CC Resolution No. 22-022 Correct the administrative record for the Bateh Brothers development projectRESOLUTION NO. 22-022
A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
CORRECTING THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NINE (9) UNIT SINGLE-FAMILY HOME
DEVELOPMENT AND ONE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (ADU) LOCATED
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD (APN: 341-14-066, 342-14-104 & 105)
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
EA-2020-001
Alan Enterprises LLC
22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard;
APN#s 341-14-066, 342-14-104 & 105
WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino received an application for a Zoning Map Amendment,
Development Permit, Architectural and Site Approval, Use Permit, and Tentative Map,
to allow the development of a nine (9) unit single-family home development with one (1)
home containing an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) associated site and landscaping
improvements, and associated environmental review ("Project"); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970 (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA") and the State CEQA
Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.) ("CEQA
Guidelines"), the City prepared an Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration ("Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Project is described in the June 2021 "Public Draft Initial Study for the
22690 Stevens Creek Project ("Draft IS/MND"); and
WHEREAS, on July 16, 2021 the City issued a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated
Negative Declaration, distributed the Draft IS/MND for the project to responsible
agencies and the public, and posted the Draft IS/MND on the City's website for review
and comment for a 20-day period that ended August 5, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the Draft IS/MND concluded that environmental effects on Air Quality,
Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Noise, Tribal Cultural
Resources, and Utilities and Service Systems would be avoided or reduced to less-than-
significant levels by mitigation measures identified in the Draft IS/MND; and
WHEREAS, text revisions made after publication of the Draft IS/MND, which are found
in the October 2021 Final Initial Study, merely clarify, amplify or make insignificant
modifications to the Draft IS/MND, and recirculation of the IS/MND is not required; and
Resolution No. 22-022
Page2
WHEREAS, on October 28, 2021, the City of Cupertino's Environmental Review
Committee held a duly noticed public hearing to receive public testimony and reviewed
and considered the information contained in the Final IS/MND, and voted 5-0-0 that the
preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate for the proposed project;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission independently reviewed and considered the
correct Final IS/MND together with the comments and the responses to those comments
prior to taking action on the Project; and
WHEREAS, on November 23, 2021, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing to receive staff's presentation and public testimony, and to consider the
information contained in the Final IS/MND along with all staff reports, other pertinent
documents, and all written and oral statements received prior to and at the public
hearing, and recommended on a 4-1-0 (Wang no) vote, based on substantial evidence in
the record, that the City Council adopt the MND, adopt and incorporate into the Project
and implement as conditions of approval all of the mitigation measures for the project
that are identified in the IS/MND, and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has held at least one public hearing and independently
reviewed and considered the findings of the IS/MND as presented in Resolution No. 22-
007; and
WHEREAS, on January 13, 2022 prior to taking action on the Project, the City Council
held a duly noticed public hearing to receive staff's presentation and public testimony,
and to further consider the mitigation measures and conditions of approval adopted in
Resolution No. 22-007, along with all staff reports, other pertinent documents, and all
written and oral statements received prior to and at the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, on January 18, 2022, staff discovered that the IS/MND attached to the City
Council agenda packet for the January 13, 2022 special meeting was inadvertently one for
a development project being heard at the same meeting; and
WHEREAS, the conditions of approval adopted to implement the mitigation measures of
the IS/MND with Resolution No. 22-007 remain unchanged; and
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on February 1, 2022, the City Council considered this
resolution to correct the Administrative Record.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after consideration of the administrative record, the City Council:
2/8/22
Resolution No. 22-022
Page 3
1. Finds that the IS/MND prepared for the proposed development project is
appropriately added to the administrative record for the Project; and
2. Finds that all mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND were appropriately
adopted as Conditions of Approval of the project.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 1s t day of February, 2022 by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES: Paul, Chao, Moore, Wei, Willey
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SIGNED:
C;:1, ~ _L?
City of Cuperti
ATTEST:
~ .,J_~..;
Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk
-z../7 /--z,:;, -Z. "Z..
Date
Date
22690 STEVENS CREEK BLVD. ALAN ENTERPRISE, LLC
5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-7200
1562.001
08-06-2020
NORTH
JOB NO.
DATE
A1.03
ILLUSTRATED SITE PLAN
1
1 LOT NUMBER
UNIT TYPE
1 PARKING SPACE
5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-720022690 STEVENS CREEK BLVD.ALAN ENTERPRISE, LLC
JOB NO.1562-001
07-20-2020DATE
NORTHSITE PLAN 0 804020
22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard Project Initial Study
for the City of Cupertino
October 2021 | Final Draft Initial Study
Image Credit: Alan Enterprise, 2020.
