See Table 16.
(b) See Table 15.
Sources: HdL, 2024; BAE, 2024.
Other General Fund Revenues
Other revenues that tend to increase as the City’s service population increases include utility
user tax and franchise fees. This analysis estimates these revenues on an average revenue
per service population basis, as shown in Table 8. At buildout, annual General Fund revenues
attributable to the proposed Project would total $16,900. Under existing conditions, the
Project site generates approximately $1,600 annually from these sources.
Table 8: Estimated Other Annual General Fund Revenue from the Project Site
Notes:
(a) Service population is defined as all residents plus one-half of employment. See Table 2.
(b) Revenues based on the FY 2024-25 Proposed Budget.
(c) See Appendix Table 12.
Sources: Cupertino FY 2024/2025 Proposed Budget; BAE, 2024.
Existing Proposed Net
Conditions Project Change
Estimated Taxable Sales from Retail Space on Site (a)$2,699,000 $0 ($2,699,000)
Estimated Taxable Sales from New Resident Spending $0 $1,524,828 $1,524,828
Total Taxable Sales Attributable to the Project $2,699,000 $1,524,828 ($1,174,172)
General Fund Sales Tax Revenue $26,990 $15,248 ($11,742)
Assumptions
Annual Taxable Sales in Cupertino per Resident (b)$8,198
Cupertino Share of Sales Tax Receipts 1.0%
Existing Proposed Net
Conditions Project Change
Service Population on Project Site (a)18 186 168
Other Annual General Fund Revenues $1,632 $16,866 $15,233
Assumptions
Utility User Tax $4,130,140
Franchise Fees $3,509,346
Total Other General Fund Revenues $7,639,486
Current Cupertino Service Population (c)84,252
Other General Fund Revenue per Service Population Member $90.67
FY 2024-25 (b)
8
The City’s General Fund expenditures generally increase as the service population increases,
with some exceptions for General Fund expenditures that tend to be relatively fixed and do not
change based on changes in the service population. To estimate the costs that would likely
increase as the service population increases, BAE analyzed the City’s budgeted General Fund
expenditures in the 2024/2025 Fiscal Year Proposed Budget. This analysis provides an
adjustment to these figures to estimate the portion of costs that tend to increase as the City’s
population and workforce increases, as compared to the portion that are generally fixed and
do not increase as the City’s service population increases. Examples of fixed costs include
salaries for certain executive positions, such as department heads and the Chief of Police, as
well as costs for some non-personnel expenditures categories that could include fixed assets,
utilities, and special projects. The resulting total net variable General Fund expenditures per
member of the service population is shown in Table 9. This figure was multiplied by the
projected service population in the proposed Project at buildout (186) to estimate the annual
General Fund expenditures generated by the proposed Project.
Table 9: Net Variable General Fund Expenditures by Department, City of Cupertino,
2024/2025 Proposed Budget
Notes:
(a) General Fund expenditure shown are net of charges for service and other offsetting revenues.
(b) Assumes that a percentage of costs will not be impacted by an increase in the service population; the remaining variable
costs will increase as service population increases.
(c) Includes Administration, Administrative Services, and Council and Commissions expenditures.
(d) The proposed Project is not expected to generate additional ongoing Innovation and Technology expenditures or Non-
Departmental expenditures.
(e) See Appendix Table 12.
Sources: City of Cupertino FY 2024/25 Proposed Budget; BAE, 2024.
Table 10 applies the current net variable costs per member of the service population to the
net increase in service population generated by the proposed Project and the existing service
population on the Project site. These projected expenditures account for the City’s ongoing
Net Variable
FY 2024-25 General Fund
Proposed Budget Net Variable Expenditures
General Fund Percent General Fund per Service
Department Expenditures (a)Variable (b)Expenditures Population Count
General Government (c)$15,170,440 10%$1,517,044 $18.01
Law Enforcement $18,648,806 90%$16,783,925 $199.21
Innovation and Technology $3,122,993 (d) (d) (d)
Parks and Recreation $6,122,536 75%$4,591,902 $54.50
Community Development $11,460,954 50%$5,730,477 $68.02
Public Works $28,040,398 75%$21,030,299 $249.61
Non-Departmental $7,372,862 (d) (d) (d)
Total $89,938,989 55.2%$49,653,647 $589.35
Assumptions
Current City Service Population (e)84,252
9
operating service costs and do not account for any one-time capital improvements or other
one-time costs. As shown, the estimated annual General Fund expenditures attributable to
new residents in the proposed Project totals approximately $109,600. The existing service
population on the Project site currently generates annual General Fund expenditures totaling
approximately $10,600.
Table 10: Estimated Annual City of Cupertino General Fund Expenditures
Attributable to the Project Site
Notes:
(a) See Table 9.
(b) Equal to net variable General Fund operating expenditures per service population multiplied by the service population
associated with each scenario.
(c) Service population from the project as shown in Table 2.
Sources: City of Cupertino Proposed FY 2024/25 Budget; BAE, 2021.
Table 11 summarizes the annual recurring net General Fund fiscal impact of the Project at full
build out and occupancy in 2024 dollars. The proposed Project will have a positive annual
fiscal impact on the City’s General Fund, generating approximately $137,500 in annual City
General Fund revenues and approximately $109,600 in annual City General Fund
expenditures. The positive net fiscal impact from the proposed Project totals $27,900 and
represents a slight increase compared to the existing positive net fiscal impact generated by
the Project site (approximately $27,500).
Net Variable
General Fund
Expenditures
per Service Existing Proposed Net
Department Population (a)Conditions Project Change
General Government (b)$18.01 $324 $3,349 $3,025
Law Enforcement $199.21 $3,586 $37,053 $33,468
Parks and Recreation $54.50 $981 $10,137 $9,156
Community Development $68.02 $1,224 $12,651 $11,427
Public Works $249.61 $4,493 $46,428 $41,935
Total $589.35 $10,608 $109,619 $99,011
Assumptions
Project Site Service Population (c)18 186 168
10
Table 11: Estimated Net Annual Fiscal Impact to the City of Cupertino General
Fund Attributable to the Project Site
Note: Figures presented in 2024 dollars.
Source: BAE, 2024.
Existing Proposed Net
Conditions Project Change
Annual General Fund Revenues $38,069 $137,521 $99,453
Property Tax $6,269 $65,368 $59,100
ILVLF $3,178 $33,136 $29,958
Property Transfer Tax $0 $6,903 $6,903
Sales Tax $26,990 $15,248 ($11,742)
Other Revenues $1,632 $16,866 $15,233
Annual General Fund Expenditures $10,608 $109,619 $99,011
General Government $324 $3,349 $3,025
Law Enforcement $3,586 $37,053 $33,468
Parks and Recreation $981 $10,137 $9,156
Community Development $1,224 $12,651 $11,427
Public Works $4,493 $46,428 $41,935
Net Fiscal Impact $27,460 $27,902 $442
11
APPENDIX A: SUPPORTING FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
CALCULATIONS
Table 12: 2024 Service Population, City of Cupertino
Notes:
(a) Service population equals the resident population plus a portion of the employment population to reflect the reduced
service demand from commercial uses. To estimate service population, each employee is multiplied by 1/2.
Sources: California Department of Finance, 2024; US Census ACS 2018-2022; BAE, 2024.
Table 13: 2023/2024 Assessed Value of Project Site
Sources: Santa Clara County Tax Collector; BAE, 2024.
Residents 59,471
Workers 49,561
Service Population (a)84,252
Assessor's Parcel Number Land Improvements Total Value
369-06-002 $3,021,533 $101,595 $3,123,128
369-06-003 $1,658,974 $97,146 $1,756,120
369-06-004 $4,731,984 $18,139 $4,750,123
Total, Project Site $9,412,491 $216,880 $9,629,371
FY 2023-24 Assessed Value
12
Table 14: Affordable Townhome Sale Prices, 2024
Notes:
(a) Based on California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) income limits for 2024. Median income
(90% AMI) and Moderate Income (110% AMI) limits were calculated based on the median income by household size
reported in the HCD income limit tables.
(b) Monthly payment amounts and maximum monthly housing budgets are based on the methodology for determining BMR
sale prices as described in the City of Cupertino BMR Housing Mitigation Program Procedural Manual.
(c) Minimum down payment per City of Cupertino BMR ownership program.
(d) Average weekly rate for a 30-year fixed rate mortgage as of 07/18/2024 per Freddie Mac.
(e) The standard upfront mortgage insurance premium required for FHA loans.
(f) The standard mortgage insurance premium requirement for FHA loans based on the sale price and loan to value ratio.
(g) Homeowners insurance estimates are based on an average of quoted insurance premiums provided by the California
Department of Insurance for homes in the City of Cupertino, effective May 1, 2023.
(h) Property tax rate applicable to the Project site.
3 Person 4 Person 5 Person
Household Income (a)$149,250 $165,850 $179,150
Max. Monthly Housing Budget (b)$3,731 $4,146 $4,479
Monthly Payments (b)$3,731 $4,146 $4,479
One-Time Payments
Maximum Affordable Home Price $426,617 $481,712 $525,920
Household Income (a)$182,450 $202,750 $218,950
Max. Monthly Housing Budget (b)$5,321 $5,914 $6,386
Monthly Payments (b)$5,321 $5,914 $6,386
One-Time Payments
Maximum Affordable Home Price $637,702 $716,427 $763,050
Ownership Cost Assumptions
≤$726,200, LTV ≤ 95%0.50%of mortgage
≤$726,200, LTV > 95%0.55%of mortgage
≤ 95%0.70%of mortgage
Household Size
Median Income (90% AMI)
Moderate Income (110% AMI)
13
(i) Average of HOA fees among recently-sold townhomes in Cupertino.
Sources: California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2024; Federal Housing Administration, 2024;
Freddie Mac, 2024; California Department of Insurance, 2023; Redfin.com, 2024; Santa Clara County Assessor, 2024; City
of Cupertino BMR Housing Mitigation Program Procedural Manual, 2020; BAE, 2024.
Table 15: Estimated Annual Taxable Sales per Resident, Cupertino, 2023
Notes:
(a) 2023 data inflated to 2024 dollars based on the SF-OAK CPI Index. Population estimates for 2024 per the California
Department of Finance:
Cupertino: 59,471
Santa Clara County: 1,903,198
(b) Retail spending for Cupertino residents is assumed to be equal to per capita spending in Santa Clara County. If
Cupertino residents spend fewer dollars per capita than in Santa Clara County, the analysis assumes the difference leaks
out to other shopping centers in the county. A zero percent leakage indicates that residents can get all shopping needs met
in Cupertino. Negative figures indicate that Cupertino receives a net injection, i.e. more sales than are likely attributable to
just Cupertino residents.
(c) Based on data in column (b); estimates the percentage of resident spending within a category that will occur in
Cupertino. While zero percent or negative leakage indicates residents could meet their shopping needs within the City,
shoppers are still likely to seek goods and services outside Cupertino. To be conservative, the maximum capture has been
estimated at 85 percent of sales.
(d) Equals (Taxable Sales per Capita in Santa Clara County) x (Estimated % of Resident Sales in City). Assumes that
Cupertino will capture most of new residents' retail spending in categories with low/no leakage and little spending in high
leakage categories, based on current spending patterns. Also assumes that the mix of retail offerings in Cupertino remains
relatively consistent.
(e) Total does not include taxable sales in the category classified as "All Other Outlets", as these taxable sales consist
primarily of business-to-business sales taxes that would not be impacted by resident population growth.
Sources: CA Department of Finance; CA Department of Tax and Fee Administration; BAE, 2024.
Table 16: Estimated Taxable Sales from Retail at Project Site
Note:
(a) The taxable sales estimates for the existing tenants were based on information provided by the applicant and benchmark
taxable sales per square foot numbers by store type from HdL ECONSolutions California Retail Analytics for 2024. This
source is based on their compilation of information from a mix of similar stores by type for each store category.
Sources: HdL, 2024; BAE, 2024.
Estimated %
of Resident Estimated
Santa Clara Sales Taxable Sales New Sales
Business Category Cupertino County Leakage (b)in City (c)in City (d)
Total (e)$11,556 $15,996 $8,198
2023 Taxable
Sales per Capita (a)
Gross Area Taxable Sales Total Taxable
Business/Use (Sq. Ft.)per SF (a)Sales
23,140 $117 $2,699,000
M E M O R A N D U M
To: Gian Martire, Senior Planner
City of Cupertino Community Development Department
251005
This memorandum provides a third-party peer review of a fiscal
impact analysis concerning the redevelopment of the Idlewild
Shopping Center in the City Cupertino. The goal of the review is
to evaluate the assumptions, findings, and methodology of a
report (“Report”) prepared by BAE Urban Economics. (“BAE”) for
Toll Brothers, the project applicant.1 The City of Cupertino (City)
engaged Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) to conduct
this peer review.
The BAE fiscal impact analysis estimates the effect of a proposed
residential development on the City of Cupertino’s General Fund
budget, accounting for both new tax revenues and incremental
public service costs. The analysis provides an estimate of
ongoing net fiscal impact at project stabilization, once the project
is fully built and occupied. All fiscal impact estimates cited are in
constant 2025 dollars.
The proposed project is a 55-unit townhome-style condominium
community with ten Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). Out of the
55 total townhomes, 11 units are designated as affordable for
median and moderate-income households. The fiscal impact of
the existing retail buildings at the site is treated as the baseline
condition (i.e., fiscal effect in the absence of redevelopment), to
measure net change affecting the General Fund.
For this peer review, EPS prepared an independent fiscal impact
analysis to evaluate BAE’s results, and to test assumptions
related to the project and retail baseline. EPS compares its
analysis results to BAE’s reported results. This memorandum
1 The original report is titled “Cupertino Idlewild Fiscal Impact
Analysis” (“Report”), dated July 25, 2024.
Memorandum: Fiscal Impact Peer Review for the City of Cupertino
Economic & Planning Systems
Page | 2
describes key affirmations or differences in assumptions, methodology, and findings. The
Appendix to this memorandum contains a table set that details the EPS fiscal analysis.
Project Description
The City received an application for a residential project on a 2.72-acre site located on
Stevens Creek Boulevard at the current Idlewild Shopping Center site (“Proposed
Project”). The Proposed Project would consist of 55 townhomes and ten ADUs. Eleven of
the townhomes are designated as Below Market Rate (BMR) units consistent with the
City’s inclusionary requirements. The Project is expected to increase the City’s resident
population by 186 persons.2 The site is currently a shopping center, which includes
23,140 square feet of retail space occupied by a furniture supply store and a restaurant,
as well as 7,950 square feet of vacant retail space.3 The combined 31,090 square feet of
existing retail space informs the analytical baseline from which the fiscal impact analysis
measures the net effect of the Proposed Project. BAE concludes that the fiscal impact of
the Proposed Project is essentially net neutral, calculating a General Fund impact of less
than $500 annually.
Key Findings
1. BAE’s analysis concludes that the Proposed Project is likely to generate a
neutral fiscal impact on the City’s General Fund. EPS peer review and
modeling corroborates this finding, with impact results ranging from net
neutral to slightly positive depending on anticipated household size
within the Proposed Project and/or the economic potential of existing
retail.
EPS tested fiscal impact results under four scenarios, with the estimated net fiscal
impact (the net fiscal impact of the proposed project minus that of the existing
retail center) of each presented in Table 1. Adjusting the methodology to
comport with typical EPS practice, and assuming the household size reported by
BAE, EPS estimates that the annual fiscal impact of the Proposed Project at
project buildout is $100 (Scenario 1). However, data specific to townhomes in the
region (as opposed to the overall citywide household size of 2.85) suggests
household size could be lower. Assuming household size is 2.06, EPS finds the
Proposed Project could result in a positive annual fiscal impact of $17,800
(Scenario 2).
Furthermore, the fiscal impact ranges from $15,100 to $28,300 depending on the
economic potential of existing retail at the center (i.e., whether 7,950 square feet
2 Population estimate reported by BAE.
3 Square footages and current vacancies reported by BAE.
Memorandum: Fiscal Impact Peer Review for the City of Cupertino
Economic & Planning Systems
Page | 3
of retail remains vacant (Scenario 1 and 2), or if occupancy has potential to
increase versus market conditions result in further decreases. In Table 1,
Scenario 3 assumes that the center is re-leased to sales-tax-generating tenants
while Scenario 4 assumes that retail market conditions and the competitiveness of
the center result in obsolescence and full vacancy.4
The BAE Report assumes that the current vacancy of 7,950 square feet remains,
which is reasonable. However, given uncertainty in the retail market and the
competitiveness of this center, EPS conducted a sensitivity analysis. These
sensitivity tests further demonstrate that the fiscal impact of the Proposed Project
will likely be fiscally neutral, concurring with the BAE results, though factors such
as household size and the potential for retail result in modestly positive or
negative net impacts.5
Table 1 Fiscal Impact Summary Scenario Results
2. EPS finds BAE’s assumptions regarding market-rate and BMR townhome
pricing to be reasonable given current market conditions.
For the market-rate townhomes, key assumptions EPS reviewed included
townhome sales prices in the Cupertino region. EPS reviewed recent comparable
townhome sales from 2022 to 2024 and can conclude that the Report’s assumed
4 Scenarios 3 and 4 also reflect the townhome-specific household size assumption.
5 EPS ran a test scenario wherein the Improved Baseline of Scenario 3 was added to
the Modified Methodology of Scenario 1 without adjusting the household size. In this
scenario (larger household sizes and a more fully occupied shopping center), the net
fiscal impact becomes slightly negative. This bolsters the finding that this project
should be considered as having a net neutral impact, as the result will shift between
positive and negative depending on the actual outcome of certain assumptions.
Scenario 1:Scenario 2:Scenario 3:Scenario 4:
Annual Revenue/Modified Adjusted Adj. HH Size + Adj. HH Size +
Expense Category Methodology HH Size Impr. Baseline Vacant Baseline
General Fund Revenues $104,300 $101,200 $96,100 $121,300
General Fund Expenditures $104,200 $83,400 $81,000 $93,000
Net Impact on General Fund $100 $17,800 $15,100 $28,300
Estimated Annual Net-Net Fiscal Impact
*Values rounded to nearest hundred.
Memorandum: Fiscal Impact Peer Review for the City of Cupertino
Economic & Planning Systems
Page | 4
townhome sales price of $1,150 per square foot is on the higher end of townhome
prices, but reasonable given strong demand in the local housing market. For the
BMR townhomes, EPS reviewed 2024 household income limits for Santa Clara
County provided by the State of California Housing and Community Development
Department as well as the City’s inclusionary housing policy. EPS also reviewed
home pricing assumptions such as mortgage insurance and interest rates, which
affect BMR pricing. Based on current economic conditions and comparable
projects, EPS concludes that BAE’s BMR home pricing assumptions are reasonable
and appropriate for the fiscal analysis.
3. EPS finds BAE’s methodology for estimating fiscal impacts follows
generally accepted approaches, with sufficient citations and documented
calculations to enable EPS peer review of the study methodology and
results.
Key assumptions used in estimating fiscal costs and revenues are included, and
the Report’s summary tables are accompanied by more detailed narratives and
tables provided in later sections and appendices. Most estimates use an average
cost method to estimate impacts (i.e., average General Fund cost per unit of
development) on a per service population basis, while selected categories
alternatively use the case study approach (i.e., estimated using assumptions
specific to the theoretical prototype land uses). Both methods are appropriate and
standard for fiscal impact analyses.
4. In some instances, EPS and BAE preferred methodology and assumptions
differ, such as with the calculation of new sales tax revenue, new
transfer tax revenue, and the inclusion of business license tax revenues
for the existing commercial site.