Prepared By:
PlaceWorks
Berkeley, CA
510.848.3815
ORANGE COUNTY • BAY AREA • SACRAMENTO • CENTRAL COAST • LOS ANGELES • INLAND EMPIRE • SAN DIEGO
www.placeworks.com
22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard Project Initial Study
for the City of Cupertino
October 2021 | Final Draft Initial Study
PLACEWORKS i
FINAL DRAFT
Table of Contents
1.1 Initial Study ............................................................................................................................ 1-2
1.2 Tiering Process ....................................................................................................................... 1-2
1.3 Report Organization ............................................................................................................... 1-4
2.1 Initial Study Checklist ............................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .......................................................................... 2-2
2.3 Determination ........................................................................................................................ 2-2
2.4 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................................................................... 2-3
3.1 Project Location and Site Characteristics .............................................................................. 3-1
3.2 Project Components ............................................................................................................ 3-12
3.3 Required Permits and Approvals ......................................................................................... 3-27
4.1 Discussion of Environmental Evaluation ................................................................................ 4-1
I. Aesthetics ..................................................................................................................... 4-2
II. Air Quality .................................................................................................................... 4-5
III. Biological Resources .................................................................................................. 4-17
IV. Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................... 4-23
V. Energy ........................................................................................................................ 4-27
VI. Geology and Soils ....................................................................................................... 4-30
VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................ 4-35
VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................. 4-45
IX. Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................................... 4-53
X. Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................... 4-60
XI. Noise .......................................................................................................................... 4-62
XII. Population and Housing ............................................................................................. 4-72
XIII. Public Services ........................................................................................................... 4-74
XIV. Parks and Recreation ................................................................................................. 4-76
XV. Transportation ............................................................................................................ 4-79
XVI. Tribal Cultural Resources ........................................................................................... 4-86
XVII. Utilities and Service Systems ..................................................................................... 4-88
XVIII. Wildfire ....................................................................................................................... 4-98
XIX. Mandatory Findings of Significance ......................................................................... 4-102
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ii OCTOBER 2021
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data
Appendix B: Health Risk Assessment
Appendix C: Geotechnical Report
Appendix D: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix E: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix F: Noise Data
Appendix G: Transportation Data
In addition to these appendices, all documents cited in this report and used in its preparation are hereby
incorporated by refe rence into this Initial Study. Copies of documents referenced herein are available for
review at the City of Cupertino Community Development Department at 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino,
California 95014.
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3-1 Regional and Vicinity Map .................................................................................................. 3-2
Figure 3-2 Aerial View of Project Site and Surroundings..................................................................... 3-3
Figure 3-3 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................. 3-5
Figure 3-4 Conceptual Site Plan ......................................................................................................... 3-14
Figure 3-5 Detailed Site Plan .............................................................................................................. 3-15
Figure 3-6 Building Type 1 Elevation .................................................................................................. 3-16
Figure 3-7 Building Type 2 Elevation .................................................................................................. 3-17
Figure 3-8 Building Type 3 Elevation .................................................................................................. 3-18
Figure 3-9 Waste Management Vehicle Circulation Plan .................................................................. 3-19
Figure 3-10 Landscape Plan ................................................................................................................. 3-21
Figure 3-11 Street Lighting Plan ........................................................................................................... 3-22
Figure 3-12 Utility Plan ........................................................................................................................ 3-24
Figure 3-13 Stormwater Plan ............................................................................................................... 3-25
Figure 4-1 Temporary Noise Barrier Location .................................................................................... 4-68
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PLACEWORKS iii
FINAL DRAFT
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1 General Plan EIR, General Plan, and the Proposed Project Comparison Table ................. 1-4
Table 3 -1 Demolition and Construction ........................................................................................... 3-27
Table 4-1 Construction-Related Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Estimates .................................... 4-11
Table 4-2 Construction Risk Summary – Unmitigated ..................................................................... 4-13
Table 4-3 Construction Risk Summary – Mitigated .......................................................................... 4-14
Table 4 -4 Project Construction GHG Emissions ............................................................................... 4-37
Table 4 -5 Cupertino Climate Action Plan Consistency Matrix ......................................................... 4-41
Table 4 -6 Project-Related Construction Noise, L10 Noise Levels, dBA ............................................. 4-65
Table 4 -7 Project-Related Construction Noise, Energy-Average (Leq) Noise Levels, dBA ................. 4-66
Table 4-8 Construction Equipment Vibration Levels ........................................................................ 4-70
Table 4-9 Water Demand for the Proposed Project ......................................................................... 4-93
Table 4-10 Wastewater Demand for the Proposed Project ............................................................... 4-93
Table 4-11 Reasonably Foreseeable Development Projects in Cupertino ....................................... 4-104
Table 5-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ................................................................. 5-2
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
TABLE OF CONTENTS
iv OCTOBER 2021
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
This page intentionally left blank.
PLACEWORKS 1-1
FINAL DRAFT
Introduction
This document is an Initial Study for the 22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard Project (proposed project)
prepared by the City of Cupertino (City) to determine if the proposed project may have a significant effect
on the environment. This Initial Study was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) (Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq.). Pursuant to Section 15051 of the State CEQA
Guidelines,1 the City is the lead agency for the proposed project.
The project site is located on a 0.68-acre site that is proposed for redevelopment by Alan Enterprises (the
project applicant). The project site consists of three lots that are assigned Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 342-
14-066, -104, and -105. The site is located at 22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard, where Stevens Creek
Boulevard and South Foothill Boulevard intersect. The project site is surrounded by residential and office
uses to the north, residential uses and a gas service station with an auto repair shop to the east,
residential uses to the south, and residential uses and the Monta Vista Fire Station to the west. The site is
currently divided into three lots and is developed with a single commercial building occupied by a
convenience store and a paved asphalt parking lot on the eastern portion of the site. The remainder of
the property is an undeveloped dirt and gravel lot.
The proposed project would involve demolishing the existing commercial building and redeveloping the
project site with a residential project. The proposed project would include nine attached single-family
dwelling units (one of which would be an affordable housing unit), each with a two-car garage. An
accessory dwelling unit (ADU) would be included within one of the single-family buildings. Each building
would be three stories, for a maximum height of 30 feet at the roofline.
The General Plan Land Use for the project site is Commercial/Residential. The Commercial/Residential
land use designation allows primarily commercial uses and secondarily residential uses, or a combination
of the two. The project site is zoned Planned Development with General Commercial permitted (P(CG))
and would require a rezoning to allow residential land uses. The new zoning designation would be (P(CG,
Res)). The maximum height for development on the project site is 30 feet.2 A detailed description of the
proposed project is provided in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Initial Study.
1 The CEQA Guidelines are found in California Code of Regulations, Title, 14, Section 15000 et seq.
2 City of Cupertino General Plan (Community Vision 2015-2040), Chapter 3, Land Use, Figure LU-2, Community Form
Diagram, pages LU-16 and LU-17.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
INTRODUCTION
1-2 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
1.1 INITIAL STUDY
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, an Initial Study is a preliminary environmental analysis that is
used by the lead agency as a basis for determining what form of environmental review is required for a
project. The CEQA Guidelines require that an Initial Study contain a project description, description of
environmental setting, identification of environmental effects by checklist or other similar form,
explanation of environmental effects, discussion of mitigation for significant environmental effects,
evaluation of the project’s consistency with existing and applicable land use controls, and the name of
persons who prepared the study.
1.2 TIERING PROCESS
The CEQA concept of "tiering" refers to the evaluation of general environmental matters in a broad
program-level EIR, with subsequent focused or project-level environmental documents for individual
projects that implement the program. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15152 this Initial Study is
tiered from the City’s General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and associated Rezoning
Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that was certified by the Cupertino City Council in December
2014,3 and the subsequent addenda to the EIR that were approved by the City Council in October 2015,4
August 2019,5 and December 2019,6 together hereinafter “General Plan EIR.”
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 this Initial Study incorporates by reference the discussions
and analysis in the General Plan EIR.7 As previously stated, copies of documents referenced herein are
available for review at the City of Cupertino Community Development Department at 10300 Torre
Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014.
The analysis in this Initial Study concentrates on the project-specific issues pertaining to the proposed
22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard Project. CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines encourage the use of tiered
environmental documents to reduce delays and excessive paperwork in the environmental review
process. This is accomplished in tiered documents by eliminating repetitive analyses of issues that were
adequately addressed in the program EIRs and by incorporating those analyses by reference.
3 City of Cupertino, certified General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning EIR, State
Clearinghouse Number 2014032007. December 2014.
4 City of Cupertino, approved First Addendum to the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated
Rezoning EIR, State Clearinghouse Number 2014032007. October 2015.
5 City of Cupertino, approved Second Addendum to the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated
Rezoning EIR, State Clearinghouse Number 2014032007. August 2019.
6 City of Cupertino, approved Third Addendum to the General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated
Rezoning, State Clearinghouse Number 2014032007. December 2019.
7 Discussion is located in Chapter 3, Project Description, and Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, of this Initial Study.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
INTRODUCTION
PLACEWORKS 1-3
FINAL DRAFT
In order to determine whether the proposed project was part of the development that was examined in
the General Plan EIR, the following questions must be answered:
Is the proposed project included in the scope of the development projected and analyzed in the
General Plan EIR?
Is the project site in an area designated for Residential land uses in the General Plan and Planned
Development with a Residential Zoning District?
Are the changes to population and employment associated with the proposed project included
within the scope of the projections accounted for in the General Plan EIR?
Is the proposed project within the scope of the cumulative analysis in the General Plan EIR?
The General Plan EIR included an evaluation of the project site as potential Housing Element Site 8 (Bateh
Bros.), although the adopted General Plan did not designate this site as a Priority Housing Element Site.
The evaluation in the General Plan EIR assumed potential redevelopment of commercial and residential
uses with 35 maximum dwelling units and a maximum building height of 30 feet at the roofline.