EPS and BAE use different methods for the calculation of sales tax revenue
attributed to the new residential development. EPS typically uses a case study
approach to account for the spending power of new households. BAE uses a per
resident method based on citywide taxable sales. The per resident method results
in a higher level of taxable sales and sales tax revenue. In the fiscal model EPS
created to replicate BAE’s results, EPS uses the case study method, and a more
conservative result is reflected in the EPS results.
For the baseline sales tax revenue calculation, BAE uses the case study approach
while EPS received the site’s actual historical sales tax revenue data from the
City. BAE estimates the annual on-site taxable sales from the existing commercial
uses based on HdL California Retail Analytics data. EPS confirms these estimates
are reasonable based on review of the HdL data source. The EPS methodology
utilizes the actual data, which BAE did not have access to, resulting in a sales tax
revenue estimate for the existing shopping center of about $10,000 less per year.
Memorandum: Fiscal Impact Peer Review for the City of Cupertino
Economic & Planning Systems
Page | 5
This results in the net fiscal impact improving by $10,000, as the loss in revenue
by redeveloping the shopping center is reduced by $10,000.
For the calculation of transfer tax revenue associated with the Proposed Project,
EPS’s fiscal impact model assumes a lower turnover rate than the BAE model. As
a result, the EPS transfer tax revenue estimate is more conservative and slightly
lower than BAE’s estimate. The lower transfer tax revenue is reflected in the EPS
results.
Finally, BAE’s analysis does not account for the revenues the City receives from
business license taxes paid by the existing commercial site. EPS added an
estimate of business license tax the City is currently receiving from the furniture
store and restaurant to the baseline portion of the fiscal analysis, as the
redevelopment of this site into a residential use would remove this revenue
source.
5. BAE’s per service population methodology for calculating Recreation &
Community Services expenditures includes workers, which potentially
understates the project’s costs to the City’s current General Fund.
For the calculation of General Fund expenditures, as described above, both BAE
and EPS use the per service population methodology. However, for Recreation &
Community Services, EPS assumes that local parks in Cupertino are primarily
resident serving. Instead of distributing the cost of Recreation & Community
Services across the entire service population made up of residents and workers,
EPS only considers residents, as they are most likely to be served by the City’s
Recreation & Community Services. The exclusion of workers results in EPS’s
higher cost estimate, which is reflected in the EPS results.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
T h e E c o n o m i c s o f L a n d U s e
1330 Broadway,Suite 450 Oakland, California 94612
(510) 841-9190 www.epsys.com
EPS #251005 April 9, 2025
1330 Broadway,Suite 450 Oakland, California 94612
(510) 841-9190 www.epsys.com
CUPERTINO IDLEWILD
FISCAL IMPACT TABLES
6
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
T h e E c o n o m i c s o f L a n d U s e
1330 Broadway,Suite 450 Oakland, California 94612
(510) 841-9190 www.epsys.com
CUPERTINO IDLEWILD
FISCAL IMPACT TABLES
SCENARIO 1:
EPS METHODOLOGY
EPS #251005 April 9, 2025
1330 Broadway,Suite 450 Oakland, California 94612
(510) 841-9190 www.epsys.com
7
Table 1
Fiscal Imapct Summary Results
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Revenue /Fiscal Impact Fiscal Impact Net
Expense Category Baseline at Project Buildout Fiscal Impact
General Fund Revenues $29,500 $133,800 $104,300
General Fund Expenditures $9,600 $113,800 $104,200
Net Impact on General Fund $19,800 $19,900 $100
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
8
Table 2
Proposed Development Program
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Total New Average Avg. Ann.
Item Units
Townhomes 44 125 $2,128,572 $452,871
ADUs 10 15
Total Market Rate 54 140
Below Market Rate Ownership
2-Bedroom 2 6 $532,160
3-Bedroom 5 20 $599,070
4-Bedroom 4 20 $644,485
Total BMR 11 46 $614,088 $187,986
Total New Program 65 186
Source: BAE; Economic & Planning Systems
Table
4. Below Market Rate household sizes estimated as number of bedrooms plus one.
Appendix Table A-1 for how Market Rate value is calculated. Below Market Rate value
based on 2024 Santa Clara County Median Income Limits as applied to the development
program.
9
Table 3
Existing Development Program
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Square Empl.Service Assessed
Item Feet Density
Existing Retail
Furniture Store 22,040 650 34 17
Falafel Restaurant 1,100 650 2 1
Vacant 7,950 0 0 0
Total Existing Retail 31,090 36 18 $9,629,371
10
Table 4
General Assumptions
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Citywide
Item Total Source
Total Housing Units 21,837 Department of Finance 2024
Population 59,471 Department of Finance 2024
Worker Population 49,561 ACS 2022 5-Year Estimates
Service Population 84,252 Population + (0.5 * Jobs)
Source: DOF; Census ACS; LEHD; Economic & Planning Systems
11
Table 5
Estimated Assessed Value of Proposed Development
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Description
Average Est. Sale Price $2,128,572 per Unit
Number of Units 44 Units $93,657,150
Below Market Rate Housing
Average Est. Sale Price $614,088 per Unit
Number of Units 11 Units $6,754,964
Total New Assessed Value $100,412,114
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Assumption1
Table 2 .
12
Table 6
General Fund Revenue Summary
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
FY 2024-25
General Fund
Description Revenues*
Sales Tax $11,648,962 1.00%of estimated taxable sales
Property Tax
Property Tax in Lieu of VLF $10,894,681
Other Property Tax $22,280,296 6.51%of base property tax rate (1%)
Transient Occupancy Tax $7,731,947 -not impacted
Utility Tax $4,130,140 $49.02 per service population
Franchise Fees $3,509,346 $41.65 per service population
Business License Tax $744,690
Other Taxes $939,639
Property Transfer Tax $878,901 $0.55 per $1,000 in value
Licenses & Permits $3,665,866 -not impacted
Use of Money & Property $4,697,122 -not impacted
Intergovernmental $2,471,990 -not impacted
Charges for Services $15,102,136 -not impacted
Fines & Forfeitures $395,000 -not impacted
Miscellaneous $1,210,653 -not impacted
Other Financing Sources $367,000 -not impacted
Transfer-In $15,000 -not impacted
Total Revenues $89,804,468
Impact Estimating Factors
Table 11
Table 8
13
Table 7
General Fund Expenditure Summary
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Percent Annual Variable Per Service Pop.
Item
General Government2 $15,170,440 10%$1,517,044 84,252 Service Pop.$18.01
Police3 $18,648,806 90%$16,783,925 84,252 Service Pop.$199.21
Innovation and Technology4 $3,122,993 -$0 84,252 Service Pop.$0.00
Recreation & Community Services $6,122,536 75%$4,591,902 59,471 Resident $77.21
Planning & Community Development $11,460,954 50%$5,730,477 84,252 Service Pop.$68.02
Non-Departmental $7,372,862 -$0 84,252 Service Pop.$0.00
Total Expenditures $89,938,989 $49,653,647 $612.06
Estimating Factors
FY 2024/25 Proposed
*Per Cupertino's FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget.
14
Table 8
Property Tax Revenue Estimate
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Existing Project
Item Formula Development Total
Property Tax
Assessed Value1 a $9,629,371 $100,412,114
One Percent Base Property Tax b = a * 1.0%$96,294 $1,004,121
Cupertino General Fund
Property Tax Revenue2 c = b * 6.51%$6,269 $65,368
Existing Citywide Property Tax In-Lieu of VLF3 d = $11,003,490
Citywide Taxable Assessed Value4 e = $33,715,982,769
Percentage of Citywide Assessed Value f = a / e 0.0286%0.2978%
Cupertino General Fund
Property Tax In-Lieu of VLF d * f $3,143 $32,770
[3] Per FY2024-25 SB1096 VLF Summary Schedule for Cities - Santa Clara County Controller-Treasurer Department.
[4] Per Santa Clara County Assessor's Annual Report 2024-2025.
Source: Santa Clara County Controller-Treasurer Department; Santa Clara County Assessor; Economic & Planning Systems
[1] Existing value per Table 3, New Project value per Table 5.
[2] City of Cupertino's Post-ERAF property tax allocation factor for Tax Rate Area 013-003 per Santa Clara County
Department of Tax and Collections (Tax Year 2024-2025).
15
Table 9
Property Transfer Tax Revenue Estimate
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Item Formula Total
Assessed Value
Market Rate Ownership a = $93,657,150 $93,657,150
Below Market Rate Ownership b = $6,754,964 $6,754,964
Turnover Rate1
Market Rate Ownership 10.0%Annually c = a * 10%$9,365,715
Below Market Rate Ownership 10.0%Annually d = b * 10%$675,496
Average Annual Value Turnover e = c + d $10,041,211
Real Estate Transfer Tax Revenue $0.55 per $1,000 AV = (e / 1,000) * $0.55 $5,523
Assumptions /
Estimating Factors
Table 5
Table 5
16
Table 10
General Fund Annual Sales Tax Revenue Estimate
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Existing Market Below
Item Formula Development Rate Market Rate Total
Residential Spending
Estimated Annual Household Income1 a -$452,871 $187,986 -
Household Taxable Retail Spending
as a Percent of Income2 b -14.3%22.1%-
Taxable Retail Spending per Household c = a * b -$64,932 $41,485 -
d -44 11 55
Total Retail Spending from Households e = c * d -$2,857,013 $456,337 $3,313,351
f = e * 40%-$1,142,805 $182,535 $1,325,340
Annual General Fund Household Sales Tax Revenue4 = f * 1.00%-$11,428 $1,825 $13,253
On-Site Retail Sales
Annual General Fund On-Site Retail Sales Tax Revenue5 $17,100 ---
Table 2 .
Table 6 .
New Project
17
Table 11
Estimated Business License Tax Revenues
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Existing
Item Total
Existing Retail Sq. Ft.
Furniture Store 22,040
Falafel Restaurant 1,100
Furniture Store
Basic Annual Fee $174
Annual Fee per Sq. Ft.$0.0413 per Sq. Ft.$910
Falafel Restaurant
Basic Annual Fee $174
Annual Fee per Sq. Ft.$0.0474 per Sq. Ft.$52
Total Annual $1,310
Assumptions /
Estimating Factors
18
Table 12
Other General Fund Revenues
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Existing New
Revenue Source
Utility Tax $49.02 per service population $882 $9,118
Franchise Fees $41.65 per service population $750 $7,747
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Assumptions /
Estimating Factors1
Table 6 for revenue estimates and Table 2 and Table 3 for estimated service populations.
19
Table 13
Annual General Fund Expenditures
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Expenditure Existing New
Item
General Government $18.01 per service pop.$324 $3,349
Police $199.21 per service pop.$3,586 $37,053
Recreation & Community Services $77.21 per resident $0 $14,362
Planning & Community Development $68.02 per service pop.$1,224 $12,651
Public Works $249.61 per service pop.$4,493 $46,428
Total Annual Expenditures $612.06 per service pop.$9,627 $113,843
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Expenditure Estimation
Factors1
Table 7 for cost estimates and Table 2 and Table 3 for estimated service populations.
20
Table 14
Annual General Fund Fiscal Impact Detail of Proposed Project
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Net
Annual General Fund Impacts (Rounded)(Rounded)
General Fund Revenues
Sales Tax $17,100 $13,300 -$3,800
Property Tax $6,300 $65,400 $59,100
Property Tax in Lieu of VLF $3,100 $32,800 $29,600
Utility Tax $900 $9,100 $8,200
Franchise Fees $700 $7,700 $7,000
Business License Tax $1,300 $0 -$1,300
Property Transfer Tax $0 $5,500 $5,500
Total Revenues $29,500 $133,800 $104,300
General Fund Expenditures
General Government $300 $3,300 $3,000
Police $3,600 $37,100 $33,500
Recreation & Community Services $0 $14,400 $14,400
Planning & Community Development $1,200 $12,700 $11,400
Public Works $4,500 $46,400 $41,900
Total Expenditures $9,600 $113,800 $104,200
Annual Net Impact on General Fund $19,800 $19,900 $100
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Existing
Development
Proposed
Project
21
Appendix Table A-1
Annual Market Rate Household Income Estimate
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Item Formula Market Rate
Sale Price1 a $2,128,572
Downpayment b = a * 0.2 $425,714
Mortgage c = a - b $1,702,857
Annual Payments d = PMT fn: 30-Yr @ 5%$110,773
Taxes, Insurance, & Maintenance e = a * 0.02 $42,571
f $5,160
Total g = d + e + f $158,505
Annual Household Income3 f / 0.35 $452,871
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Table 2 .
22
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
T h e E c o n o m i c s o f L a n d U s e
1330 Broadway,Suite 450 Oakland, California 94612
(510) 841-9190 www.epsys.com
CUPERTINO IDLEWILD
FISCAL IMPACT TABLES
SCENARIO 2:
EPS METHODOLOGY +
ADJUSTED HH SIZE
EPS #251005 April 9, 2025
1330 Broadway,Suite 450 Oakland, California 94612
(510) 841-9190 www.epsys.com
23
Table 1
Fiscal Imapct Summary Results
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Revenue /Fiscal Impact Fiscal Impact Net
Expense Category Baseline at Project Buildout Fiscal Impact
General Fund Revenues $29,500 $130,700 $101,200
General Fund Expenditures $9,600 $93,000 $83,400
Net Impact on General Fund $19,800 $37,700 $17,800
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
24
Table 2
Proposed Development Program
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Total New Average Avg. Ann.
Item Units
Townhomes 44 91 $2,128,572 $452,871
ADUs 10 15
Total Market Rate 54 106
Below Market Rate Ownership
2-Bedroom 2 6 $532,160
3-Bedroom 5 20 $599,070
4-Bedroom 4 20 $644,485
Total BMR 11 46 $614,088 $187,986
Total New Program 65 152
Source: BAE; Economic & Planning Systems
Table
4. Below Market Rate household sizes estimated as number of bedrooms plus one.
Appendix Table A-1 for how Market Rate value is calculated. Below Market Rate value
based on 2024 Santa Clara County Median Income Limits as applied to the development
program.
25
Table 3
Existing Development Program
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Square Empl.Service Assessed
Item Feet Density
Existing Retail
Furniture Store 22,040 650 34 17
Falafel Restaurant 1,100 650 2 1
Vacant 7,950 0 0 0
Total Existing Retail 31,090 36 18 $9,629,371
26
Table 4
General Assumptions
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Citywide
Item Total Source
Total Housing Units 21,837 Department of Finance 2024
Population 59,471 Department of Finance 2024
Persons per Household 2.06 1
Worker Population 49,561 ACS 2022 5-Year Estimates
Service Population 84,252 Population + (0.5 * Jobs)
Source: DOF; Census ACS; LEHD; Economic & Planning Systems
CA" geography.
27
Table 5
Estimated Assessed Value of Proposed Development
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Description
Average Est. Sale Price $2,128,572 per Unit
Number of Units 44 Units $93,657,150
Below Market Rate Housing
Average Est. Sale Price $614,088 per Unit
Number of Units 11 Units $6,754,964
Total New Assessed Value $100,412,114
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Assumption1
Table 2 .
28
Table 6
General Fund Revenue Summary
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
FY 2024-25
General Fund
Description Revenues*
Sales Tax $11,648,962 1.00%of estimated taxable sales
Property Tax
Property Tax in Lieu of VLF $10,894,681
Other Property Tax $22,280,296 6.51%of base property tax rate (1%)
Transient Occupancy Tax $7,731,947 -not impacted
Utility Tax $4,130,140 $49.02 per service population
Franchise Fees $3,509,346 $41.65 per service population
Business License Tax $744,690
Other Taxes $939,639
Property Transfer Tax $878,901 $0.55 per $1,000 in value
Licenses & Permits $3,665,866 -not impacted
Use of Money & Property $4,697,122 -not impacted
Intergovernmental $2,471,990 -not impacted
Charges for Services $15,102,136 -not impacted
Fines & Forfeitures $395,000 -not impacted
Miscellaneous $1,210,653 -not impacted
Other Financing Sources $367,000 -not impacted
Transfer-In $15,000 -not impacted
Total Revenues $89,804,468
Impact Estimating Factors
Table 11
Table 8
29
Table 7
General Fund Expenditure Summary
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Percent Annual Variable Per Service Pop.
Item
General Government2 $15,170,440 10%$1,517,044 84,252 Service Pop.$18.01
Police3 $18,648,806 90%$16,783,925 84,252 Service Pop.$199.21
Innovation and Technology4 $3,122,993 -$0 84,252 Service Pop.$0.00
Recreation & Community Services $6,122,536 75%$4,591,902 59,471 Resident $77.21
Planning & Community Development $11,460,954 50%$5,730,477 84,252 Service Pop.$68.02
Non-Departmental $7,372,862 -$0 84,252 Service Pop.$0.00
Total Expenditures $89,938,989 $49,653,647 $612.06
Estimating Factors
FY 2024/25 Proposed
*Per Cupertino's FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget.
30
Table 8
Property Tax Revenue Estimate
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Existing Project
Item Formula Development Total
Property Tax
Assessed Value1 a $9,629,371 $100,412,114
One Percent Base Property Tax b = a * 1.0%$96,294 $1,004,121
Cupertino General Fund
Property Tax Revenue2 c = b * 6.51%$6,269 $65,368
Existing Citywide Property Tax In-Lieu of VLF3 d = $11,003,490
Citywide Taxable Assessed Value4 e = $33,715,982,769
Percentage of Citywide Assessed Value f = a / e 0.0286%0.2978%
Cupertino General Fund
Property Tax In-Lieu of VLF d * f $3,143 $32,770
[3] Per FY2024-25 SB1096 VLF Summary Schedule for Cities - Santa Clara County Controller-Treasurer Department.
[4] Per Santa Clara County Assessor's Annual Report 2024-2025.
Source: Santa Clara County Controller-Treasurer Department; Santa Clara County Assessor; Economic & Planning Systems
[1] Existing value per Table 3, New Project value per Table 5.
[2] City of Cupertino's Post-ERAF property tax allocation factor for Tax Rate Area 013-003 per Santa Clara County
Department of Tax and Collections (Tax Year 2024-2025).
31
Table 9
Property Transfer Tax Revenue Estimate
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Item Formula Total
Assessed Value
Market Rate Ownership a = $93,657,150 $93,657,150
Below Market Rate Ownership b = $6,754,964 $6,754,964
Turnover Rate1
Market Rate Ownership 10.0%Annually c = a * 10%$9,365,715
Below Market Rate Ownership 10.0%Annually d = b * 10%$675,496
Average Annual Value Turnover e = c + d $10,041,211
Real Estate Transfer Tax Revenue $0.55 per $1,000 AV = (e / 1,000) * $0.55 $5,523
Assumptions /
Estimating Factors
Table 5
Table 5
32
Table 10
General Fund Annual Sales Tax Revenue Estimate
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Existing Market Below
Item Formula Development Rate Market Rate Total
Residential Spending
Estimated Annual Household Income1 a -$452,871 $187,986 -
Household Taxable Retail Spending
as a Percent of Income2 b -14.3%22.1%-
Taxable Retail Spending per Household c = a * b -$64,932 $41,485 -
d -44 11 55
Total Retail Spending from Households e = c * d -$2,857,013 $456,337 $3,313,351
f = e * 40%-$1,142,805 $182,535 $1,325,340
Annual General Fund Household Sales Tax Revenue4 = f * 1.00%-$11,428 $1,825 $13,253
On-Site Retail Sales
Annual General Fund On-Site Retail Sales Tax Revenue5 $17,100 ---
New Project
Table 2 .
Table 6 .