The General Plan EIR evaluated a Zoning District change from Planned Development with General
Commercial (P(CG)) to Planned Development with General Commercial and Residential (P(CG, Res)) to
accommodate the construction of residential uses on-site. The project is consistent with the General Plan
land use designation, but because the City Council did not identify this as a Housing Element site, the
Zoning Map was not amended following the certification of the General Plan EIR. The approval of the
proposed project would require an amendment to the Zoning Map to allow residential uses on the project
site as proposed.
The cumulative impacts of past, present, and probable future development, in conjunction with overall
General Plan buildout, including residential development of the project site, were evaluated in the
General Plan EIR. Accordingly, this Initial Study tiers from the General Plan EIR pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15152 (Public Resources Code Section 21094).
Table 1 -1 identifies the development potential that was analyzed for the project site in the General Plan
EIR, what type of development the General Plan currently anticipates for the project site, and what is
proposed for the site as part of the project.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
INTRODUCTION
1-4 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
TABLE 1-1 GENERAL PLAN EIR, GENERAL PLAN, AND THE PROPOSED PROJECT COMPARISON TABLE
General Plan EIR a General Plan b Proposed Project
Reference Name Housing Element Site 8
(Bateh Bros.) N/A 22690 Stevens Creek
Boulevard
General Plan Land Use Commercial/Residential Commercial/Residential c Commercial/Residential
Zoning District
Planned Development with
General Commercial and
Residential (P(CG, Res)) d
Planned Development with
General Commercial (P(CG))
Planned Development with
General Commercial and
Residential (P(CG, Res))
Density 35 du/ac 15 du/ac e 13.2 du/ac f
Maximum Height 30 feet 30 feet e 29 feet 10.5 inches
Development
Potential Up to 19 residential units g Up to 11 residential units 9 residential units
1 accessory dwelling unit
Population h 56 32 28
Employees N/A i N/A 0 j
Notes:
a. Certified General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning EIR and Addenda, State Clearinghouse Number 2014032007.
December 2014, October 2015, August 2019, and December 2019.
b. City of Cupertino General Plan (Community Vision 2015 – 2040).
c. City of Cupertino Land Use Map adopted November 15, 2005 and amended August 20, 2019.
d. Although the General Plan EIR evaluated an amendment to the Zoning District from Planned Development with General Commercial (P(CG)) to Planned
Development with General Commercial and Residential (P(CG, Res)), the City did not change the Zoning Map at that time.
e. Chapter 2, Planning Areas, page PA-22 and PA-23; Chapter 3, Land Use and Community Design Element, page LU-16 and LU-17.
f. A density of 13.2 dwelling units per acre does not account for the density of the accessory dwelling units because an ADU is an accessory use for the
purposes of calculating allowable density and would not be counted as an additional unit pursuant to California Government Code Section 68582.2.
g. Although the site could accommodate up to 24 units based the 35 du/ac density, the General Plan EIR evaluated a realistic yield of 19 net units.
h. Estimates are based on the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) 2019 projections that show an average household size of 2.87 persons for
Cupertino in 2020. This is the standard approach for population estimates in Cupertino. Note that the 2.94 persons per household rate for year 2040 was
applied in the General Plan EIR. Based on a study completed by the Center for Community Innovation at University of California Berkeley in five Bay Area
communities, accessory dwelling units have an average household size of 1.5 persons per unit.
i. The General Plan EIR applied a generation rate of 450 square feet of commercial space per employee.
j. The proposed project could provide employment for intermittent staff for landscape, maintenance, childcare, etc., but no permanent employment
opportunities would be available on site.
Source: City of Cupertino, PlaceWorks, 2020.
1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION
This Initial Study is organized into the following chapters:
Chapter 1: Introduction. This chapter provides an introduction and overview of the Initial Study
document.
Chapter 2: Executive Summary. A summary of the pertinent details for the proposed project, including
lead agency contact information, proposed project location, and General Plan land use designation and
Zoning Districts are in this chapter. This chapter also summarizes the significant impacts that could occur
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
INTRODUCTION
PLACEWORKS 1-5
FINAL DRAFT
from construction and operation of the proposed project and identifies the mitigation measures
recommended to reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Chapter 3: Project Description. This chapter describes the location and setting of the proposed project,
along with its principal components, as well as a description of the policy setting and implementation
process for the proposed project.
Chapter 4: Environmental Analysis. Making use of the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Environmental
Checklist, this chapter identifies and discusses anticipated impacts from the proposed project, providing
substantiation of the findings made.
Chapter 5: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. This chapter lists the impacts found to be
significant and identifies the recommended mitigation measures categorized by impact area.
Chapter 6: Organizations and Persons Consulted. This chapter presents a list of City and other agencies
and consultant team members that contributed to the preparation of the Initial Study.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
INTRODUCTION
1-6 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
This page intentionally left blank.