33
Table 11
Estimated Business License Tax Revenues
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Existing
Item Total
Existing Retail Sq. Ft.
Furniture Store 22,040
Falafel Restaurant 1,100
Furniture Store
Basic Annual Fee $174
Annual Fee per Sq. Ft.$0.0413 per Sq. Ft.$910
Falafel Restaurant
Basic Annual Fee $174
Annual Fee per Sq. Ft.$0.0474 per Sq. Ft.$52
Total Annual $1,310
Assumptions /
Estimating Factors
34
Table 12
Other General Fund Revenues
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Existing New
Revenue Source
Utility Tax $49.02 per service population $882 $7,451
Franchise Fees $41.65 per service population $750 $6,331
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Assumptions /
Estimating Factors1
Table 6 for revenue estimates and Table 2 and Table 3 for estimated service populations.
35
Table 13
Annual General Fund Expenditures
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Expenditure Existing New
Item
General Government $18.01 per service pop.$324 $2,737
Police $199.21 per service pop.$3,586 $30,280
Recreation & Community Services $77.21 per resident $0 $11,736
Planning & Community Development $68.02 per service pop.$1,224 $10,338
Public Works $249.61 per service pop.$4,493 $37,941
Total Annual Expenditures $612.06 per service pop.$9,627 $93,033
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Expenditure Estimation
Factors1
Table 7 for cost estimates and Table 2 and Table 3 for estimated service populations.
36
Table 14
Annual General Fund Fiscal Impact Detail of Proposed Project
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Net
Annual General Fund Impacts (Rounded)(Rounded)
General Fund Revenues
Sales Tax $17,100 $13,300 -$3,800
Property Tax $6,300 $65,400 $59,100
Property Tax in Lieu of VLF $3,100 $32,800 $29,600
Utility Tax $900 $7,500 $6,600
Franchise Fees $700 $6,300 $5,600
Business License Tax $1,300 $0 -$1,300
Property Transfer Tax $0 $5,500 $5,500
Total Revenues $29,500 $130,700 $101,200
General Fund Expenditures
General Government $300 $2,700 $2,400
Police $3,600 $30,300 $26,700
Recreation & Community Services $0 $11,700 $11,700
Planning & Community Development $1,200 $10,300 $9,100
Public Works $4,500 $37,900 $33,400
Total Expenditures $9,600 $93,000 $83,400
Annual Net Impact on General Fund $19,800 $37,700 $17,800
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Existing
Development
Proposed
Project
37
Appendix Table A-1
Annual Market Rate Household Income Estimate
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Item Formula Market Rate
Sale Price1 a $2,128,572
Downpayment b = a * 0.2 $425,714
Mortgage c = a - b $1,702,857
Annual Payments d = PMT fn: 30-Yr @ 5%$110,773
Taxes, Insurance, & Maintenance e = a * 0.02 $42,571
f $5,160
Total g = d + e + f $158,505
Annual Household Income3 f / 0.35 $452,871
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Table 2 .
38
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
T h e E c o n o m i c s o f L a n d U s e
1330 Broadway,Suite 450 Oakland, California 94612
(510) 841-9190 www.epsys.com
CUPERTINO IDLEWILD
FISCAL IMPACT TABLES
SCENARIO 3:
EPS METHODOLOGY +
ADJUSTED HH SIZE +
IMPROVED BASELINE RETAIL
EPS #251005 April 9, 2025
1330 Broadway,Suite 450 Oakland, California 94612
(510) 841-9190 www.epsys.com
39
Table 1
Fiscal Imapct Summary Results
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Revenue /Fiscal Impact Fiscal Impact Net
Expense Category Baseline at Project Buildout Fiscal Impact
General Fund Revenues $34,600 $130,700 $96,100
General Fund Expenditures $12,000 $93,000 $81,000
Net Impact on General Fund $22,600 $37,700 $15,100
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
40
Table 2
Proposed Development Program
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Total New Average Avg. Ann.
Item Units
Townhomes 44 91 $2,128,572 $452,871
ADUs 10 15
Total Market Rate 54 106
Below Market Rate Ownership
2-Bedroom 2 6 $532,160
3-Bedroom 5 20 $599,070
4-Bedroom 4 20 $644,485
Total BMR 11 46 $614,088 $187,986
Total New Program 65 152
Source: BAE; Economic & Planning Systems
Table
4. Below Market Rate household sizes estimated as number of bedrooms plus one.
Appendix Table A-1 for how Market Rate value is calculated. Below Market Rate value
based on 2024 Santa Clara County Median Income Limits as applied to the development
program.
41
Table 3
Existing Development Program
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Square Empl.Service Assessed
Item Feet Density
Existing Retail
Furniture Store 22,040 650 34 17
Falafel Restaurant 1,100 650 2 1
Vacant (5%)1,555 0 0 0
Total Existing Retail 31,090 45 23 $9,629,371
42
Table 4
General Assumptions
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Citywide
Item Total Source
Total Housing Units 21,837 Department of Finance 2024
Population 59,471 Department of Finance 2024
Persons per Household 2.06 1
Worker Population 49,561 ACS 2022 5-Year Estimates
Service Population 84,252 Population + (0.5 * Jobs)
Source: DOF; Census ACS; LEHD; Economic & Planning Systems
CA" geography.
43
Table 5
Estimated Assessed Value of Proposed Development
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Description
Average Est. Sale Price $2,128,572 per Unit
Number of Units 44 Units $93,657,150
Below Market Rate Housing
Average Est. Sale Price $614,088 per Unit
Number of Units 11 Units $6,754,964
Total New Assessed Value $100,412,114
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Assumption1
Table 2 .
44
Table 6
General Fund Revenue Summary
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
FY 2024-25
General Fund
Description Revenues*
Sales Tax $11,648,962 1.00%of estimated taxable sales
Property Tax
Property Tax in Lieu of VLF $10,894,681
Other Property Tax $22,280,296 6.51%of base property tax rate (1%)
Transient Occupancy Tax $7,731,947 -not impacted
Utility Tax $4,130,140 $49.02 per service population
Franchise Fees $3,509,346 $41.65 per service population
Business License Tax $744,690
Other Taxes $939,639
Property Transfer Tax $878,901 $0.55 per $1,000 in value
Licenses & Permits $3,665,866 -not impacted
Use of Money & Property $4,697,122 -not impacted
Intergovernmental $2,471,990 -not impacted
Charges for Services $15,102,136 -not impacted
Fines & Forfeitures $395,000 -not impacted
Miscellaneous $1,210,653 -not impacted
Other Financing Sources $367,000 -not impacted
Transfer-In $15,000 -not impacted
Total Revenues $89,804,468
Impact Estimating Factors
Table 11
Table 8
45
Table 7
General Fund Expenditure Summary
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Percent Annual Variable Per Service Pop.
Item
General Government2 $15,170,440 10%$1,517,044 84,252 Service Pop.$18.01
Police3 $18,648,806 90%$16,783,925 84,252 Service Pop.$199.21
Innovation and Technology4 $3,122,993 -$0 84,252 Service Pop.$0.00
Recreation & Community Services $6,122,536 75%$4,591,902 59,471 Resident $77.21
Planning & Community Development $11,460,954 50%$5,730,477 84,252 Service Pop.$68.02
Non-Departmental $7,372,862 -$0 84,252 Service Pop.$0.00
Total Expenditures $89,938,989 $49,653,647 $612.06
Estimating Factors
FY 2024/25 Proposed
*Per Cupertino's FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget.
46
Table 8
Property Tax Revenue Estimate
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Existing Project
Item Formula Development Total
Property Tax
Assessed Value1 a $9,629,371 $100,412,114
One Percent Base Property Tax b = a * 1.0%$96,294 $1,004,121
Cupertino General Fund
Property Tax Revenue2 c = b * 6.51%$6,269 $65,368
Existing Citywide Property Tax In-Lieu of VLF3 d = $11,003,490
Citywide Taxable Assessed Value4 e = $33,715,982,769
Percentage of Citywide Assessed Value f = a / e 0.0286%0.2978%
Cupertino General Fund
Property Tax In-Lieu of VLF d * f $3,143 $32,770
[3] Per FY2024-25 SB1096 VLF Summary Schedule for Cities - Santa Clara County Controller-Treasurer Department.
[4] Per Santa Clara County Assessor's Annual Report 2024-2025.
Source: Santa Clara County Controller-Treasurer Department; Santa Clara County Assessor; Economic & Planning Systems
[1] Existing value per Table 3, New Project value per Table 5.
[2] City of Cupertino's Post-ERAF property tax allocation factor for Tax Rate Area 013-003 per Santa Clara County
Department of Tax and Collections (Tax Year 2024-2025).
47
Table 9
Property Transfer Tax Revenue Estimate
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Item Formula Total
Assessed Value
Market Rate Ownership a = $93,657,150 $93,657,150
Below Market Rate Ownership b = $6,754,964 $6,754,964
Turnover Rate1
Market Rate Ownership 10.0%Annually c = a * 10%$9,365,715
Below Market Rate Ownership 10.0%Annually d = b * 10%$675,496
Average Annual Value Turnover e = c + d $10,041,211
Real Estate Transfer Tax Revenue $0.55 per $1,000 AV = (e / 1,000) * $0.55 $5,523
Assumptions /
Estimating Factors
Table 5
Table 5
48
Table 10
General Fund Annual Sales Tax Revenue Estimate
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Existing Market Below
Item Formula Development Rate Market Rate Total
Residential Spending
Estimated Annual Household Income1 a -$452,871 $187,986 -
Household Taxable Retail Spending
as a Percent of Income2 b -14.3%22.1%-
Taxable Retail Spending per Household c = a * b -$64,932 $41,485 -
d -44 11 55
Total Retail Spending from Households e = c * d -$2,857,013 $456,337 $3,313,351
f = e * 40%-$1,142,805 $182,535 $1,325,340
Annual General Fund Household Sales Tax Revenue4 = f * 1.00%-$11,428 $1,825 $13,253
On-Site Retail Sales
Actual On-Site Retail Sales Parameters
Occupied Square Feet g 23,140 ---
h $17,100 ---
Retail Sales Assuming 95% Occupancy
Occupied Square Feet i 29,536 ---
Annual Retail Sales Tax Revenue j = h * (i / g)$21,826 ---
Annual General Fund On-Site Retail Sales Tax Revenue = j $21,826 ---
New Project
[5] Based on City-Provided actuals from Project Site for FY 2023/24.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Consumer Expenditure Survey; Economic & Planning Systems
[1] per Table 2.
[2] Based on Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey for respective income groups.
[3] Assumes 40 percent of taxable retail spending by Cupertino residents is captured by the retailers within the City.
[4] per Table 6.
49
Table 11
Estimated Business License Tax Revenues
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Existing
Item Total
Existing Retail Sq. Ft.
Furniture Store 22,040
Falafel Restaurant 1,100
Furniture Store
Basic Annual Fee $174
Annual Fee per Sq. Ft.$0.0413 per Sq. Ft.$910
Falafel Restaurant
Basic Annual Fee $174
Annual Fee per Sq. Ft.$0.0474 per Sq. Ft.$52
Total Annual $1,310
Assumptions /
Estimating Factors
50
Table 12
Other General Fund Revenues
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Existing New
Revenue Source
Utility Tax $49.02 per service population $1,103 $7,451
Franchise Fees $41.65 per service population $937 $6,331
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Assumptions /
Estimating Factors1
Table 6 for revenue estimates and Table 2 and Table 3 for estimated service populations.
51
Table 13
Annual General Fund Expenditures
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Expenditure Existing New
Item
General Government $18.01 per service pop.$405 $2,737
Police $199.21 per service pop.$4,482 $30,280
Recreation & Community Services $77.21 per resident $0 $11,736
Planning & Community Development $68.02 per service pop.$1,530 $10,338
Public Works $249.61 per service pop.$5,616 $37,941
Total Annual Expenditures $612.06 per service pop.$12,034 $93,033
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Expenditure Estimation
Factors1
Table 7 for cost estimates and Table 2 and Table 3 for estimated service populations.
52
Table 14
Annual General Fund Fiscal Impact Detail of Proposed Project
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Net
Annual General Fund Impacts (Rounded)(Rounded)
General Fund Revenues
Sales Tax $21,800 $13,300 -$8,600
Property Tax $6,300 $65,400 $59,100
Property Tax in Lieu of VLF $3,100 $32,800 $29,600
Utility Tax $1,100 $7,500 $6,300
Franchise Fees $900 $6,300 $5,400
Business License Tax $1,300 $0 -$1,300
Property Transfer Tax $0 $5,500 $5,500
Total Revenues $34,600 $130,700 $96,100
General Fund Expenditures
General Government $400 $2,700 $2,300
Police $4,500 $30,300 $25,800
Recreation & Community Services $0 $11,700 $11,700
Planning & Community Development $1,500 $10,300 $8,800
Public Works $5,600 $37,900 $32,300
Total Expenditures $12,000 $93,000 $81,000
Annual Net Impact on General Fund $22,600 $37,700 $15,100
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Existing
Development
Proposed
Project
53
Appendix Table A-1
Annual Market Rate Household Income Estimate
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Item Formula Market Rate
Sale Price1 a $2,128,572
Downpayment b = a * 0.2 $425,714
Mortgage c = a - b $1,702,857
Annual Payments d = PMT fn: 30-Yr @ 5%$110,773
Taxes, Insurance, & Maintenance e = a * 0.02 $42,571
f $5,160
Total g = d + e + f $158,505
Annual Household Income3 f / 0.35 $452,871
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Table 2 .
54
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
T h e E c o n o m i c s o f L a n d U s e
1330 Broadway,Suite 450 Oakland, California 94612
(510) 841-9190 www.epsys.com
CUPERTINO IDLEWILD
FISCAL IMPACT TABLES
SCENARIO 4:
EPS METHODOLOGY +
ADJUSTED HH SIZE +
VACANT BASELINE RETAIL
EPS #251005 April 9, 2025
1330 Broadway,Suite 450 Oakland, California 94612
(510) 841-9190 www.epsys.com
55
Table 1
Fiscal Imapct Summary Results
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Revenue /Fiscal Impact Fiscal Impact Net
Expense Category Baseline at Project Buildout Fiscal Impact
General Fund Revenues $9,400 $130,700 $121,300
General Fund Expenditures $0 $93,000 $93,000
Net Impact on General Fund $9,400 $37,700 $28,300
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
56
Table 2
Proposed Development Program
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Total New Average Avg. Ann.
Item Units
Townhomes 44 91 $2,128,572 $452,871
ADUs 10 15
Total Market Rate 54 106
Below Market Rate Ownership
2-Bedroom 2 6 $532,160
3-Bedroom 5 20 $599,070
4-Bedroom 4 20 $644,485
Total BMR 11 46 $614,088 $187,986
Total New Program 65 152
Source: BAE; Economic & Planning Systems
Table
4. Below Market Rate household sizes estimated as number of bedrooms plus one.
Appendix Table A-1 for how Market Rate value is calculated. Below Market Rate value
based on 2024 Santa Clara County Median Income Limits as applied to the development
program.
57
Table 3
Existing Development Program
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Square Total Ann.Empl.Service Assessed
Item Feet Taxable Sales Density Employees Population
Existing Retail
Furniture Store 0 $0 650 0 0
Falafel Restaurant 0 $0 650 0 0
Vacant (100%)31,090 $0 0 0 0
Total Existing Retail 31,090 $0 0 0 $9,629,371
58
Table 4
General Assumptions
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Citywide
Item Total Source
Total Housing Units 21,837 Department of Finance 2024
Population 59,471 Department of Finance 2024
Persons per Household 2.06 1
Worker Population 49,561 ACS 2022 5-Year Estimates
Service Population 84,252 Population + (0.5 * Jobs)
Source: DOF; Census ACS; LEHD; Economic & Planning Systems
CA" geography.
59
Table 5
Estimated Assessed Value of Proposed Development
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Description
Average Est. Sale Price $2,128,572 per Unit
Number of Units 44 Units $93,657,150
Below Market Rate Housing
Average Est. Sale Price $614,088 per Unit
Number of Units 11 Units $6,754,964
Total New Assessed Value $100,412,114
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Assumption1
Table 2 .
60
Table 6
General Fund Revenue Summary
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
FY 2024-25
General Fund
Description Revenues*
Sales Tax $11,648,962 1.00%of estimated taxable sales
Property Tax
Property Tax in Lieu of VLF $10,894,681
Other Property Tax $22,280,296 6.51%of base property tax rate (1%)
Transient Occupancy Tax $7,731,947 -not impacted
Utility Tax $4,130,140 $49.02 per service population
Franchise Fees $3,509,346 $41.65 per service population
Business License Tax $744,690 -not impacted
Other Taxes $939,639
Property Transfer Tax $878,901 $0.55 per $1,000 in value
Licenses & Permits $3,665,866 -not impacted
Use of Money & Property $4,697,122 -not impacted
Intergovernmental $2,471,990 -not impacted
Charges for Services $15,102,136 -not impacted
Fines & Forfeitures $395,000 -not impacted
Miscellaneous $1,210,653 -not impacted
Other Financing Sources $367,000 -not impacted
Transfer-In $15,000 -not impacted
Total Revenues $89,804,468
Impact Estimating Factors
Table 8
61
Table 7
General Fund Expenditure Summary
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Percent Annual Variable Per Service Pop.
Item
General Government2 $15,170,440 10%$1,517,044 84,252 Service Pop.$18.01
Police3 $18,648,806 90%$16,783,925 84,252 Service Pop.$199.21
Innovation and Technology4 $3,122,993 -$0 84,252 Service Pop.$0.00
Recreation & Community Services $6,122,536 75%$4,591,902 59,471 Resident $77.21
Planning & Community Development $11,460,954 50%$5,730,477 84,252 Service Pop.$68.02
Non-Departmental $7,372,862 -$0 84,252 Service Pop.$0.00
Total Expenditures $89,938,989 $49,653,647 $612.06
Estimating Factors
FY 2024/25 Proposed
*Per Cupertino's FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget.
62
Table 8
Property Tax Revenue Estimate
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Existing Project
Item Formula Development Total
Property Tax
Assessed Value1 a $9,629,371 $100,412,114
One Percent Base Property Tax b = a * 1.0%$96,294 $1,004,121
Cupertino General Fund
Property Tax Revenue2 c = b * 6.51%$6,269 $65,368
Existing Citywide Property Tax In-Lieu of VLF3 d = $11,003,490
Citywide Taxable Assessed Value4 e = $33,715,982,769
Percentage of Citywide Assessed Value f = a / e 0.0286%0.2978%
Cupertino General Fund
Property Tax In-Lieu of VLF d * f $3,143 $32,770
[3] Per FY2024-25 SB1096 VLF Summary Schedule for Cities - Santa Clara County Controller-Treasurer Department.
[4] Per Santa Clara County Assessor's Annual Report 2024-2025.
Source: Santa Clara County Controller-Treasurer Department; Santa Clara County Assessor; Economic & Planning Systems
[1] Existing value per Table 3, New Project value per Table 5.
[2] City of Cupertino's Post-ERAF property tax allocation factor for Tax Rate Area 013-003 per Santa Clara County
Department of Tax and Collections (Tax Year 2024-2025).
63
Table 9
Property Transfer Tax Revenue Estimate
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Item Formula Total
Assessed Value
Market Rate Ownership a = $93,657,150 $93,657,150
Below Market Rate Ownership b = $6,754,964 $6,754,964
Turnover Rate1
Market Rate Ownership 10.0%Annually c = a * 10%$9,365,715
Below Market Rate Ownership 10.0%Annually d = b * 10%$675,496
Average Annual Value Turnover e = c + d $10,041,211
Real Estate Transfer Tax Revenue $0.55 per $1,000 AV = (e / 1,000) * $0.55 $5,523
Assumptions /
Estimating Factors
Table 5
Table 5
64
Table 10
General Fund Annual Sales Tax Revenue Estimate
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Existing Market Below
Item Formula Development Rate Market Rate Total
Residential Spending
Estimated Annual Household Income1 a -$452,871 $187,986 -
Household Taxable Retail Spending
as a Percent of Income2 b -14.3%22.1%-
Taxable Retail Spending per Household c = a * b -$64,932 $41,485 -
d -44 11 55
Total Retail Spending from Households e = c * d -$2,857,013 $456,337 $3,313,351
f = e * 40%-$1,142,805 $182,535 $1,325,340
Annual General Fund Household Sales Tax Revenue4 = f * 1.00%-$11,428 $1,825 $13,253
On-Site Retail Sales
g $0 ---
Annual General Fund On-Site Retail Sales Tax Revenue4 = g * 1.00%$0 ---
[5] per Table 3.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Consumer Expenditure Survey; Economic & Planning Systems
[1] per Table 2.
[2] Based on Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey for respective income groups.
[3] Assumes 40 percent of taxable retail spending by Cupertino residents is captured by the retailers within the City.
[4] per Table 6.
New Project
65
Table 11
Other General Fund Revenues
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Existing New
Revenue Source
Utility Tax $49.02 per service population $0 $7,451
Franchise Fees $41.65 per service population $0 $6,331
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Assumptions /
Estimating Factors1
Table 6 for revenue estimates and Table 2 and Table 3 for estimated service populations.
66
Table 12
Annual General Fund Expenditures
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Expenditure Existing New
Item
General Government $18.01 per service pop.$0 $2,737
Police $199.21 per service pop.$0 $30,280
Recreation & Community Services $77.21 per resident $0 $11,736
Planning & Community Development $68.02 per service pop.$0 $10,338
Public Works $249.61 per service pop.$0 $37,941
Total Annual Expenditures $612.06 per service pop.$0 $93,033
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Expenditure Estimation
Factors1
Table 7 for cost estimates and Table 2 and Table 3 for estimated service populations.
67
Table 13
Annual General Fund Fiscal Impact Detail of Proposed Project
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Net
Annual General Fund Impacts (Rounded)(Rounded)
General Fund Revenues
Sales Tax $0 $13,300 $13,300
Property Tax $6,300 $65,400 $59,100
Property Tax in Lieu of VLF $3,100 $32,800 $29,600
Utility Tax $0 $7,500 $7,500
Franchise Fees $0 $6,300 $6,300
Business License Tax $0 $0 $0
Property Transfer Tax $0 $5,500 $5,500
Total Revenues $9,400 $130,700 $121,300
General Fund Expenditures
General Government $0 $2,700 $2,700
Police $0 $30,300 $30,300
Recreation & Community Services $0 $11,700 $11,700
Planning & Community Development $0 $10,300 $10,300
Public Works $0 $37,900 $37,900
Total Expenditures $0 $93,000 $93,000
Annual Net Impact on General Fund $9,400 $37,700 $28,300
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Existing
Development
Proposed
Project
68
Appendix Table A-1
Annual Market Rate Household Income Estimate
Cupertino Toll Brothers Fiscal Impact Analysis Peer Review; EPS #251005
Item Formula Market Rate
Sale Price1 a $2,128,572
Downpayment b = a * 0.2 $425,714
Mortgage c = a - b $1,702,857
Annual Payments d = PMT fn: 30-Yr @ 5%$110,773
Taxes, Insurance, & Maintenance e = a * 0.02 $42,571
f $5,160
Total g = d + e + f $158,505
Annual Household Income3 f / 0.35 $452,871
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Table 2 .
69
MEMORANDUM
DATE April 25, 2025
TO Gian Martire, Senior Planner
City of Cupertino, Community Development Department
FROM Terri McCracken and Vivian Kha
SUBJECT Third-party peer review of the applicant-prepared technical reports for the Idlewild
Townhomes Project
On behalf of the City of Cupertino, PlaceWorks has conducted a peer review of the following technical
studies:
» Idlewild Shopping Center, Cupertino, California, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, dated
October 25, 2023, prepared by ENGEO
» Environmental Peer Review, Idlewild Shopping Center, dated November 30, 2023, prepared by ENGEO
Because the ENGEO’s environmental peer review report only referenced reports prepared through
November 2023, PlaceWorks has also reviewed the reports that were prepared after November 2023
and posted on State Water Board Resources Control Board’s online database, GeoTracker.
The following includes general comments on the technical reports as well as comments referencing
specific sections of the reports. In our review of the technical reports, we have provided the following
recommendations for textual updates to improve the clarity of the report for optimized consistency
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review document that the technical reports will
support. Comments are not inclusive of formatting, grammatical, or typographical errors.
PEER REVIEW COMMENTS
ENGEO Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
for the Proposed Residential Project at Idlewild Shopping Center
19610-19590 Stevens Creek Boulevard and 10025-10075 East Estates Drive
Cupertino, CA
PROJECT: Proposed Residential Project at Idlewild Shopping Center
DOCUMENT TITLE: ENGEO, October 25, 2023, Idlewild Shopping Center, Cupertino, California, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment.
REVIEWER: Dr. Cathleen Fitzgerald, PE, Senior Engineer
DATE: April 25, 2025
General Comments
This is the best written Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) report that PlaceWorks has reviewed to date. The site has a complex history and
ENGEO did a great job summarizing the previous site investigations and issues regarding releases into soil and soil gas from the former dry cleaning
operation at the site.
1) The Phase I ESA meets the requirements specified in American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard E1527-21 and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 312).
PlaceWorks agrees that the previous occupancy of a dry cleaning business on the property is considered a Recognized Environmental
Condition (REC) and that future development of the property would require ongoing maintenance and monitoring, institutional controls, and
deed restrictions (controlled REC).
2) It should be noted that the Phase I ESA is dated October 25, 2023. Phase I ESAs are typically valid for six months after completion. If the Phase
I ESA is older than one year, it is no longer considered valid and a new report must be obtained. According to the Santa Clara County
Assessor’s Office, there has been no transfer of property since 2022. This is consistent with the Title Report provided as an appendix in the
Phase I ESA. It is unclear whether Toll Brothers has purchased the property within the required time frame for which the Phase I ESA is valid. If
not, a new Phase I ESA would be required if the property purchase has not yet occurred.
3) It should be included, possibly in the Executive Summary or Conclusions sections, that a previous Phase I ESA conducted by Path Forward
identified the potential for organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) and metals to be a REC based on prior agricultural use of the property. However,
a subsequent Phase II ESA conducted by Path Forward included soil sampling and testing at the site and the results did not show the presence
of OCPs or metals in excess of residential Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs). Therefore, this would no longer be considered a REC;
however, it should be noted why this is no longer included.
4) Although technically not required in a Phase I ESA, many consultants are now including a section in the report regarding vapor intrusion.
ENGEO mentions in Section 1.6 the ASTM E2600-15 Standard regarding Vapor Encroachment Screening and states that there are three
miles, respectively, and then refers to Sections 3.3.1.2 for more information. However, Section 3.3.1.2 only discusses five sites. It appears that
Vallco Shopping Center may be considered both a VOC and a total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) site; it is not clear whether the project site
was included as one of the VOC sites. Therefore, it is suggested that a section toward the end of the report be added that addresses vapor
intrusion and why the off-site properties within the screening criteria have been ruled out as vapor intrusion sources based on closure status,
groundwater flow direction, delineation of the plume, etc.
5) There is one minor issue in the last sentence of the executive summary. It states that the findings for this report are valid until September 5,
2023. Yet the site inspection was conducted on October 13, 2023 and the report is dated October 25, 2023. This may be a typo due to
preparation of a previous Phase I ESA but this sentence should be deleted.
Specific Comments
Comment
No.
Document
Section/Page Comments Response
Summary,
page 3
September 5, 2023 and updates of portions of the assessment may be
necessary after March 5, 2023” is inconsistent with the date of the Phase I
Indoor Air
Quality,
page 6
potential petroleum hydrocarbon sources within 0.1 mile of the project site
and the four VOC sources within 0.33 miles of the project site have been
ruled out as potential vapor intrusion sources. A separate section to the
Site
History and
Previous
Environmental
Reports,
investigations conducted at the site. No changes necessary.
Environmental
Record Sources,
pages 17-21
done additional research using other databases, such as GeoTracker and
EnviroStor, to present a detailed description of off-site potential sources of
concern. As discussed above in the General Comments, it is suggested that
the results of these off-site source investigations be summarized in a vapor
intrusion section that summarizes why these sources are not potential vapor
PEER REVIEW COMMENTS
ENGEO Environmental Peer Review
for the Proposed Residential Project at Idlewild Shopping Center
at 19610-19590 Stevens Creek Boulevard and 10025-10075 East Estates Drive
Cupertino, CA
PROJECT: Proposed Residential Project at Idlewild Shopping Center, Cupertino, CA
DOCUMENT TITLE: ENGEO, November 30, 2023, Environmental Peer Review, Idlewild Shopping Center.
REVIEWER: Dr. Cathleen Fitzgerald, PE, Senior Engineer
DATE: April 25, 2025
General Comments
The environmental peer review report prepared by ENGEO did an excellent job of summarizing the investigations that were conducted to date (i.e.,
through November 2023) and the end of the report contained comments and recommendations regarding future work at the site. PlaceWorks has
included additional comments on the reports reviewed by ENGEO in the specific comments below. No response by ENGEO is required since these
comments just provide supplemental information.
PlaceWorks has also reviewed the reports that were prepared after November 2023 and posted on GeoTracker. Comments on the additional
investigations conducted at the site are provided at the end of the specific comments. Most of the comments relate to the fact that both PlaceWorks
and ENGEO did not agree that the site remediation was complete and that the soil vapor extraction (SVE) system should be turned off. However, the
latest posting on GeoTracker by the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEH) concurs that additional remediation at the site
is required.
Specific Comments
Comment
No.
Document
Section/Page Comments Response
Subsurface
Investigation
Report, page 2,
second paragraph
did not detect organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) or metals that exceeded
residential ESLs. Therefore, impacts from prior agricultural use of the site can
be eliminated. Also, semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were also below detection levels or below
Subsurface
Investigation
, page 2,
ENGEO correctly identified that benzene detection limits in most cases were
higher than the residential ESLs (typo in the second sentence in the ENGEO
report). However, it should also be noted that the benzene residential risk-
fifth paragraph Forward report, Table 2. It should be 3.2 ug/m3. Therefore, virtually all the
benzene soil gas concentrations could potentially exceed the residential
RBSLs. Since benzene was detected in the former watch repair facility at
concentrations above the indoor air commercial ESL, benzene cannot be
ruled out as a potential concern in soil gas. It should also be noted that
chloroform detection limits were also higher than the residential RBSLs;
therefore, the presence of chloroform in the soil gas samples cannot be
Additional
Investigation
Report, page 3
assumption that shallow groundwater is not likely to be impacted due to the
depth to groundwater and subsurface geology at the site. PlaceWorks also
concurs that the lateral extent of tetrachloroethylene (PCE) in soil gas is
delineated by the off-site soil gas data collected at the Vallco site by the soil
gas probes along the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard (SV-8 and SV-
Regulatory Path for
Remediation, page
4
assumption that the most effective remedial action would be soil excavation.
Due to elevated PCE concentrations in the deep vapor probes (15 feet bgs),
excavation is not a viable option. However, PlaceWorks does agree with the
statement that vapor mitigation systems would be required for future
development, as well as deed restrictions and ongoing operation and
Indoor
Air and Soil Gas
Sampling Results,
page 4, second
paragraph
extensive remedial actions do not appear to be warranted; however, further
reports and investigations were subsequently conducted. Terraphase also
states that it is unlikely that PCE crossed Stevens Creek Boulevard and
impacted the Vallco site. The evidence used is the concentration of soil gas
in B-7 at the site of 20 ug/m3. However, probe B-4 at the northern edge of
the Idlewild property had a soil gas concentration of 2,400 ug/m3 and soil
gas could easily have migrated across Stevens Creek Boulevard to result in
soil gas concentrations at probes SV-8 and SV-10 of 30 to 80 ug/m3 at the
Vallco site. Finally, Table 1 in the report should have used residential instead
of commercial ESLs as an evaluation of the soil gas and indoor air results.
This was corrected in later reports.
If soil vapors from the Idlewild site did migrate onto the Vallco property, it
probably is no longer relevant because Vallco is not doing any further
Creek Boulevard. The proposed mixed-use development on the Vallco site
(Block 1, which is directly across Stevens Creek Boulevard from the project
site) would include a subsurface mechanically ventilated garage. The
applicant developed modified ESLs based on the subsurface garage
configuration and enhanced ventilation and a soil removal action was
conducted at the site. Soil vapor confirmation samples were below the
Soil
Gas Investigation
Report, page 6
used commercial ESLs instead of residential ESLs to compare soil gas
concentrations in Tables 1 and 2. Also, there is no mention in the report that
chloroform was present in one of the soil gas samples in concentrations
exceeding both the commercial and residential ESLs. PlaceWorks agrees with
the assumption that installation of a SVE system is warranted and that
groundwater beneath the site is not likely to be impacted. However, the
statement that PCE concentrations would be reduced to below residential
Soil
Vapor Investigation
and Soil Vapor
Extraction Pilot
Test, page 6
air sample at the adjacent property to the west as well as three nested soil
monitoring probes at the adjacent property (B-14 through B-16). PlaceWorks
has seen no evidence that this additional sampling was ever conducted.
Terraphase also proposed a SVE pilot test program, which was subsequently
implemented. Tables 1 and 2 in this report still use commercial ESLs for
Soil
Vapor Extraction
Pilot Scale Test
, page 6
Terraphase provides the details for the SVE pilot test. PlaceWorks has no
comments regarding this report.
Preliminary Results
of Soil Vapor
Extraction Pilot
Test, page 8
following data would be obtained from the test but these data are missing in
the report:
• Vacuum readings at B10 through B12 and SSV-1 through SSV-8. Only
vacuum readings at B10 and B12 were reported.
• Step tests and constant rate tests would be conducted. No data were
reported from these tests.
• Vacuum at all monitoring wells and SSV monitoring reports would be
recorded. Only vacuum from B10 through B12 were reported; SSV-7 and
SSV-6.
• Vapor flow monitoring would be recorded. No data were presented.
• Soil gas baseline photoionization detector (PID) readings would be
recorded from B-10 through B-12 and SSV-1 through SSV-8. No PID
readings were reported except from SVE well, SVE-01.
• Soil vapor samples would be collected from the SVE-01 well, B-10
through B-12, and the SSV monitoring points. No data from the SSV
monitoring points were reported.
• The sub-slab radius of influence would be determined by measuring
vacuum in the SSV monitoring points. No data calculating the radius of
influence (ROI) were reported nor were there vacuum measurements
from the SSV vapor pins.
• In the reporting section of the workplan, it is stated that the ROI of the
SVE well would be estimated, potential influence on sub-slab gradients
would be determined, optimal flow and vacuum rates would be
identified, and the anticipated mass of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) removed would be estimated. None of these items were
reported.
Also, the tables in the report continue to use commercial ESLs as a
comparison. In a previous report, it was stated that Terraphase would
conduct indoor and ambient air monitoring at the adjacent property. It does
not appear that this effort was conducted. Although two vapor pins (SSV-7
and SSV-8) were installed at the adjacent property, there was air leakage
when collecting the VOC samples during the SVE pilot test. Therefore,
accurate concentrations of VOCs in soil gas at the adjacent property could
Remedial Action
Plan, page 8
determine the effectiveness of the proposed SVE system, as noted in the
comment above. The appendix includes the preliminary results of the soil
vapor extraction test but is simply the previously submitted technical
memorandum dated August 4, 2023 that does not contain any new or
additional information.
Table 1 now correctly contains the residential RSLs. However, the detection
limits for benzene, chloroform, and trichloroethylene (TCE) in most of the
soil vapor samples exceed the residential RSLs. Therefore, it is not known if
through SSV-6 were not part of the sampling program; an explanation should
be provided since this was reported to be part of the sampling program in
the SVE Pilot Test Workplan.
It is unclear whether the remedial goal of a PCE concentration less than 460
ug/m3 in shallow soil gas would be protective to future residential
occupants. This is based on an attenuation factor of 1,000, whereas the ESLs
use an attenuation factor of 0.03. A vapor barrier and passive venting system
may be able to achieve this attenuation factor, but additional verification
and supporting documentation are needed. It may be possible to use the J&E
model and site-specific soil parameters to verify this assumption, but if
grading operations remove the fine-grained material in the shallow
subsurface and replace it with coarser fill material, this would be more
conducive to vapor transport.
Also, the SVE well is screened from 7 to 23 feet bgs, which makes its
relatively easy to remove PCE soil vapors in the gravel and coarse grained
soil layers that are at deeper depths, but the fine-grained silty clays in the
upper 10 feet at the site show a much smaller radius of influence which will
Environmental
Review Comments,
page 9
previous reports and provides additional information and/or clarification.
• While PlaceWorks believes that releases from the property may have
impacted the former Vallco site (see comment #5), it does not require
further investigation since remediation has already been implemented at
the Vallco site.
• PlaceWorks concurs that benzene may be a chemical of concern at the
site, because the detection limits in soil gas exceed the residential ESLs.
Therefore, benzene cannot be ruled out as a chemical of concern. Also,
chloroform and TCE detection limits in many cases exceed the residential
ESLs and could be potential chemicals of concern.
• The concentration of PCE in the 15-foot sample from B-13 of 7,100
ug/m3 is concerning and may indicate the vapor plume is migrating onto
the adjacent property at depth. The vapor pins next to the sidewalk
show air leakage and therefore the analytical results are not conclusive.
PlaceWorks concurs with ENGEO that indoor air sampling at the adjacent
property would be warranted to ensure that occupants in the building
• PlaceWorks concurs with ENGEO that the preliminary results of the soil
vapor extraction test lack monitoring and operational data that are
critical for sizing and evaluating the SVE system. The boring log for SVE-
01 has subsequently been posted on the GeoTracker website.
• PlaceWorks agrees with ENGEO that there should be supporting
evidence to validate the time frame of 12 to 18 months to reach the
remedial goal for PCE concentrations in soil vapor to be below residential
ESLs at the site.
• PlaceWorks concurs with ENGEO that the remedial goal to reach PCE
concentrations at the site below 460 ug/m3 may not be protective to
residential occupants or may not meet approval by SCCDEH. PlaceWorks
also believes that the ultimate vapor mitigation system proposed at the
site (i.e., vapor barrier and passive venting system) should be configured
Additional Comments
Idlewild SVE
System Status
Update, August 12,
2024
supplementing this review with additional information posted on the
GeoTracker website since that time period.
The Terraphase SVE System Status Update Report is a one page
memorandum reporting the PCE concentrations after four weeks of SVE
operation. However, no information on the installation and configuration of
the SVE system is provided. Vapor proves B-10 through B-12 were sampled
and show reductions in PCE concentrations. However, levels are still well
Soil
Vapor Extraction
Operations,
December 24, 2024
the site from June to December 2024. Comments regarding the report
follow:
• Section 3.1, Timeline – It is stated that SVE system monitoring and soil
vapor probe sampling was conducted on November 14, 2024. However,
no data are present in the report for this sampling period
• Section 4.1, Soil Sampling – Soil samples from 15 locations were
collected within the former dry cleaner unit and analyzed with PID
readings. A PID reading around 1 ppmv is considered a significant
indicator for PCE. One ppmv of PCE is equivalent to 6,783 ug/m3. Several
of the PID readings exceeded 1 ppmv. However, the conclusion was that
analysis by the laboratory to determine the actual PCE concentration
from at least one of the locations with elevated PID readings, it is not
possible to determine the actual concentration of PCE in soil.