PLACEWORKS 2-1
FINAL DRAFT
Executive Summary
2.1 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
1. Project Title: 22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard Project
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Cupertino Community Development Department
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Erick Serrano
Senior Planner
408-777-3205
4. Location: 22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Cupertino, CA 95014
5. Applicant’s Name and Address: Alan Enterprises LLC
1177 California Street, Suite 1821
San Francisco, CA 94108
6. General Plan Land Use Designations: Commercial/Residential
7. Zoning: Planned Development with General Commercial P(CG)
8. Description of Project: See Chapter 3, Project Description
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: See page 3-1 of Chapter 3, Project Description
10. Other Required Approvals: See page 3-36 of Chapter 3, Project Description
11. Have California Native American Tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area
requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation
begun?: The City received a request to be notified about projects in the city of Cupertino from the
Tamien Nation on May 28, 2021, because the city is within the geographic area with which they are
traditionally and culturally affiliated. The City has initiated the consultation process and the Tamien
Nation is included on the notification distribution list for this Initial Study.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2-2 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by the proposed project, involving
at least one impact that is a potentially significant impact, as shown in Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis,
of this Initial Study.
Aesthetics Agriculture & Forestry Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology & Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Hydrology & Water Quality Land Use & Planning Mineral Resources
Noise Population & Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities & Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of
Significance
2.3 DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the
project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant
unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in
an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that
earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Approved by: ___________________
Erick Serrano, Senior Planner Date
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 2-3
FINAL DRAFT
2.4 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Due to the location of the project site, the proposed project would have no impact on Agriculture,
Forestry, or Mineral Resources; therefore, these topics are not discussed in detail in the Initial Study. The
following lists the potentially significant impacts by topic that could occur from construction and
operation of the proposed project and identifies mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to a less-
than-significant level. All other topic areas were identified to have less-than-significant impacts. A detailed
discussion of the project’s impacts is provided in Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, of this Initial Study.
AIR QUALITY
Impact AQ-1: Fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) generated by the proposed project during construction could
potentially result in significant regional short-term air quality impacts without implementation of the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District’s best management practices related to reducing fugitive dust
emissions.
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: The project’s construction contractor shall comply with the following best
management practices for reducing construction emissions of fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) as required
by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Revised California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality
Guidelines:
Water all active construction areas at least twice daily, or as often as needed to control dust
emissions. Watering should be sufficient to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased
watering frequency may be necessary whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed
water should be used whenever possible.
Pave, apply water twice daily or as often as necessary to control dust, or apply (non-toxic) soil
stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites.
Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least 2
feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space between the top of the load and the top of the
trailer).
Sweep daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) or as often as needed all paved
access roads, parking areas and staging areas at the construction site to control dust.
Sweep public streets daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) in the vicinity of
the project site, or as often as needed, to keep streets free of visible soil material.
Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas.
Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt/sand).
Limit vehicle traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.
Vegetative ground cover shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered
appropriately until the vegetation is established.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2-4 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff from public roadways.
All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of
12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or moisture probe.
Impact AQ-2: The proposed project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations during construction.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2: During construction, the construction contractor(s) shall:
Use construction equipment that have engines that meet either United State Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) or California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 4 Interim emission standards
for off-road diesel-powered construction equipment with more than 25 horsepower, unless it can be
demonstrated to the City of Cupertino Building Division that such equipment is not available. Any
emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less
than what could be achieved by Tier 4 Interim emissions standards for a similarly sized engine, as
defined by the CARB’s regulations.
Prior to issuance of any construction permit, ensure that all construction plans submitted to the City
of Cupertino Planning Department and/or Building Division clearly show the requirement for Tier 4
Interim emission standards for construction equipment more than 25 horsepower.
Maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the project site for verification by the City of
Cupertino Building Division official or their designee. The construction equipment list shall state the
makes, models, and number of construction equipment on-site.
Ensure that all equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with manufacturer
recommendations.
Communicate with all sub-contractors in contracts and construction documents that all nonessential
idling of construction equipment is restricted to 5 minutes or less in compliance with CARB Rule 2449
and is responsible for ensuring that this requirement is met.
Impact AQ-3: Development on the project site could expose future residents to potential odors from non-
hazardous soil vapor contamination from the neighboring property at 22510 Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Mitigation Measure AQ-3: The project applicant shall install a vapor barrier beneath the concrete
foundation slab of the proposed residential buildings at the project site to mitigate potential odor risks
associated with concentration of non-hazardous soil vapor contamination. This mitigation measure shall
be identified on the permit application drawing set and as part of the construction drawing set, and shall
be implemented by the on-site Construction Manager.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact BIO-1: Demolition and construction activities could disturb active nests in trees at the residential
properties immediately adjacent to the project site to the south, and/or otherwise interfere with nesting
of birds protected under federal and State law.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 2-5
FINAL DRAFT
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Nests of raptors and other birds shall be protected when in active use, as
required by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code. The construction
contractor shall indicate the following on all construction plans, if construction activities and any required
tree removal occur during the breeding season (February 1 and August 31).