• Section 4.3.1, Western Adjoining Property – Although the Vapor Pin
samples had non-detect concentrations of PCE, it is concerning that
vapor probe B-14 still has PCE concentrations of 50, 540, and 310 ug/m3
at the 5, 15, and 25-foot depths, respectively. The 15 and 25-foot PCE
concentrations are significantly above the commercial ESL of 67 ug/m3.
Therefore, PlaceWorks recommends that the indoor air sampling that
Terraphase proposed in one of the previous reports be conducted to
ensure there are no indoor air health issues at the adjacent commercial
building.
• Section 4.4, Pressure Radius of Influence (ROI) – It is stated that based on
high vacuums at 25 feet bgs at B-11 and B-12, the pressure radius of
influence is at least 100 feet. A vacuum of 0.02 to 0.1 inch of water or
more is indicative of the extraction well’s influence at that point. The
vacuum readings in B-12 at 5 feet bgs are below this number, as are the
readings for SSV-2. There is no calculation provided as to how the ROI
was determined but it would be less than 100 feet for the shallow
vadose zone. This is concerning because the shallow vadose zone will
take a much longer time to remediate due to the fine-grained sediments
in the subsurface at these depths. However, the results do show that PCE
concentrations in the shallow zone in the vicinity of wells B-10 and B-11
have decreased over time so there is an indication that the shallow
subsurface is remediated to some extent. PlaceWorks would like to see
calculations of the ROI for both the shallow and deeper vadose zone and
vacuum measurements at well B-14 to see if the vacuum extends to this
location.
• Section 5, Conclusions and Recommendations – While PlaceWorks agrees
that rebound testing should be conducted at the site, we disagree that
the SVE system should be shut down. The PCE concentrations in soil gas
have decreased but are still well above the remediation goal of 460
ug/m3 that was proposed in the Remedial Action Plan (RAP). The
rationale that PCE concentrations in soil gas have decreased significantly
is not sufficient to support system shutdown. How much contaminant
mass was in the vadose zone, how much was removed, and how much is
sub-slab gradients would be determined, optimal flow and vacuum rates
would be identified, and the anticipated mass of VOC removed would be
estimated. There has been no reporting on these issues. Also, there are
enhancements to SVE operation that could be implemented to address
remaining vadose zone contamination, such as connecting additional
One
Month SVE
Rebound Testing
Report, March 12,
2025
system. The 30-day rebound period was from January 23, 2025 to February
24, 2025. Concentrations in the SVE influent well increased from 650 ug/m3
to 1,100 ug/m3, an increase of approximately 69 percent. PCE
concentrations in wells B-11 at 15 and 25 feet bgs were 1,000 and 1,500
ug/m3, respectively, which is well above the remedial goal of 460 ug/m3.
PCE concentrations in well B-14 at 15 feet were reported to be 770 ug/m3,
which is also above the remedial goal.
Although PlaceWorks concurs that significant mass has been removed with
operation of the SVE system, there are no calculations showing the amount
of mass removed by the system and the amount of mass remaining in the
subsurface. Typically, a graph is provided that shows the amount of mass (in
lbs) removed by the SVE system and when it reaches an asymptotic limit,
that is when rebound testing is typically conducted. Also, the graphs
presented in the report should show the PCE concentrations along the y axis
on a logarithmic scale, since it appears that the remaining PCE
concentrations are zero due to the scale of the graph.
PlaceWorks does not believe that the SVE system should be shut down at
this time, since the PCE concentrations in the sampled soil vapor probes
rebounded at the end of the 30-day period and remain well above the
remedial goal of 640 ug/m3.
The Terraphase report states that the PCE concentrations in the surface are
well below levels where a properly installed vapor mitigation system will
protect future inhabitants, but no supporting calculations or justification for
this assumption is provided. Terraphase also states that continued operation
of the SVE system would not result in further reductions of PCE in the
subsurface. Again, no supporting evidence is provided.
If the amount of PCE mass removed has reached an asymptotic limit (a graph
should be provided as evidence) and PCE concentrations remain above
made to further reduce PCE concentrations in the subsurface, such as
pulsing the SVE system, active or passive air injection, adding additional
wells to the network, etc.
Also, the PCE concentrations remaining in the subsurface at the adjacent
western property (B-14 at 770 ug/m3 at 15 feet bgs) are concerning. The PCE
concentration at B-13, which is adjacent to B-14, was 7,100 ug/m3 when last
sampled in 2022. There does not appear to be an established boundary for
the PCE soil vapor concentrations in the 15-foot samples to the west of the
site and there are no vacuum measurements in B-14 to show if the ROI
extends to this area. Also, it is not known whether the occupants of the
adjacent building are being exposed to indoor air concentrations that exceed
Terraphase to
SCCDEH, March 31,
install a second extraction well, but no further details were provided.
SCCDEH, April 3,
2025
system, based on the results in the SVE Rebound Testing Report. However,
they also note that via email, Terraphase stated that the SVE system would
be restarted and a new SVE well would be installed. The SCCDEH states that
they had not received a work plan for the new well installation and work
should not proceed until the work plan is approved by SCCDEH. Also,
SCCDEH states that quarterly remediation progress reports are required,
including system flow rates, operational run time, well head vacuum
readings, and mass removal calculations. The quarterly progress reports are
MEMORANDUM
DATE November 11, 2025
TO Gian Martire, Senior Planner
City of Cupertino, Community Development Department
FROM Terri McCracken and Vivian Kha
SUBJECT Response to comments on the Idlewild Townhomes Project California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) Exemption Memo
The CEQA Exemption Memo prepared by PlaceWorks in October 2025, found that the Idlewild Townhomes
Development Project (proposed project) meets the criteria for categorically exempt in‐fill development
projects in CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 and because none of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions
in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply, it will not have a significant effect on the environment pursuant
to CEQA and a Notice of Exemption is appropriate for the proposed project. The following is provided for
clarification in response to Vice Mayor Kitty Moore’s comments submitted on November 11, 2025.
Section 2.2.2, Existing Site Conditions, of the CEQA Exemption Memo discusses the findings of the Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared by ENGEO for the proposed project, dated June 11, 2025.
However, the discussion of the project site’s listing on the State Water Quality Control Board’s (SWRCB)
GeoTracker website as an open cleanup program site (case ID 2023‐17s) under the oversight of Santa Clara
County Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEH) is not germane to the exemption analysis as it was
part of the existing site conditions at the time the CEQA Exemption Memo was drafted.
As described in Section 4.5, CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(e): Hazardous Waste Sites, of the CEQA
Exemption Memo, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 (Exceptions), a categorical exemption shall
not be used for a project on a site that is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the
Government Code. Further described in Section 4.5, the required lists of hazardous material release sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 are commonly referred to as the “Cortese List.”
Because the statute was enacted more than 20 years ago, some of the provisions refer to agency activities
that were conducted many years ago and are no longer being implemented and, in some cases, the
information required in the Cortese List does not exist. Those requesting a copy of the Cortese Lists are now
referred directly to the appropriate information resources contained on internet websites hosted by the
boards or departments referenced in the statute, including California Department of Toxic Substance
Control’s (DTSC) online EnviroStor database and the SWRCB’s online GeoTracker database. These two
databases include hazardous material release sites, along with other categories of sites or facilities specific
to each agency’s jurisdiction.
As stated in Section 4.5, while the project site is listed as an open cleanup program site on the GeoTracker
website, the project site is not included on the Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese) pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 as of May 2025, the time the CEQA Exemption Memo was initially
drafted, and as of November 11, 2025. Additionally, the project site is also not listed on any of the following
CalEPA’s Cortese List Data Resources as of November 11, 2025:
November 11, 2025 | Page 2
» List of Hazardous Waste and Substances sites from DTSC’s EnviroStor database
» List of Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites from SWRCB’s GeoTracker database
» List of solid waste disposal sites identified by SWRCB with waste constituents above hazardous waste
levels outside the waste management unit
» List of “active” Cease and Desist Orders and Cleanup and Abatement Orders from SWRCB
» List of hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the Health
and Safety Code, identified by DTSC
As such, while the project site is listed as an open remediation “cleanup” program site on the GeoTracker
website, the only portion of the GeoTracker website that is identified pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 are the Leaking Underground Fuel Tanks (LUFT) listings. The Idlewild site does not meet this standard
(it is not a LUFT site) and therefore is not a qualified Cortese List site.
In response to Vice Mayor Moore’s concern about when the project site was checked for listing/applicability
(May 2025) and when the CEQA Exemptions Memo was published (October 2025), PlaceWorks has checked
again for any updates. As of November 11, 2025, the project site is not listed on the Hazardous Waste and
Substances Site List (Cortese) pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 or any of the CalEPA’s Cortese
List Data Resources listed above. Therefore, the exception under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(e) still
does not apply to the proposed project.
ENGEO also prepared an Environmental Peer Review of all the investigations that were conducted for the
proposed project by Path Forward and Terraphase up until November 2023. As part of the peer review of
ENGEO’s Environmental Peer Review, PlaceWorks supplemented the review with additional information
posted on the GeoTracker website as of April 25, 2025, that were not included in ENGEO’s Environmental
Peer Review. The following is an excerpt from the Peer Review Memo prepared by Cathy Fitzgerald for the
City of Cupertino on April 25, 2025. The complete Peer Review Memo is attached for convenience.
12, 2024 Idlewild SVE
System
Status
The Terraphase SVE System Status Update Report is a one page memorandum reporting the
PCE concentrations after four weeks of SVE operation. However, no information on the
installation and configuration of the SVE system is provided. Vapor proves B‐10 through B‐
12 were sampled and show reductions in PCE concentrations. However, levels are still well
24, 2024 Soil Vapor
Extraction
Operations
June to December 2024. Comments regarding the report follow:
• Section 3.1, Timeline – It is stated that SVE system monitoring and soil vapor probe
sampling was conducted on November 14, 2024. However, no data are present in the
report for this sampling period
• Section 4.1, Soil Sampling – Soil samples from 15 locations were collected within the
former dry cleaner unit and analyzed with PID readings. A PID reading around 1 ppmv
is considered a significant indicator for PCE. One ppmv of PCE is equivalent to 6,783
ug/m3. Several of the PID readings exceeded 1 ppmv. However, the conclusion was that
there were no significant hot spots. Without a confirmatory soil sample analysis by the
laboratory to determine the actual PCE concentration from at least one of the locations
with elevated PID readings, it is not possible to determine the actual concentration of
November 11, 2025 | Page 3
• Western Adjoining Property
detect concentrations of PCE, it is concerning that vapor probe B‐14 still has PCE
concentrations of 50, 540, and 310 ug/m3 at the 5, 15, and 25‐foot depths, respectively.
The 15 and 25‐foot PCE concentrations are significantly above the commercial ESL of
67 ug/m3. Therefore, PlaceWorks recommends that the indoor air sampling that
Terraphase proposed in one of the previous reports be conducted to ensure there are
no indoor air health issues at the adjacent commercial building.
• Section 4.4, Pressure Radius of Influence (ROI) – It is stated that based on high vacuums
at 25 feet bgs at B‐11 and B‐12, the pressure radius of influence is at least 100 feet. A
vacuum of 0.02 to 0.1 inch of water or more is indicative of the extraction well’s
influence at that point. The vacuum readings in B‐12 at 5 feet bgs are below this
number, as are the readings for SSV‐2. There is no calculation provided as to how the
ROI was determined but it would be less than 100 feet for the shallow vadose zone.
This is concerning because the shallow vadose zone will take a much longer time to
remediate due to the fine‐grained sediments in the subsurface at these depths.
However, the results do show that PCE concentrations in the shallow zone in the vicinity
of wells B‐10 and B‐11 have decreased over time so there is an indication that the
shallow subsurface is remediated to some extent. PlaceWorks would like to see
calculations of the ROI for both the shallow and deeper vadose zone and vacuum
measurements at well B‐14 to see if the vacuum extends to this location.
• Section 5, Conclusions and Recommendations – While PlaceWorks agrees that rebound
testing should be conducted at the site, we disagree that the SVE system should be shut
down. The PCE concentrations in soil gas have decreased but are still well above the
remediation goal of 460 ug/m3 that was proposed in the Remedial Action Plan (RAP).
The rationale that PCE concentrations in soil gas have decreased significantly is not
sufficient to support system shutdown. How much contaminant mass was in the vadose
zone, how much was removed, and how much is remaining? In the workplan, it was
stated that the potential influence on sub‐slab gradients would be determined, optimal
flow and vacuum rates would be identified, and the anticipated mass of VOC removed
would be estimated. There has been no reporting on these issues. Also, there are
enhancements to SVE operation that could be implemented to address remaining
vadose zone contamination, such as connecting additional wells to the SVE system,
12, 2025 One Month
SVE Rebound
Testing
Report
30‐day rebound period was from January 23, 2025 to February 24, 2025. Concentrations in
approximately 69 percent. PCE concentrations in wells B‐11 at 15 and 25 feet bgs were 1,000
and 1,500 ug/m3, respectively, which is well above the remedial goal of 460 ug/m3. PCE
concentrations in well B‐14 at 15 feet were reported to be 770 ug/m3, which is also above
the remedial goal.
Although PlaceWorks concurs that significant mass has been removed with operation of the
SVE system, there are no calculations showing the amount of mass removed by the system
and the amount of mass remaining in the subsurface. Typically, a graph is provided that
shows the amount of mass (in lbs) removed by the SVE system and when it reaches an
asymptotic limit, that is when rebound testing is typically conducted. Also, the graphs
presented in the report should show the PCE concentrations along the y axis on a logarithmic
scale, since it appears that the remaining PCE concentrations are zero due to the scale of the
graph.
November 11, 2025 | Page 4
the PCE concentrations in the sampled soil vapor probes rebounded at the end of the 30‐
day period and remain well above the remedial goal of 640 ug/m3.
The Terraphase report states that the PCE concentrations in the surface are well below levels
where a properly installed vapor mitigation system will protect future inhabitants, but no
supporting calculations or justification for this assumption is provided. Terraphase also
states that continued operation of the SVE system would not result in further reductions of
PCE in the subsurface. Again, no supporting evidence is provided.
If the amount of PCE mass removed has reached an asymptotic limit (a graph should be
provided as evidence) and PCE concentrations remain above remedial action goals, there
are modifications to the SVE system that can be made to further reduce PCE concentrations
in the subsurface, such as pulsing the SVE system, active or passive air injection, adding
additional wells to the network, etc.
Also, the PCE concentrations remaining in the subsurface at the adjacent western property
(B‐14 at 770 ug/m3 at 15 feet bgs) are concerning. The PCE concentration at B‐13, which is
adjacent to B‐14, was 7,100 ug/m3 when last sampled in 2022. There does not appear to be
an established boundary for the PCE soil vapor concentrations in the 15‐foot samples to the
west of the site and there are no vacuum measurements in B‐14 to show if the ROI extends
to this area. Also, it is not known whether the occupants of the adjacent building are being
exposed to indoor air concentrations that exceed commercial ESLs and indoor air sampling
31, 2025 Terraphase extraction well, but no further details were provided.
3, 2025 SCCDEH the results in the SVE Rebound Testing Report. However, they also note that via email,
Terraphase stated that the SVE system would be restarted and a new SVE well would be
installed. The SCCDEH states that they had not received a work plan for the new well
installation and work should not proceed until the work plan is approved by SCCDEH. Also,
SCCDEH states that quarterly remediation progress reports are required, including system
flow rates, operational run time, well head vacuum readings, and mass removal calculations.
The quarterly progress reports are due July 31, 2025, October 31, 2025, and January 30,
At the time of the peer review, the latest posting on GeoTracker website (April 3, 2025) by the SCCDEH
concurs that additional remediation at the site is required.
As Vice Mayor Moore notes, the most recent letter posted on the GeoTracker website to date (October 20,
2025) was not considered as it was not available at the time of the peer review. The letter states that the
SCCDEH does not agree with that the current PCE concentration in the subsurface are below the
Environmental Screening Level (ESL) for both commercial and residential land uses by one to two orders of
magnitude and are expected to be effectively mitigated by a properly installed vapor mitigation system and
will not represent a risk for vapor intrusion for future occupants of the site. The letter also requires written
notification of when the SVE system will be shutdown to initiate a second rebound test and reiterates that
in order to adequately demonstrate that soil vapor concentrations have reached equilibrium, the SVE
rebound monitoring period shall last a minimum of six months after SVE shutdown with a minimum of three
soil vapor sampling events during the rebound monitoring period.
November 11, 2025 | Page 5
Upon review of the latest documentation, PlaceWorks finds that the most recent letter from SCCDEH
reaffirms that additional remediation at the site is required. Another quarterly progress report was due to
SCCDEH on October 31, 2025, but the information is not currently available on the GeoTracker website.
As part of project approval, the proposed project would be subject to the following Condition of Approval,
as reviewed, edited, and approved by the SCCDEH on November 6, 2025:1
Prior to the issuance of any building permits for residential construction on the project site, the applicant
shall obtain written clearance from the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health
(SCCDEH), confirming that the site has been adequately investigated and remediated for contamination
associated with the former dry-cleaning operations. The clearance documentation shall verify that all
recognized environmental conditions have been addressed and that contaminant concentrations meet
applicable residential cleanup standards established under State of California regulatory guidance for
unrestricted residential use OR submit a long-term mitigation and monitoring plan approved by SCCDEH
to the City of Cupertino Community Development Department as described below.
If the SCCDEH determines that residual contamination remains on-site at concentrations that
require engineering controls, vapor mitigation systems, or ongoing monitoring, the applicant shall comply
with all post-remediation monitoring, reporting, and maintenance requirements imposed by the SCCDEH.
The applicant shall provide the City of Cupertino Community Development Department with copies of all
ongoing monitoring reports, system performance data, and final closure documentation, as applicable,
until the oversight agency issues a final case closure or no further action determination for the site.
No grading, foundation, or building permits shall be issued until the Community Development
Department has received and approved the required regulatory clearance
documentation from SCCDEH demonstrating that the site is suitable for residential development.
1 Email correspondence from Aaron Costa, County of Santa Clara, Supervising Hazardous Materials Specialist
(aaron.costa@deh.sccgov.org) to Gian Martire, Senior Planner (GianM@cupertino.gov) and Luke Connolly, Assistant Director
of Community Development (LukeC@cupertino.gov) on November 6, 2025.
November 11, 2025 | Page 6
This page is intentionally left blank.
PEER REVIEW COMMENTS
ENGEO Environmental Peer Review
for the Proposed Residential Project at Idlewild Shopping Center
at 19610-19590 Stevens Creek Boulevard and 10025-10075 East Estates Drive
Cupertino, CA
PROJECT: Proposed Residential Project at Idlewild Shopping Center, Cupertino, CA
DOCUMENT TITLE: ENGEO, November 30, 2023, Environmental Peer Review, Idlewild Shopping Center.
REVIEWER: Dr. Cathleen Fitzgerald, PE, Senior Engineer
DATE: April 25, 2025
General Comments
The environmental peer review report prepared by ENGEO did an excellent job of summarizing the investigations that were conducted to date (i.e.,
through November 2023) and the end of the report contained comments and recommendations regarding future work at the site. PlaceWorks has
included additional comments on the reports reviewed by ENGEO in the specific comments below. No response by ENGEO is required since these
comments just provide supplemental information.