Preconstruction surveys shall:
Be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to tree removal or grading, demolition, or construction
activities. Note that preconstruction surveys are not required for tree removal or construction,
grading, or demolition activities outside the nesting period.
Be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the start of tree removal or construction.
Be repeated at 14-day intervals until construction has been initiated in the area after which
surveys can be stopped.
Document locations of active nests containing viable eggs or young birds.
Protective measures for active nests containing viable eggs or young birds shall be implemented
under the direction of the qualified biologist until the nests no longer contain eggs or young birds,
and the young have left the nest and are foraging independently, or the nest is no longer active.
Protective measures shall include:
Establishment of clearly delineated exclusion zones (i.e., demarcated by identifiable fencing, such
as orange construction fencing or equivalent) around each nest location as determined by the
qualified biologist, taking into account the species of birds nesting, their tolerance for disturbance
and proximity to existing development. In general, exclusion zones shall be a minimum of 300 feet
for raptors and 75 feet for passerines and other birds.
Monitoring active nests within an exclusion zone on a weekly basis throughout the nesting season
to identify signs of disturbance and confirm nesting status.
An increase in the radius of an exclusion zone by the qualified biologist if project activities are
determined to be adversely affecting the nesting birds. Exclusion zones may be reduced by the
qualified biologist only in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact CULT-1: The proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.
Mitigation Measure CULT-1: A tribal representative shall be permitted on-site at all times during ground
disturbance (including grading, demolition and/or construction) to monitor for potential prehistoric or
historic subsurface cultural resources. Notice shall be given to the Tribe in a manner requested by the
Tribe at least 48 hours before any ground disturbing activity. Prior to ground disturbance activities,
construction workers conducting the ground disturbing activities shall undergo cultural resource
sensitivity training conducted by the on-site tribal representative.
If any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered during ground-disturbing
(including grading, demolition and/or construction) activities:
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2-6 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
All work within 50 feet of the resources shall be halted, the City shall be notified, and a qualified
archaeologist and tribal representative shall be consulted. The contractor shall cooperate in the
recovery of the materials. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for
tribal cultural resources, historical resources or unique archaeological resources is being carried out.
The qualified archaeologist shall prepare a report for the evaluation of the resource to the California
Register of Historical Places and the City Building Department. The report shall also include
appropriate recommendations in collaboration with a tribal representative regarding the significance
of the find and appropriate mitigations as follows:
If the resource is a non-tribal resource, the archaeologist shall assess the significance of the find
according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.
If the resource is a tribal resource – whether historic or prehistoric – the consulting archaeologist
shall consult with the appropriate tribe(s) to evaluate the significance of the resource and to
recommend appropriate and feasible avoidance, testing, preservation, or mitigation measures, in
light of factors such as the significance of the find, proposed project design, costs, and other
considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) may be
implemented.
All significant non-tribal cultural materials recovered shall be, as necessary, and at the discretion of
the consulting archaeologist, subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and
documentation according to current professional standards.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impact GEO-1: Construction of the proposed project would have the potential to directly or indirectly
affect an unknown unique paleontological resource.
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: The construction contractor shall incorporate the following in all grading,
demolition, and construction plans:
In the event that fossils or fossil-bearing deposits are discovered during grading, demolition, or
building, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted.
The contractor shall notify the City of Cupertino Building Department and a City-approved qualified
paleontologist to examine the discovery.
The paleontologist shall document the discovery as needed, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology standards (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 1995), evaluate the potential resource,
and assess the significance of the finding under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5.
The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be
followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find.
If the project applicant determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare an
excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the proposed project based on the qualities that make the
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 2-7
FINAL DRAFT
resource important. The excavation plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior
to implementation.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impact HAZ-1: Demolition and construction activities could expose construction workers and the public to
hazardous materials during the construction phase.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: The project applicant shall prepare an Environmental Site Management Plan
(ESMP) in consultation with applicable agencies (e.g., the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB),
the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Santa Clara County Department of Environmental
Health (SCCDEH), or Santa Clara County Fire Department), if any, or in the alternative to the satisfaction of
the City based on a third-party peer review, as appropriate. The purpose of the ESMP is to protect
construction workers, the general public, the environment, and future site occupants from hazardous
materials previously identified at the site and to address the possibility of encountering unknown
contamination or hazards during demolition, grading, excavation, and construction activities. The ESMP
shall summarize soil and groundwater analytical data collected on the project site during past
investigations; identify management options for grading, if contaminated media are encountered during
grading; and identify monitoring, irrigation, or other wells requiring proper abandonment in compliance
with local, State, and federal laws, policies, and regulations.