PlaceWorks has also reviewed the reports that were prepared after November 2023 and posted on GeoTracker. Comments on the additional
investigations conducted at the site are provided at the end of the specific comments. Most of the comments relate to the fact that both PlaceWorks
and ENGEO did not agree that the site remediation was complete and that the soil vapor extraction (SVE) system should be turned off. However, the
latest posting on GeoTracker by the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEH) concurs that additional remediation at the site
is required.
Specific Comments
Comment
No.
Document
Section/Page Comments Response
Subsurface
Investigation
Report, page 2,
second paragraph
did not detect organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) or metals that exceeded
residential ESLs. Therefore, impacts from prior agricultural use of the site can
be eliminated. Also, semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were also below detection levels or below
Subsurface
Investigation
, page 2,
ENGEO correctly identified that benzene detection limits in most cases were
higher than the residential ESLs (typo in the second sentence in the ENGEO
report). However, it should also be noted that the benzene residential risk-
fifth paragraph Forward report, Table 2. It should be 3.2 ug/m3. Therefore, virtually all the
benzene soil gas concentrations could potentially exceed the residential
RBSLs. Since benzene was detected in the former watch repair facility at
concentrations above the indoor air commercial ESL, benzene cannot be
ruled out as a potential concern in soil gas. It should also be noted that
chloroform detection limits were also higher than the residential RBSLs;
therefore, the presence of chloroform in the soil gas samples cannot be
Additional
Investigation
Report, page 3
assumption that shallow groundwater is not likely to be impacted due to the
depth to groundwater and subsurface geology at the site. PlaceWorks also
concurs that the lateral extent of tetrachloroethylene (PCE) in soil gas is
delineated by the off-site soil gas data collected at the Vallco site by the soil
gas probes along the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard (SV-8 and SV-
Regulatory Path for
Remediation, page
4
assumption that the most effective remedial action would be soil excavation.
Due to elevated PCE concentrations in the deep vapor probes (15 feet bgs),
excavation is not a viable option. However, PlaceWorks does agree with the
statement that vapor mitigation systems would be required for future
development, as well as deed restrictions and ongoing operation and
Indoor
Air and Soil Gas
Sampling Results,
page 4, second
paragraph
extensive remedial actions do not appear to be warranted; however, further
reports and investigations were subsequently conducted. Terraphase also
states that it is unlikely that PCE crossed Stevens Creek Boulevard and
impacted the Vallco site. The evidence used is the concentration of soil gas
in B-7 at the site of 20 ug/m3. However, probe B-4 at the northern edge of
the Idlewild property had a soil gas concentration of 2,400 ug/m3 and soil
gas could easily have migrated across Stevens Creek Boulevard to result in
soil gas concentrations at probes SV-8 and SV-10 of 30 to 80 ug/m3 at the
Vallco site. Finally, Table 1 in the report should have used residential instead
of commercial ESLs as an evaluation of the soil gas and indoor air results.
This was corrected in later reports.
If soil vapors from the Idlewild site did migrate onto the Vallco property, it
probably is no longer relevant because Vallco is not doing any further
Creek Boulevard. The proposed mixed-use development on the Vallco site
(Block 1, which is directly across Stevens Creek Boulevard from the project
site) would include a subsurface mechanically ventilated garage. The
applicant developed modified ESLs based on the subsurface garage
configuration and enhanced ventilation and a soil removal action was
conducted at the site. Soil vapor confirmation samples were below the
Soil
Gas Investigation
Report, page 6
used commercial ESLs instead of residential ESLs to compare soil gas
concentrations in Tables 1 and 2. Also, there is no mention in the report that
chloroform was present in one of the soil gas samples in concentrations
exceeding both the commercial and residential ESLs. PlaceWorks agrees with
the assumption that installation of a SVE system is warranted and that
groundwater beneath the site is not likely to be impacted. However, the
statement that PCE concentrations would be reduced to below residential
Soil
Vapor Investigation
and Soil Vapor
Extraction Pilot
Test, page 6
air sample at the adjacent property to the west as well as three nested soil
monitoring probes at the adjacent property (B-14 through B-16). PlaceWorks
has seen no evidence that this additional sampling was ever conducted.
Terraphase also proposed a SVE pilot test program, which was subsequently
implemented. Tables 1 and 2 in this report still use commercial ESLs for
Soil
Vapor Extraction
Pilot Scale Test
, page 6
Terraphase provides the details for the SVE pilot test. PlaceWorks has no
comments regarding this report.
Preliminary Results
of Soil Vapor
Extraction Pilot
Test, page 8
following data would be obtained from the test but these data are missing in
the report:
• Vacuum readings at B10 through B12 and SSV-1 through SSV-8. Only
vacuum readings at B10 and B12 were reported.
• Step tests and constant rate tests would be conducted. No data were
reported from these tests.
• Vacuum at all monitoring wells and SSV monitoring reports would be
recorded. Only vacuum from B10 through B12 were reported; SSV-7 and
SSV-6.
• Vapor flow monitoring would be recorded. No data were presented.
• Soil gas baseline photoionization detector (PID) readings would be
recorded from B-10 through B-12 and SSV-1 through SSV-8. No PID
readings were reported except from SVE well, SVE-01.
• Soil vapor samples would be collected from the SVE-01 well, B-10
through B-12, and the SSV monitoring points. No data from the SSV
monitoring points were reported.
• The sub-slab radius of influence would be determined by measuring
vacuum in the SSV monitoring points. No data calculating the radius of
influence (ROI) were reported nor were there vacuum measurements
from the SSV vapor pins.
• In the reporting section of the workplan, it is stated that the ROI of the
SVE well would be estimated, potential influence on sub-slab gradients
would be determined, optimal flow and vacuum rates would be
identified, and the anticipated mass of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) removed would be estimated. None of these items were
reported.
Also, the tables in the report continue to use commercial ESLs as a
comparison. In a previous report, it was stated that Terraphase would
conduct indoor and ambient air monitoring at the adjacent property. It does
not appear that this effort was conducted. Although two vapor pins (SSV-7
and SSV-8) were installed at the adjacent property, there was air leakage
when collecting the VOC samples during the SVE pilot test. Therefore,
accurate concentrations of VOCs in soil gas at the adjacent property could
Remedial Action
Plan, page 8
determine the effectiveness of the proposed SVE system, as noted in the
comment above. The appendix includes the preliminary results of the soil
vapor extraction test but is simply the previously submitted technical
memorandum dated August 4, 2023 that does not contain any new or
additional information.
Table 1 now correctly contains the residential RSLs. However, the detection
limits for benzene, chloroform, and trichloroethylene (TCE) in most of the
soil vapor samples exceed the residential RSLs. Therefore, it is not known if
through SSV-6 were not part of the sampling program; an explanation should
be provided since this was reported to be part of the sampling program in
the SVE Pilot Test Workplan.
It is unclear whether the remedial goal of a PCE concentration less than 460
ug/m3 in shallow soil gas would be protective to future residential
occupants. This is based on an attenuation factor of 1,000, whereas the ESLs
use an attenuation factor of 0.03. A vapor barrier and passive venting system
may be able to achieve this attenuation factor, but additional verification
and supporting documentation are needed. It may be possible to use the J&E
model and site-specific soil parameters to verify this assumption, but if
grading operations remove the fine-grained material in the shallow
subsurface and replace it with coarser fill material, this would be more
conducive to vapor transport.
Also, the SVE well is screened from 7 to 23 feet bgs, which makes its
relatively easy to remove PCE soil vapors in the gravel and coarse grained
soil layers that are at deeper depths, but the fine-grained silty clays in the
upper 10 feet at the site show a much smaller radius of influence which will
Environmental
Review Comments,
page 9
previous reports and provides additional information and/or clarification.
• While PlaceWorks believes that releases from the property may have
impacted the former Vallco site (see comment #5), it does not require
further investigation since remediation has already been implemented at
the Vallco site.
• PlaceWorks concurs that benzene may be a chemical of concern at the
site, because the detection limits in soil gas exceed the residential ESLs.
Therefore, benzene cannot be ruled out as a chemical of concern. Also,
chloroform and TCE detection limits in many cases exceed the residential
ESLs and could be potential chemicals of concern.
• The concentration of PCE in the 15-foot sample from B-13 of 7,100
ug/m3 is concerning and may indicate the vapor plume is migrating onto
the adjacent property at depth. The vapor pins next to the sidewalk
show air leakage and therefore the analytical results are not conclusive.
PlaceWorks concurs with ENGEO that indoor air sampling at the adjacent
property would be warranted to ensure that occupants in the building
• PlaceWorks concurs with ENGEO that the preliminary results of the soil
vapor extraction test lack monitoring and operational data that are
critical for sizing and evaluating the SVE system. The boring log for SVE-
01 has subsequently been posted on the GeoTracker website.
• PlaceWorks agrees with ENGEO that there should be supporting
evidence to validate the time frame of 12 to 18 months to reach the
remedial goal for PCE concentrations in soil vapor to be below residential
ESLs at the site.
• PlaceWorks concurs with ENGEO that the remedial goal to reach PCE
concentrations at the site below 460 ug/m3 may not be protective to
residential occupants or may not meet approval by SCCDEH. PlaceWorks
also believes that the ultimate vapor mitigation system proposed at the
site (i.e., vapor barrier and passive venting system) should be configured
Additional Comments
Idlewild SVE
System Status
Update, August 12,
2024
supplementing this review with additional information posted on the
GeoTracker website since that time period.
The Terraphase SVE System Status Update Report is a one page
memorandum reporting the PCE concentrations after four weeks of SVE
operation. However, no information on the installation and configuration of
the SVE system is provided. Vapor proves B-10 through B-12 were sampled
and show reductions in PCE concentrations. However, levels are still well
Soil
Vapor Extraction
Operations,
December 24, 2024
the site from June to December 2024. Comments regarding the report
follow:
• Section 3.1, Timeline – It is stated that SVE system monitoring and soil
vapor probe sampling was conducted on November 14, 2024. However,
no data are present in the report for this sampling period
• Section 4.1, Soil Sampling – Soil samples from 15 locations were
collected within the former dry cleaner unit and analyzed with PID
readings. A PID reading around 1 ppmv is considered a significant
indicator for PCE. One ppmv of PCE is equivalent to 6,783 ug/m3. Several
of the PID readings exceeded 1 ppmv. However, the conclusion was that
analysis by the laboratory to determine the actual PCE concentration
from at least one of the locations with elevated PID readings, it is not
possible to determine the actual concentration of PCE in soil.
• Section 4.3.1, Western Adjoining Property – Although the Vapor Pin
samples had non-detect concentrations of PCE, it is concerning that
vapor probe B-14 still has PCE concentrations of 50, 540, and 310 ug/m3
at the 5, 15, and 25-foot depths, respectively. The 15 and 25-foot PCE
concentrations are significantly above the commercial ESL of 67 ug/m3.
Therefore, PlaceWorks recommends that the indoor air sampling that
Terraphase proposed in one of the previous reports be conducted to
ensure there are no indoor air health issues at the adjacent commercial
building.
• Section 4.4, Pressure Radius of Influence (ROI) – It is stated that based on
high vacuums at 25 feet bgs at B-11 and B-12, the pressure radius of
influence is at least 100 feet. A vacuum of 0.02 to 0.1 inch of water or
more is indicative of the extraction well’s influence at that point. The
vacuum readings in B-12 at 5 feet bgs are below this number, as are the
readings for SSV-2. There is no calculation provided as to how the ROI
was determined but it would be less than 100 feet for the shallow
vadose zone. This is concerning because the shallow vadose zone will
take a much longer time to remediate due to the fine-grained sediments
in the subsurface at these depths. However, the results do show that PCE
concentrations in the shallow zone in the vicinity of wells B-10 and B-11
have decreased over time so there is an indication that the shallow
subsurface is remediated to some extent. PlaceWorks would like to see
calculations of the ROI for both the shallow and deeper vadose zone and
vacuum measurements at well B-14 to see if the vacuum extends to this
location.
• Section 5, Conclusions and Recommendations – While PlaceWorks agrees
that rebound testing should be conducted at the site, we disagree that
the SVE system should be shut down. The PCE concentrations in soil gas
have decreased but are still well above the remediation goal of 460
ug/m3 that was proposed in the Remedial Action Plan (RAP). The
rationale that PCE concentrations in soil gas have decreased significantly
is not sufficient to support system shutdown. How much contaminant
mass was in the vadose zone, how much was removed, and how much is
sub-slab gradients would be determined, optimal flow and vacuum rates
would be identified, and the anticipated mass of VOC removed would be
estimated. There has been no reporting on these issues. Also, there are
enhancements to SVE operation that could be implemented to address
remaining vadose zone contamination, such as connecting additional
One
Month SVE
Rebound Testing
Report, March 12,
2025
system. The 30-day rebound period was from January 23, 2025 to February
24, 2025. Concentrations in the SVE influent well increased from 650 ug/m3
to 1,100 ug/m3, an increase of approximately 69 percent. PCE
concentrations in wells B-11 at 15 and 25 feet bgs were 1,000 and 1,500
ug/m3, respectively, which is well above the remedial goal of 460 ug/m3.
PCE concentrations in well B-14 at 15 feet were reported to be 770 ug/m3,
which is also above the remedial goal.
Although PlaceWorks concurs that significant mass has been removed with
operation of the SVE system, there are no calculations showing the amount
of mass removed by the system and the amount of mass remaining in the
subsurface. Typically, a graph is provided that shows the amount of mass (in
lbs) removed by the SVE system and when it reaches an asymptotic limit,
that is when rebound testing is typically conducted. Also, the graphs
presented in the report should show the PCE concentrations along the y axis
on a logarithmic scale, since it appears that the remaining PCE
concentrations are zero due to the scale of the graph.
PlaceWorks does not believe that the SVE system should be shut down at
this time, since the PCE concentrations in the sampled soil vapor probes
rebounded at the end of the 30-day period and remain well above the
remedial goal of 640 ug/m3.
The Terraphase report states that the PCE concentrations in the surface are
well below levels where a properly installed vapor mitigation system will
protect future inhabitants, but no supporting calculations or justification for
this assumption is provided. Terraphase also states that continued operation
of the SVE system would not result in further reductions of PCE in the
subsurface. Again, no supporting evidence is provided.
If the amount of PCE mass removed has reached an asymptotic limit (a graph
should be provided as evidence) and PCE concentrations remain above
made to further reduce PCE concentrations in the subsurface, such as
pulsing the SVE system, active or passive air injection, adding additional
wells to the network, etc.
Also, the PCE concentrations remaining in the subsurface at the adjacent
western property (B-14 at 770 ug/m3 at 15 feet bgs) are concerning. The PCE
concentration at B-13, which is adjacent to B-14, was 7,100 ug/m3 when last
sampled in 2022. There does not appear to be an established boundary for
the PCE soil vapor concentrations in the 15-foot samples to the west of the
site and there are no vacuum measurements in B-14 to show if the ROI
extends to this area. Also, it is not known whether the occupants of the
adjacent building are being exposed to indoor air concentrations that exceed
Terraphase to
SCCDEH, March 31,
install a second extraction well, but no further details were provided.
SCCDEH, April 3,
2025
system, based on the results in the SVE Rebound Testing Report. However,
they also note that via email, Terraphase stated that the SVE system would
be restarted and a new SVE well would be installed. The SCCDEH states that
they had not received a work plan for the new well installation and work
should not proceed until the work plan is approved by SCCDEH. Also,
SCCDEH states that quarterly remediation progress reports are required,
including system flow rates, operational run time, well head vacuum
readings, and mass removal calculations. The quarterly progress reports are
County of Santa Clara
Department of Environmental Health
Hazardous Materials Compliance Division
Site Mitigation Program
1555 Berger Drive, Suite 300
San Jose, CA 95112-2716
(408) 918-3400 FAX (408) 280-6479
Board of Supervisors: Sylvia Arenas, Cindy Chavez, Otto Lee, Susan Ellenberg, S. Joseph Simitian
County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith
Date: SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY
Nicole Yuen John Wolfenden
Department of Toxic Substances Control Regional Water Quality Control Board
Berkeley Regional Office San Francisco Bay
Nicole.Yuen@dtsc.ca.gov John.Wolfenden@waterboards.ca.gov
Notification of Intent to Enter into a Remedial Action Agreement
Required by CA Health & Safety Code, Sections 101480 & 101487
Section I: Local Agency Information
Name: County of Santa Clara, Department of Environmental Health (DEH)
Address: 1555 Berger Drive, Suite 300, San Jose CA 95112
Local Officer: Dr. Marilyn Underwood, Director, Department of Environmental Health
marilyn.underwood@deh.sccgov.org
408-918-1976
Section II: General Site Information
Site Information
Site Name: One-Hour Dry Cleaners GeoTracker ID: T10000021095
Local Case Number: TBD APN: 369-06-002
Site Address: 10045 East Estates Drive, Cupertino, CA 95014
Responsible Party or Project Proponent Information
Name: Idlewild TIC
Primary Contact: Victor M. Castello
Email: vcastello@redwoodeg.com Phone: (408) 450-4816
Address: PO Box 254, Saratoga, CA 95071
Property Owner Information (if different from Responsible Party)
Joseph Nacy Castello, an individual; Rosalie Castello Flores, an individual; Tamara M. Foglesong, an
individual; Jennifer Castello, an individual; Rick Costello II, an individual; Victor M. Castello, an
individual; Gina C. Wagner, an individual; Geno I. Castello, an individual; Victoria M. Castello, an
individual; Rosalyn J. Castello, an individual; Trust for Dana E. Clover under the 1996 Grace M. Clover
Living Trust U/D/T November 5, 1996; Ryan Andersen, as successor trustee of the Trust for Dana E. Clover
under the 1996 Grace M. Clover Living Trust U/D/T November 5, 1996; Cara Clover Borromei, an
individual; Danica Cavigliano, an individual; and Nicolas Cavigliano, an individual (collectively referred
to as “Idlewild Tenants in Common [TIC]”).
Primary Contact: Victor M. Castello
Email: vcastello@redwoodeg.com Phone: (408) 450-4816
Address on file with Assessor: 2323 Gunar Drive, San Jose, CA 95124
6/15/2023
One-Hour Dry Cleaners
Page 2 of 3
Section III: Agency Involvement & Background
DEH is not aware of any planned local, state, or federal regulatory involvement at the waste release site
beyond the scope of work described in this notice. A review of EnviroStor and GeoTracker identified open
cases located within approximately 500 feet of the waste release site, as listed below.
Site Name ID Number Site Address Lead Agency
Vallco Town Cente T10000017167 10123 North Wolfe Road DEH
19720 Stevens Creek Blvd T10000016970 19720 Stevens Creek Blvd DEH
Contamination associated with the above case(s) may be affecting the waste release site.
Section IV: Operational and Release Information
Land-use (past, current, and planned, if known):
Currently commercial use with previous dry cleaner tenant. Historical and future use unknown but likely
extends off site.
Type of Contamination:
܈Petroleum ܆PFAS/PFOAs ܆Pesticides ܈Chlorinated Solvents ܆PCBs ܆Metals
܆Dioxins/Furans ܆Semi-Volatiles (e.g., PAHs) ܈Unknown ܆Other:
Maximum Concentrations Detected (if known): Soil and groundwater conditions are unknown. Applicant
has provided preliminary information identifying a maximum concentration of tetrachloroethene (PCE) in
soil gas at 30,000 micrograms per cubic meter. Indoor air concentrations of PCE and benzene were also
reported, with the indoor air concentration of benzene reportedly exceeding indoor air screening criteria.
The nature and extent of contamination is unknown.
Extent of Contamination:
܆Limited to Source Property ܆Extends Beyond Source Property ܈Unknown
Threatened Receptors:
܆Water Well ܆Surface Waters ܆Residence ܆School/Daycare ܈Unknown ܆Other:
Section V: Planned Investigation and Remediation
Anticipated Investigation Type:
܈Groundwater ܈Soil ܈Soil Vapor ܆ Surface Water ܆ Air
The planned oversight by DEH is to direct additional investigations, if needed, in order to complete the
conceptual site model (CSM) and understand potential risk(s) to on-site and off-site receptors. Interim
remedial actions may be required to protect human health. Once the CSM is better understood, DEH will
direct the development and implementation of a site management plan and/or remedial action plan or similar
document, including cleanup goals, as well as any long-term mitigation measure(s) needed to protect human
health and the environment.
One-Hour Dry Cleaners
Page 3 of 3
Section VI: Local Officer Acknowledgement
I, Marilyn Underwood, acknowledge the following statements:
1. The information in this notification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge.
2. DEH has the technical expertise and staff resources available to provide regulatory oversight for
the waste release site identified in this notification. Information supporting this statement has been
submitted to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and San Francisco
Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) within the past 12 months, as
required by Health and Safety Code, Section 101480(b)(2).
Please inform DEH whether DTSC or the Regional Water Board will retain oversight authority for the
waste release site. The attached form has been provided to assist you. If DEH receives no response within
30 days of the date of this notice, DEH will proceed with entering into a Remedial Action Agreement
pursuant to Health and Safety Code, Section 101480(f)(2).
If you need any additional information about this project, please contact Senior Hazardous Materials
Specialist Travis Flora at (408) 918-3486 or travis.flora@deh.sccgov.org.
Sincerely,
Marilyn C. Underwood, PhD
Director, Department of Environmental Health
Attachments: DTSC Determination of Regulatory Oversight
Regional Water Board Determination of Regulatory Oversight
cc: Marikka Hughes, Department of Toxic Substances Control, Site Mitigation Program
(Marikka.Hughes@dtsc.ca.gov)
Steven McMasters, State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality
(Steven.McMasters@waterboards.ca.gov)
DTSC Determination of Regulatory Oversight
The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) may use this attachment to inform DEH
whether they will retain oversight authority for the waste release site described below. If DEH receives no
response within 30 days of the date of this notice, DEH will proceed with entering into a Remedial Action
Agreement pursuant to Health and Safety Code, Section 101480(f)(2).
Site Information
Site Name: One-Hour Dry Cleaners GeoTracker ID: T10000021095
Local Case Number: TBD APN: 369-06-002
Site Address: 10045 East Estates Drive, Cupertino, CA 95014
DTSC Determination
܆ DTSC will not retain oversight authority for the waste release site.
܆ DTSC will retain oversight authority for the waste release site.
Please provide the following information only if retaining oversight authority for the waste release site.
Reason for retaining oversight authority:
If retaining oversight authority, the DTSC will post public records regarding the waste release site
on the following website:
܆ www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov ܆ Other:
This determination was made by:
Name:
Phone:
Email:
Signature: Date:
Nicole Yuen
nicole.yuen@dtsc.ca.gov
6/15/2023
X
Regional Water Board Determination of Regulatory Oversight
The Regional Water Board may use this attachment to inform DEH whether they will retain oversight
authority for the waste release site described below. If DEH receives no response within 30 days of the date
of this notice, DEH will proceed with entering into a Remedial Action Agreement pursuant to Health and
Safety Code, Section 101480(f)(2).
Site Information
Site Name: One-Hour Dry Cleaners GeoTracker ID: T10000021095
Local Case Number: TBD APN: 369-06-002
Site Address: 10045 East Estates Drive, Cupertino, CA 95014
Regional Water Board Determination
տ Regional Water Board will not retain oversight authority for the waste release site.
տ Regional Water Board will retain oversight authority for the waste release site.
Please provide the following information only if retaining oversight authority for the waste release site.
Reason for retaining oversight authority:
If retaining oversight authority, the Regional Water Board will post public records regarding the
waste release site on the following website:
܆ www.geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov ܆ Other:
This determination was made by:
Name:
Phone:
Email:
Signature: Date:
X
6/15/2023
John Wolfenden
5106222444
john.wolfenden@waterboards.ca.gov
County of Santa Clara
Department of Environmental Health
Hazardous Materials Compliance Division
Site Mitigation Program
1555 Berger Drive, Suite 300
San José, CA 95112-2716
(408) 918-3400
Board of Supervisors: Sylvia Arenas, Cindy Chavez, Otto Lee, Susan Ellenberg, S. Joseph Simitian
County Executive: James R. Williams
SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY
Idlewild TIC
c/o Mr. Victor M. Castello
PO Box 254, Saratoga, CA 95071
vcastello@redwoodeg.com
SUBJECT: REMEDIAL ACTION AGREEMENT
ONE-HOUR DRY CLEANERS
10045 EAST ESTATES DRIVE, CUPERTINO, CA 95014
APN: 369-06-002
GEOTRACKER ID NO.: T10000021095
Dear Mr. Castello:
The Department of Environmental Health (DEH) has received your application requesting regulatory
oversight. At your request, DEH is assuming the role as the lead regulatory oversight agency for the
remedial action as allowed by California Health and Safety Code sections 101480 through 101490. As
indicated on your application for oversight, JOSEPH NACY CASTELLO, AN INDIVIDUAL;
ROSALIE CASTELLO FLORES, AN INDIVIDUAL; TAMARA M. FOGLESONG, AN
INDIVIDUAL; JENNIFER CASTELLO, AN INDIVIDUAL; RICK CASTELLO II, AN
INDIVIDUAL; VICTOR M. CASTELLO, AN INDIVIDUAL; GINA C. WAGNER, AN
INDIVIDUAL; GENO I. CASTELLO AND VICTORIA M. CASTELLO, HUSBAND AND
WIFE; ROSALYN J. CASTELLO, AN INDIVIDUAL; RYAN ANDERSEN, SUCCESSOR
TRUSTEE OF THE TRUST FOR DANA E. CLOVER UNDER THE 1996 GRACE M. CLOVER
LIVING TRUST U/D/T NOVEMBER 5, 1996; CARA CLOVER BORROMEI, AN
INDIVIDUAL; DANICA CAVIGLIANO, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND NICOLAS CAVIGLIANO,
AN INDIVIDUAL (COLLECTIVELY, “IDLEWILD TENANTS IN COMMON” OR
“IDLEWILD TIC”) have requested to be the Responsible Party1 for the remedial action.
TERMS OF AGREEMENT
By entering into this Remedial Action Agreement (“Agreement”) with the DEH, you agree to the
following terms and conditions:
x All subsequent written directives from DEH regarding testing, monitoring, and analysis to
determine the nature, extent, and risk of contamination, potential remedial action or mitigation
1 Responsible Party as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 101480.
7/31/2023
Idlewild TIC
Page 2 of 4
measures to be taken, and cleanup goals (including deadlines for required submittals),
collectively referred to as Remedial Action, will be considered a part of this Agreement.
x DEH will utilize the State of California GeoTracker database to store all documents related to
this case. This case is subject to California regulations for electronic submittal of information
for all cleanup cases in California (Title 23, Division 3, Chapter 30, Articles 1 and 2; Title 27,
Division 3, Subdivisions 1 and 2). To be considered complete, all required submittals must be
uploaded to the GeoTracker database by specified submittal due dates. Please note, DEH will
not accept paper or email submittal of documents for review.
x DEH review of and response to all technical documents (work plans, site management plans,
remedial action plans, completion reports, etc.) may take between 30 and 45 days after documents
have been uploaded to GeoTracker. DEH will not expedite review of documents based on the
Responsible Party’s schedule.
x Regardless of the level of oversight from DEH, you are responsible for the timely reporting,
investigation, and cleanup of soil and groundwater pollution such that the beneficial uses of
waters of the State are protected, and in compliance with appropriate laws, regulations, and
policies. You are also responsible for compliance with any new laws or regulations that may be
applicable during the term of this Agreement.
x If, at any time, the Responsible Party is not in compliance with directives from DEH that
constitute a portion of this Agreement, the DEH can, with adequate notice, terminate this
Agreement. If the Agreement is terminated prior to adequate completion of the remedial action,
the case may be referred to the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) or Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for issuance of a State Corrective Action Order, Cleanup
and Abatement Order, or other order or enforceable agreement, as appropriate, for further
remedial action directives.
x If, upon further characterization, DEH determines that the release of waste that is the subject of
this Agreement is sufficiently complex, may present such a significant potential hazard to human
health or the environment, or may not be in the best interest of the DEH to continue as lead
agency, the case may be referred to the DTSC or RWQCB for further action. In the event this
case is referred to and accepted by the DTSC or RWQCB, this Agreement is terminated.
x Pursuant to Section 25262 of the Health and Safety Code, a Responsible Party may request the
designation of an administering or lead agency other than DEH when required to conduct
corrective action. Please contact DEH for further information about the State Site Designation
Committee process.
x Remedial action must follow acceptable industry standards regarding testing, monitoring, and
analyses to determine the type and extent of the contamination caused by the released waste, and
the appropriate cleanup, as determined by DEH, of the released waste to eliminate or mitigate
the associated risk to human health or safety or the environment.
x After determining that the Responsible Party has completed the remedial action required by DEH
to protect human health, safety, and the environment, and that a permanent remedy for the release
Idlewild TIC
Page 3 of 4
of waste has been achieved, a case closure letter will be issued to the Responsible Party that
certifies that no further action is required.
x As allowed by Health and Safety Code section 101490, DEH will invoice the Responsible Party
to recover the reasonable and necessary costs for oversight of the identified release up to and
including implementing this Agreement. DEH staff time will be invoiced quarterly at the rate
specified in the County Fee Ordinance at the time the DEH work is performed. The current
hourly charge rate is $195 per hour under the County’s fee schedule adopted by the Board of
Supervisors. Effective August 1, 2023, the rate will increase to $237 per hour.
x Failure to pay oversight invoices within 30 days may result in a 25% late charge and could result
in assignment of the charges to the County’s Department of Revenue for legal collections, and
potential termination of this Agreement with subsequent referral to the DTSC or RWQCB. DEH
response to technical documents and/or issuance of final closure may also be delayed.
RESPONSE REQUIRED
To execute this Agreement, please sign and date below where indicated. By signing this Agreement,
you acknowledge that you have read and accept the Terms of Agreement herein and that you are fully
authorized to enter into the terms and conditions of this Agreement and to execute and legally bind the
Responsible Party to this Agreement. Upon receipt of the executed Agreement, a new project will be
opened in the State of California GeoTracker database.
If you have any questions, please contact the Site Mitigation Program coordinator, Travis Flora at (408)
918-3486 or by email at travis.flora@deh.sccgov.org.
Sincerely,
__________________________________
Marilyn C. Underwood, PhD
Director, Department of Environmental Health
__________________________________ __________________________________
Joseph Nacy Castello, an Individual Date Executed
__________________________________ __________________________________
Rosalie Castello Flores, an Individual Date Executed
__________________________________ __________________________________
Tamara M. Foglesong, an Individual Date Executed
8/1/2023
8/2/2023
8/2/2023
Idlewild TIC
Page 4 of 4
__________________________________ __________________________________
Jennifer Castello, an Individual Date Executed
__________________________________ __________________________________
Rick Castello II, an Individual Date Executed
__________________________________ __________________________________
Victor M. Castello, an Individual Date Executed
__________________________________ __________________________________
Gina C. Wagner, an Individual Date Executed
__________________________________ __________________________________
Victor M. Castello (Power of Attorney) for Date Executed
Geno I. Castello and Victoria M. Castello,
Husband and Wife
__________________________________ __________________________________
Rosalyn J. Castello, an Individual Date Executed
__________________________________ __________________________________
Ryan Andersen, Trustee of the Trust for Date Executed
Dana E. Clover under the 1996 Grace M. Clover
Living Trust U/D/T November 5, 1996
__________________________________ __________________________________
Cara Clover Borromei, an Individual Date Executed
__________________________________ __________________________________
Danica Cavigliano, an Individual Date Executed
__________________________________ __________________________________
Nicolas Cavigliano, an Individual Date Executed
8/2/2023
8/9/2023
7/31/2023
7/31/2023
8/2/2023
8/1/2023
7/31/2023
7/31/2023
7/31/2023
7/31/2023
County of Santa Clara
Department of Environmental Health
Hazardous Materials Compliance Division
1555 Berger Drive, Suite 300
San José, CA 95112-2716
(408) 918-3400
www.ehinfo.org/hazmat
Board of Supervisors: Sylvia Arenas, Betty Duong, Otto Lee, Susan Ellenberg, Margaret Abe-Koga
County Executive: James R. Williams
January 17, 2025
SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY
Idlewild TIC
c/o Victor Castello
PO Box 254
Saratoga, CA 95071
vcastello@redwoodeg.com
Re: One-Hour Dry Cleaners
10045 East Estates Dr., Cupertino, CA 95014
APN: 369-06-022
Site Cleanup Program Case No. 2023-17s
GeoTracker ID No. T10000021095
Dear Mr. Castello,
The Department of Environmental Health (DEH) has reviewed the Soil Vapor Extraction Operations Report (Report)
submitted by Terraphase Engineering and dated December 24, 2024. The Report includes data collected from several site
investigations and sampling events spanning from June 2021 to December 2024. Some of the data included in the Report
was collected from properties adjacent to the currently regulated property (Assessor’s Parcel Number 369-06-002).
The Report states that a soil vapor extraction (SVE) system began operating in June 2024 to reduce elevated concentrations
of tetrachloroethylene (PCE) in soil gas reported beneath both the subject property and adjacent properties. The Report also
states that PCE concentrations in soil gas in select soil gas monitoring wells have been declining since the SVE system began
operation and recommends discontinuing active SVE remediation and initiating rebound testing.
It is acceptable to DEH to temporarily discontinue the SVE system operation and initiate rebound testing; however, the DEH
does not concur with the rebound testing protocol proposed in the Report. The DEH requires the following soil gas sampling
locations and depths to be sampled during rebound testing:
B-10 at five and ten feet
B-11 at five, fifteen, and twenty-five feet
B-14 at five, fifteen, and twenty-five feet
At minimum, soil gas samples at the above sampling locations and depths shall be collected at least one week after SVE
system shut-down, and again at least one month after SVE system shut-down.
It is imperative to be able to demonstrate that subsurface soil gas conditions have reached steady-state equilibrium in order
to evaluate the true effectiveness of the SVE system. Therefore, an additional round of sampling at these locations will likely
be required after the reporting of the one week and one month rebound testing. If there is significant rebound observed, DEH
will require you to restart the SVE system and attempt to remove additional source mass.
One Hour Dry Cleaners
January 17, 2025
Page 2 of 2
REQUIRED SUBMITTAL
You are required to submit the following technical report to DEH (Attention: Mr. Aaron Costa) via GeoTracker according
to the following schedule.
One Month SVE Rebound Testing Report – Due by March 28, 2025
Technical reports are required pursuant to our authority under Section 101480 of the California Health and Safety Code.
Each report shall include conclusions and recommendations for the next phases of work required to protect water resources,
human health and safety, and the environment at the site. All required work shall be performed in a prompt and timely
manner. Revisions to the schedule shall be requested at least two (2) weeks prior to the due date in writing with appropriate
justification for the anticipated delays and a proposed revised schedule.
The California Business and Professions Codes (Sections 6735,7835, and 7835.1) require work plans and technical or
implementation reports containing geologic or engineering evaluations and/or judgments must be performed under the
direction of an appropriately registered or certified professional.
PERJURY STATEMENT
All proposals and reports submitted to this office must be accompanied by a cover letter from the Responsible Party which
states, at a minimum, the following:
"I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the information and/or recommendations contained in the attached
proposal or report is true and correct to the best of my knowledge."
This letter must be signed by an officer or legally authorized representative of the Responsible Party. In the future, reports
that are either missing perjury statements, or include perjury statements that are not signed by a legally authorized
representative of the Responsible Party, will be denied by DEH.
ELECTRONIC DATA SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
As stated in the DEH directive letter dated August 14, 2024, you are required to electronically submit any report and data
required by a regulatory agency for a cleanup site in accordance with the Electronic Reporting Regulations (Chapter 30,
Division 3 of Title 23 & Division 3 of Title 27, CCR). You are required to complete electronic data submittal over the
Internet to the case file established for the subject site in the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker
database. Once a report and data are successfully uploaded, as required, you have met the reporting requirement (i.e., the
compliance measure for electronic data submittal are the actual uploads themselves).
The DEH requires all analytical data (including geochemical data) for all soil, vapor, and water samples that are collected
for the purpose of subsurface investigation or remediation are required to be submitted in specified EDF format to
GeoTracker. Groundwater, soil, and vapor samples include, but are not limited to, monitoring well samples, borehole
samples, gas and vapor samples, groundwater grab samples, piezometer samples, stockpile samples, and samples from
drinking water wells. Other electronic data submittal requirements include boring logs and well screen intervals, depth to
water data, locational data, elevation data, and site maps. For additional details, please visit the following GeoTracker
Reporting Requirements webpage:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ust/electronic_submittal/report_rqmts.html.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (408) 918-1954 or via email.
740 W San Carlos St., San Jose
January 8, 2025
Page 3 of 3
Sincerely,
Aaron Costa
Supervising Hazardous Materials Specialist
Site Cleanup Program
aaron.costa@deh.sccgov.org
cc: Jeff Lawson, Silicon Valley Law Group (jsl@svlg.com)
Jeff Raines, Terraphase Engineering (jeff.raines@terraphase.com)
File – GeoTracker
Aaron
Costa
Digitally signed by
Aaron Costa
Date: 2025.01.17
10:02:53 -08'00'
County of Santa Clara
Department of Environmental Health
Hazardous Materials Compliance Division
1555 Berger Drive, Suite 300
San José, CA 95112-2716
(408) 918-3400
www.ehinfo.org/hazmat
Board of Supervisors: Sylvia Arenas, Betty Duong, Otto Lee, Susan Ellenberg, Margaret Abe-Koga
County Executive: James R. Williams
April 3, 2025
SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY
Idlewild TIC
c/o Victor Castello
vcastello@redwoodeg.com
Re: One-Hour Dry Cleaners
10045 East Estates Dr., Cupertino, CA 95014
APN: 369-06-022
Site Cleanup Program Case No. 2023-17s
GeoTracker ID: T10000021095
Dear Mr. Castello,
The Department of Environmental Health (DEH) has reviewed the 2025 One-Month Soil-Vapor Extraction (SVE) Rebound
Testing Report (Report) submitted by Terraphase Engineering and dated March 12, 2025. The Report does not include a
required perjury statement signed by a legally authorized representative of Idlewild TIC. If future submittals fail to include
the required perjury statement, DEH will deny the submittal.
The Report states that the soil vapor extraction (SVE) system was shut-down on January 23, 2025, to monitor for rebound.
Soil gas samples were then collected from select monitoring locations immediately following SVE shut-down, one week
after shut-down, and one month after shut-down. Based on the results of the rebound monitoring events, the Report
recommends permanent shut-down of the SVE system, and states that continued SVE operation is not likely to result in
significant further removal of tetrachloroethene (PCE) from the subsurface.
The DEH does not agree with the recommendation at this time. Based on the information provided in the Report, the DEH
concludes that soil gas concentrations have not reached equilibrium. In order to demonstrate that soil gas concentrations
have reached equilibrium, the SVE rebound monitoring period shall be for at least 6 months after SVE shutdown.