The ESMP shall include measures for identifying, testing, and managing soil and groundwater suspected of
or known to contain hazardous materials. The ESMP shall: 1) provide procedures for evaluating, handling,
storing, testing, and disposing of soil and groundwater during project grading; 2) describe required worker
health and safety provisions for all workers potentially exposed to hazardous materials in accordance with
State and federal worker safety regulations; and 3) designate personnel responsible for implementation of
the ESMP.
NOISE
Impact NOISE-1: The proposed project could result in the generation of a substantial temporary increase
in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site during the construction phase that would be in
excess of standards established in the City of Cupertino Municipal Code.
Mitigation Measure NOISE-1: The following shall be incorporated in all activity phases and construction
plans, as required by the Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC). Construction activities shall take place only
during daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and due to the close proximity of the
adjacent residential land use to the south, construction may occur on the weekends, holidays or nighttime
only if a special exception has been granted by the City. In addition, the construction crew shall adhere to
the following best management practices:
At least 90 days prior to the start of any construction, demolition or grading activities, all off-site
businesses and residents within 300 feet of the project site will be notified of the planned activities.
The notification will include a brief description of the project, the activities that would occur, the
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2-8 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
hours when activity would occur, and the construction period’s overall duration. The notification
should include the telephone numbers of the contractor’s authorized representatives that are
assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint.
The project applicant and contractors shall prepare and submit a Construction Noise Control Plan to
the City’s Building Department and Code Enforcement for review and approval prior to issuance of
any grading, demolition, and/or building permits. The Construction Noise Plan shall demonstrate
compliance with the 80-dBA limit in the CMC. The details of the Construction Noise Control Plan,
including those details listed herein, shall be included as part of the permit application drawing set
and as part of the construction drawing set, shall be implemented by the on-site Construction
Manager, and shall include, but not be limited to, the following available controls to comply with the
80 dBA performance standard:
At least 10 days prior to the start of construction activities, a sign will be posted at the entrance(s)
to the job site, clearly visible to the public, which includes permitted construction days and hours,
as well as the telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives that
are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint. If the authorized
contractor’s representative receives a complaint, they will investigate, take appropriate corrective
action, and report the action to the City.
During the entire active construction period, equipment and trucks used for project construction
will utilize the best available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment re-
design, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or
shrouds), wherever feasible.
Include noise control requirements for equipment and tools, including concrete saws, to the
maximum extent feasible. Such requirements could include, but are not limited to, erecting
temporary plywood noise barriers between construction areas and nearby sensitive receptors;
performing work in a manner that minimizes noise; and undertaking the noisiest activities during
times of least disturbance to nearby sensitive receptors.
During the entire active construction period, stationary noise sources will be located as far from
sensitive receptors as possible, and they will be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, or
insulation barriers or other measures will be incorporated to the extent feasible.
Select haul routes that avoid the greatest amount of sensitive use areas and submit to the City of
Cupertino Public Works Department for approval prior to the start of the construction phase.
Signs will be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the on-site construction zones, and along
queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling. All other
equipment will be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes.
During the entire active construction period and to the extent feasible, the use of noise producing
signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells will be for safety warning purposes only. The
construction manager will use smart back-up alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level
based on the background noise level or switch off back-up alarms and replace with human
spotters in compliance with all safety requirements and law.
Prior to start of construction, erect a temporary noise barrier/curtain between the construction
zone and adjacent residences along the boundary (see Figure 4-1, Temporary Noise Barrier
Locations, of the Initial Study). The temporary sound barrier shall have a minimum height of 12
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PLACEWORKS 2-9
FINAL DRAFT
feet and be free of gaps and holes. The barrier can be (a) a ¾-inch-thick plywood wall OR (b) a
hanging blanket/curtain with a surface density or at least 2 pounds per square foot.
Impact NOISE-2: The proposed project could result in the generation of a substantial permanent increase
in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project during the operation phase that could be in excess of
standards established in the City of Cupertino Municipal Code.
Mitigation Measure NOISE-2: Mechanical equipment shall be selected and designed to reduce impacts on
surrounding uses to meet the Cupertino Municipal Code noise limits of 60 dBA and 50 dBA at residential
uses during daytime and nighttime, respectively, and 65 dBA and 55 dBA at non-residential sensitive uses
during daytime and nighttime, respectively. A qualified acoustical consultant shall be retained to review
mechanical noise as these systems are selected to determine specific noise reduction measures necessary
to reduce noise to comply with the City’s noise level requirements. Mechanical equipment shall be
selected and designed to reduce impacts on surrounding uses to meet the City’s noise level requirements.
Noise reduction measures could include, but are not limited to:
Selection of equipment that emits low noise levels;
Installation of noise dampening techniques, such as enclosures and parapet walls, to block the line-of-
sight between the noise source and the nearest receptors; or
Locating equipment in less noise-sensitive areas, where feasible.
Impact NOISE-3: The proposed project could result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration
in the vicinity of the project during the construction phase that would be in excess of established
thresholds.