On Mach 31, 2025, the DEH received an email from Terraphase Engineering stating that the SVE system will be restarted,
and an additional SVE well will be installed and connected to the existing SVE system. The DEH notes that the decision to
restart the SVE system and install a new SVE well is counter to the conclusions and recommendations made in the Report.
Additionally, the DEH has not received a work plan for the new SVE well installation. The DEH does not recommend
proceeding with well installation without an approved work plan as it could result in the requirement for additional work.
Since you have notified DEH that the SVE system will be restarted, you are required to submit quarterly remediation progress
reports to DEH documenting the operational parameters of the system, including, at minimum, the system flow rates, the
operational run time, well head vacuum readings, and mass removal calculations based upon laboratory analyzed samples.
One Hour Dry Cleaners
April 3, 2025
Page 2 of 2
REQUIRED SUBMITTAL
You are required to submit the following technical report to DEH (Attention: Mr. Aaron Costa) via GeoTracker according
to the following schedule.
Quarterly Remedial Progress Reports
2Q25 Report July 31, 2025
3Q25 Report October 31, 2025
4Q25 Report January 30, 2026
Technical reports are required pursuant to our authority under Section 101480 of the California Health and Safety Code.
Each report shall include conclusions and recommendations for the next phases of work required to protect water resources,
human health and safety, and the environment at the site. All required work shall be performed in a prompt and timely
manner. Revisions to the schedule shall be requested at least two (2) weeks prior to the due date in writing with appropriate
justification for the anticipated delays and a proposed revised schedule.
The California Business and Professions Codes (Sections 6735,7835, and 7835.1) require work plans and technical or
implementation reports containing geologic or engineering evaluations and/or judgments must be performed under the
direction of an appropriately registered or certified professional.
PERJURY STATEMENT
All proposals and reports submitted to this office must be accompanied by a cover letter from the Responsible Party which
states, at a minimum, the following:
"I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the information and/or recommendations contained in the attached
proposal or report is true and correct to the best of my knowledge."
This letter must be signed by an officer or legally authorized representative of the Responsible Party. In the future, reports
that are either missing perjury statements, or include perjury statements that are not signed by a legally authorized
representative of the Responsible Party, will be denied by DEH.
ELECTRONIC DATA SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
As stated in the DEH directive letter dated August 14, 2024, you are required to electronically submit any report and data
required by a regulatory agency for a cleanup site in accordance with the Electronic Reporting Regulations (Chapter 30,
Division 3 of Title 23 & Division 3 of Title 27, CCR). You are required to complete electronic data submittal over the
Internet to the case file established for the subject site in the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker
database. Once a report and data are successfully uploaded, as required, you have met the reporting requirement (i.e., the
compliance measure for electronic data submittal are the actual uploads themselves).
The DEH requires all analytical data (including geochemical data) for all soil, vapor, and water samples that are collected
for the purpose of subsurface investigation or remediation are required to be submitted in specified EDF format to
GeoTracker. Groundwater, soil, and vapor samples include, but are not limited to, monitoring well samples, borehole
samples, gas and vapor samples, groundwater grab samples, piezometer samples, stockpile samples, and samples from
drinking water wells. Other electronic data submittal requirements include boring logs and well screen intervals, depth to
water data, locational data, elevation data, and site maps. For additional details, please visit the following GeoTracker
Reporting Requirements webpage:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ust/electronic_submittal/report_rqmts.html.
Reports submitted without accompanying electronic data submittals will be considered incomplete and may be denied. Please
be advised that DEH may not close your case without this complete information.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (408) 918-1954 or via email.
One Hour Dry Cleaners
April 3, 2025
Page 3 of 3
Sincerely,
Supervising Hazardous Materials Specialist
Site Cleanup Program
aaron.costa@deh.sccgov.org
cc: Jeff Lawson, Silicon Valley Law Group (jsl@svlg.com)
Jeff Raines, Terraphase Engineering (jeff.raines@terraphase.com)
File – GeoTracker
Aaron
Costa
Digitally signed by
Aaron Costa
Date: 2025.04.03
16:43:00 -07'00'
County of Santa Clara
Department of Environmental Health
Hazardous Materials Compliance Division
1555 Berger Drive, Suite 300
San José, CA 95112-2716
(408) 918-3400
www.ehinfo.org/hazmat
Board of Supervisors: Sylvia Arenas, Betty Duong, Otto Lee, Susan Ellenberg, Margaret Abe-Koga
County Executive: James R. Williams
August 29, 2025
SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY
Idlewild TIC
c/o Victor Castello
vcastello@redwoodeg.com
Re: One-Hour Dry Cleaners
10045 East Estates Dr., Cupertino, CA 95014
APN: 369-06-022
Site Cleanup Program Case No. 2023-17s
GeoTracker ID No. T10000021095
Dear Mr. Castello,
The Department of Environmental Health (DEH) has reviewed the 2025 Second Quarter Soil Vapor Extraction
(SVE) Progress Report (Report) prepared by Terraphase Engineering and dated August 8, 2025. The DEH does
not accept the Report because it does not satisfy the requirements included in previous DEH directive letters.
REASONS FOR DENIAL
The Report does not include a cover letter signed by an officer or legally authorized representative from the
Responsible Party as required in the DEH directive letter dated January 17, 2025 and the DEH directive letter
dated April 3, 2025.
The Report does not include any of the minimum operational parameters of the SVE system required in the
April 3, 2025 DEH directive letter. Additionally, no information related to whether the SVE system was operating
during the three soil vapor sampling events was provided. Therefore, the DEH cannot determine the validity of
the reported soil vapor concentrations or evaluate the performance of the SVE system.
The Report includes two boring logs associated with soil boring B-15 and soil vapor extraction well SVE-02.
The electronic data (GEO_BORE) for these boring logs were not submitted to GeoTracker as part of the Report
submittals. The electronic data submittal requirements have been included in all DEH directive letters and were
specifically emphasized in the DEH directive letter dated April 3, 2025. The boring logs included in the Report
were also labeled as “Draft”. In order for the DEH to accept the boring logs, they need to be finalized, which
includes being checked and signed by a professional geologist.
One-Hour Dry Cleaners
August 29, 2025
Page 2 of 3
REQUIRED SUBMITTAL
In order for the DEH to evaluate the information presented in the Report, you are required to submit a Revised
Second Quarter SVE Progress Report that includes all the required information outlined in this letter.
If SVE operational information (flow rates, run time, well head vacuum readings, mass removal calculations) was
not collected and logged on field data sheets during the second quarter field visits, the DEH will not comment on
the conclusions and recommendations included in the Report. Please submit the following technical report to
DEH (Attention: Mr. Aaron Costa) via GeoTracker according to the following schedule.
Revised 2Q25 SVE Progress Report – Due by October 3, 2025
Technical reports are required pursuant to our authority under Section 101480 of the California Health and Safety
Code. Each report shall include conclusions and recommendations for the next phases of work required to protect
water resources, human health and safety, and the environment at the site. All required work shall be performed
in a prompt and timely manner. Revisions to the schedule shall be requested at least two (2) weeks prior to the
due date in writing with appropriate justification for the anticipated delays and a proposed revised schedule.
The California Business and Professions Codes (Sections 6735,7835, and 7835.1) require work plans and
technical or implementation reports containing geologic or engineering evaluations and/or judgments must be
performed under the direction of an appropriately registered or certified professional.
PERJURY STATEMENT
All proposals and reports submitted to this office must be accompanied by a cover letter from the Responsible
Party which states, at a minimum, the following:
"I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the information and/or recommendations contained in
the attached proposal or report is true and correct to the best of my knowledge."
This letter must be signed by an officer or legally authorized representative of the Responsible Party. In the
future, reports that are either missing perjury statements, or include perjury statements that are not signed by a
legally authorized representative of the Responsible Party, will be denied by DEH.
ELECTRONIC DATA SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
You are required to electronically submit any report and data required by a regulatory agency for a cleanup site
in accordance with the Electronic Reporting Regulations (Chapter 30, Division 3 of Title 23 & Division 3 of Title
27, CCR). You are required to complete electronic data submittal over the Internet to the case file established for
the subject site in the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker database. Once a report and
data are successfully uploaded, as required, you have met the reporting requirement (i.e., the compliance measure
for electronic data submittal are the actual uploads themselves).
For additional details, please visit the following GeoTracker Reporting Requirements webpage:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ust/electronic_submittal/report_rqmts.html.
One-Hour Dry Cleaners
August 29, 2025
Page 3 of 3
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (408) 918-1954 or via email.
Sincerely,
Supervising Hazardous Materials Specialist
Site Cleanup Program
aaron.costa@deh.sccgov.org
cc: Jeff Lawson, Silicon Valley Law Group (jsl@svlg.com)
Jeff Raines, Terraphase Engineering (jeff.raines@terraphase.com)
File – GeoTracker
Digitally signed by Aaron
Costa
Date: 2025.08.29 10:01:07
-07'00'
County of Santa Clara
Department of Environmental Health
Hazardous Materials Compliance Division
1555 Berger Drive, Suite 300
San José, CA 95112-2716
(408) 918-3400
www.ehinfo.org/hazmat
Board of Supervisors: Sylvia Arenas, Betty Duong, Otto Lee, Susan Ellenberg, Margaret Abe-Koga
County Executive: James R. Williams
October 20, 2025
SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY
Idlewild TIC
c/o Victor Castello
vcastello@redwoodeg.com
Re:One-Hour Dry Cleaners
10045 East Estates Dr., Cupertino, CA 95014
APN: 369-06-022
Site Cleanup Program Case No. 2023-17s
GeoTracker ID No. T10000021095
Dear Mr. Castello,
The Department of Environmental Health (DEH) has reviewed the Revised 2025 Second Quarter Soil Vapor
Extraction (SVE) Progress Report (Report) prepared by Terraphase Engineering and dated September 30, 2025.
The Report documents operational parameters of the SVE system and soil vapor concentrations of
tetrachloroethene (PCE) at several sampling locations across the site. DEH accepts the Report.
The Report states “Current PCE concentrations in the subsurface are well below levels of concern and are
expected to be effectively mitigated by a properly installed vapor mitigation system, which will protect future
occupants living at the Site.” The DEH does not agree with this statement. The current concentrations of PCE
reported beneath the site exceed the Environmental Screening Level (ESL) for both commercial and residential
land uses by one to two orders of magnitude and continue to represent a risk for vapor intrusion.
The Report also states “Both SVE wells (SVE-01 and SVE-02) will continue to operate with the system running.
A second rebound test is planned for later this year in anticipation that the results will show the PCE mass
remaining in the ground is no longer a significant threat to human health or the environment.” The DEH requires
written notification of when the SVE system will be shutdown to initiate a second rebound test. Please note that
in order to adequately demonstrate that soil vapor concentrations have reached equilibrium, the SVE
rebound monitoring period shall last a minimum of six months after SVE shutdown with a minimum of
three soil vapor sampling events during the rebound monitoring period.
One-Hour Dry Cleaners
October 20, 2025
Page 2 of 3
REQUIRED SUBMITTALS
You are required to submit the following documents to DEH (Attention: Mr. Aaron Costa) via GeoTracker
according to the following schedule.
3Q25 SVE Progress Report – October 31, 2025
Notification of SVE System Shutdown for Rebound Testing – Prior to SVE System Shutdown
Technical reports are required pursuant to our authority under Section 101480 of the California Health and Safety
Code. Each report shall include conclusions and recommendations for the next phases of work required to protect
water resources, human health and safety, and the environment at the site. All required work shall be performed
in a prompt and timely manner. Revisions to the schedule shall be requested at least two (2) weeks prior to the
due date in writing with appropriate justification for the anticipated delays and a proposed revised schedule.
The California Business and Professions Codes (Sections 6735,7835, and 7835.1) require work plans and
technical or implementation reports containing geologic or engineering evaluations and/or judgments must be
performed under the direction of an appropriately registered or certified professional.
PERJURY STATEMENT
All proposals and reports submitted to this office must be accompanied by a cover letter from the Responsible
Party which states, at a minimum, the following:
"I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the information and/or recommendations contained in
the attached proposal or report is true and correct to the best of my knowledge."
This letter must be signed by an officer or legally authorized representative of the Responsible Party. In the
future, reports that are either missing perjury statements, or include perjury statements that are not signed by a
legally authorized representative of the Responsible Party, will be denied by DEH.
ELECTRONIC DATA SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
You are required to electronically submit any report and data required by a regulatory agency for a cleanup site
in accordance with the Electronic Reporting Regulations (Chapter 30, Division 3 of Title 23 & Division 3 of Title
27, CCR). You are required to complete electronic data submittal over the Internet to the case file established for
the subject site in the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker database. Once a report and
data are successfully uploaded, as required, you have met the reporting requirement (i.e., the compliance measure
for electronic data submittal are the actual uploads themselves).
For additional details, please visit the following GeoTracker Reporting Requirements webpage:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ust/electronic_submittal/report_rqmts.html.
One-Hour Dry Cleaners
October 20, 2025
Page 3 of 3
If you have any questions, please contact me at (408) 918-1954 or via email.
Sincerely,
Aaron Costa
Supervising Hazardous Materials Specialist
Site Cleanup Program
aaron.costa@deh.sccgov.org
cc: Jeff Lawson, Silicon Valley Law Group, jsl@svlg.com
Jeff Raines, Terraphase Engineering, jeff.raines@terraphase.com
Gian Paolo Martire, City of Cupertino Planning, gianm@cupertino.gov
File – GeoTracker
Digitally signed
by Aaron Costa
Date: 2025.10.20
08:26:44 -07'00'
County of Santa Clara
Department of Environmental Health
Hazardous Materials Compliance Division
Site Mitigation Program
1555 Berger Drive, Suite 300
San Jose, CA 95112-2716
(408) 918-3400 FAX (408) 280-6479
Board of Supervisors: Sylvia Arenas, Cindy Chavez, Otto Lee, Susan Ellenberg, S. Joseph Simitian
County Executive: James R. Williams
August 14, 2024 APN: 369-06-002
Idlewild TIC Sent Via Electronic Mail Only
c/o Mr. Victor M. Castello (vcastello@redwoodeg.com)
PO Box 254, Saratoga, CA 95071
Re: Case Name: One-Hour Dry Cleaners
10045 East Estates Drive, Cupertino, CA 95014
Site Cleanup Program Case No. 2023-17S
GeoTracker ID No. T10000021095
Dear Mr. Castello:
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that your application for regulatory oversight under the County of Santa
Clara Department of Environmental Health (DEH) Site Cleanup Program has been approved, and the Remedial
Action Agreement has been fully executed. DEH has created a case file in the State Water Resources Control Board
online GeoTracker database, which will be used to store and review relevant environmental documents related to the
case. The GeoTracker case can be accessed online at http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ under the site address
10045 East Estates Drive, Cupertino, CA 95014, or the case name “One-Hour Dry Cleaners,” or GeoTracker Global
ID No. T10000021095.
To evaluate potential environmental risk related to your project, DEH requires a complete Conceptual Site Model
(CSM) to adequately characterize the nature and extent of contamination in soil, groundwater, and soil gas beneath
the site. To begin our review of the CSM, please upload to GeoTracker all relevant environmental documents for
review, such as Phase I and Phase II reports, and any other technical reports associated with the site.
Once all relevant environmental documents have been uploaded to GeoTracker, please submit the attached
verification letter to confirm all relevant environmental documents, such as Phase I and Phase II reports, and any
other technical reports associated with the site, including all historical reports used as references in submitted
reports, have been uploaded to GeoTracker. The verification letter shall list all documents uploaded to GeoTracker
for DEH review (please attach an additional page if necessary). At a minimum, each document title, author, and
document date shall be listed. Incomplete, draft, and unsigned reports shall not be accepted. If you need DEH
approval to obtain a City building permit, please also provide contact information for your City planner/inspector on
the verification letter. As indicated in the Remedial Action Agreement, review and response to technical documents
may take up to 45 days following submittal to GeoTracker; however, DEH will not begin review of the initial
documents until the verification letter is uploaded to GeoTracker.
Required Submittal
The following document shall be submitted to DEH (Attention: Mr. Gerald O’Regan) via GeoTracker according to
the following schedule.
GeoTracker Upload Verification Letter – Prior to the start of DEH review of the case file
Technical reports are required pursuant to our authority under Section 101480 of the California Health and Safety
Code. Each report shall include conclusions and recommendations for the next phases of work required to protect
One-Hour Dry Cleaners
August 14, 2024
Page 2 of 2
water resources, human health and safety, and the environment at the site. All required work shall be performed in a
prompt and timely manner. Revisions to the schedule shall be requested at least two (2) weeks prior to the due date
in writing with appropriate justification for the anticipated delays and a proposed revised schedule.
The California Business and Professions Codes (Sections 6735,7835, and 7835.1) require work plans and technical
or implementation reports containing geologic or engineering evaluations and/or judgments must be performed
under the direction of an appropriately registered or certified professional.
Perjury Statement
All proposals and reports submitted to this office must be accompanied by a cover letter from the Responsible Party
which states, at a minimum, the following:
"I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the information and/or recommendations contained in the
attached proposal or report is true and correct to the best of my knowledge."
This letter must be signed by an officer or legally authorized representative of the Responsible Party.
Electronic Data Submittal Requirements
The Electronic Reporting Regulations (Chapter 30, Division 3 of Title 23 & Division 3 of Title 27, CCR) require
electronic submission of any report and data required by a regulatory agency for a cleanup site. You are required to
complete electronic data submittal over the Internet to the case file established for the subject site in the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker database. Once a report and data are successfully uploaded, as
required, you have met the reporting requirement (i.e., the compliance measure for electronic data submittal are the
actual uploads themselves).
Analytical data (including geochemical data) for all soil, vapor, and water samples that are collected for the purpose
of subsurface investigation or remediation are required to be submitted in specified EDF format to GeoTracker.
Groundwater, soil, and vapor samples include, but are not limited to, monitoring well samples, borehole samples,
gas and vapor samples, groundwater grab samples, piezometer samples, stockpile samples, and samples from
drinking water wells. Other electronic data submittal requirements include boring logs and well screen intervals,
depth to water data, locational data, elevation data, and site maps. For additional details, please visit the following
GeoTracker Reporting Requirements webpage:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ust/electronic_submittal/report_rqmts.html.
I will be the DEH caseworker for this site, so please direct future correspondence to me. If you have any questions,
please feel free to contact me at (408) 918-1974 or via email.
Sincerely,
Gerald O’Regan, PG
Environmental Health Geologist
Site Cleanup Program
Gerald.Oregan@cep.sccgov.org
Attachment: GeoTracker Upload Verification Letter
cc: Jeff Lawson, Silicon Valley Law Group (jsl@svlg.com)
Jeff Raines, Terraphase Engineering (jeff.raines@terraphase.com)
File – GeoTracker
Gerald O'Regan Digitally signed by Gerald O'Regan
Date: 2024.08.14 16:11:08 -07'00'
Date: APN: 369-06-002
Subject: GeoTracker Upload Verification Letter
Case Name: One-Hour Dry Cleaners
10045 East Estates Drive, Cupertino, CA 95014
Site Cleanup Program Case No. 2023-17S
GeoTracker ID No. T10000021095
Dear Mr. O’Regan:
The following environmental documents have been uploaded to GeoTracker for your initial review and represent all
relevant technical reports associated with the site, including all historical reports used as references in other reports.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Contact info for City planner/inspector (if applicable).
City: Contact Name: Email:
I declare, under penalty of perjury, that this information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Sincerely,
Idlewild TIC
c/o Mr. Victor M. Castello (vcastello@redwoodeg.com)
PO Box 254, Saratoga, CA 95071