Mitigation Measure NOISE-3: If paving activity during construction is required within 25 feet of nearby
residential structures, the use of a static roller in lieu of a vibratory roller shall be employed. Grading and
earthwork activities within 15 feet of adjacent residential structures shall be conducted with off-road
equipment that is limited to 100 horsepower or less. This mitigation measure shall be identified on the
permit application drawing set and as part of the construction drawing set, and shall be implemented by
the on-site Construction Manager.
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact TRC-1: The proposed project could cause a substantial adverse impact to an unknown Tribal
Cultural Resource.
Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Implement Mitigation Measure CULT-1.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2-10 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Impact UTIL-1: Implementation of the proposed project may result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve the proposed project, that it does not have adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.
Mitigation Measure UTIL-1: No building permits shall be issued by the City for the proposed 22690
Stevens Creek Boulevard Project that would result in exceeding the permitted peak wet weather flow
capacity of 13.8 mgd through the Santa Clara sanitary sewer system. The project applicant shall
demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City of Cupertino and Cupertino Sanitary District (CSD), that the
proposed project would not exceed the peak wet weather flow capacity of the Santa Clara sanitary sewer
system by implementing one or more of the following methods:
1. Reduce inflow and infiltration in the CSD system to reduce peak wet weather flows; or
2. Increase on-site water reuse, such as increased grey water use, or reduce water consumption of the
fixtures used within the proposed project, or other methods that are measurable and reduce sewer
generation rates to acceptable levels, to the satisfaction of the CSD.
The proposed project’s estimated wastewater generation shall be calculated using the generation rates
used by the CSD in the Flow Modeling Analysis for the Homestead Flume Outfall to the City of Santa Clara,
prepared by Mark Thomas & Co. Inc. dated December 6, 2019, unless alternative (i.e., lower) generation
rates achieved by the proposed project are substantiated by the project applicant based on evidence to
the satisfaction of the CSD. To calculate the peak wet weather flow for a 10-year storm event, the average
daily flow rate shall be multiplied by a factor of 2.95 as required by CSD pursuant to their December 2019
flow modeling analysis.
PLACEWORKS 3-1
FINAL DRAFT
Project Description
The project applicant, Alan Enterprises, is proposing the 22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard Project
(proposed project) that would involve demolishing the existing commercial building, and construction and
operation of a residential project with nine single-family attached dwelling units and one accessory
dwelling unit on an 0.68-acre site that is divided into three lots. The site is currently developed with a
convenience store and paved surface parking. A portion of the site is an unpaved (dirt and gravel) lot.
This chapter provides a detailed description of the proposed project, including the location, setting, and
characteristics of the project site, the principal project features, construction phasing and schedule, as
well as a list of the required permits and approvals.
3.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
3.1.1 REGIONAL LOCATION
As shown on Figure 3-1, the project site is in the city of Cupertino located in the northwestern portion of
Santa Clara County. Cupertino is roughly 45 miles south of San Francisco and 13 miles west of downtown
San José. Interstate 280 (I-280) and State Route 85 (SR 85) provide regional access to the project site.
3.1.2 LOCAL SETTING
The project site is located at 22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard on the southwest corner at the intersection
of Stevens Creek Boulevard and South Foothill Boulevard. As shown on Figure 3-2, the project site is
surrounded by residential and office uses to the north, residential uses and a gas service station with an
auto repair shop to the east, residential uses to the south, and residential uses and the Monta Vista Fire
Station to the west. South Foothill Boulevard to the east of the project site, Stevens Creek Boulevard to
the north of the project site, and Camino Vista Drive to the west of the project site are both two-lane
roadways.
The City parks nearest to the project site are Monta Vista Park to the south; Varian Park to the northeast;
McClellan Ranch Preserve to the southeast; and Linda Vista Park to the southeast. Additional information
on parks is provided in Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, in Section XIV, Parks and Recreation.
0 0.450.225
Miles
P
San
Francisco
Bay
%&'(280
%&'(880 %&'(680
San Jose
Hayward
Cupertino
(/101
Milpitas
Palo
Alto
|ÿ17 (/101
Santa
Cruz
Gilroy
%&'(280
PROJECT SITE
|ÿ85
Santa Clara
County
City of Cupertino
Project Site
Cupertino City Limit
Stevens Creek Blvd
So
u
t
h
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
B
l
v
d
City of Sunnyvale
Stevens Creek Blvd
0 0.450.225
Miles
P
San
Francisco
Bay
%&'(280
%&'(880 %&'(680
San Jose
Hayward
Cupertino
(/101
Milpitas
Palo
Alto
|ÿ17 (/101
Santa
Cruz
Gilroy
%&'(280
PROJECT SITE
|ÿ85
Santa Clara
County
City of Cupertino
Project Site
Cupertino City Limit
Stevens Creek Blvd
So
u
t
h
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
B
l
v
d
City of Sunnyvale
Stevens Creek Blvd
Source: ESRI, 2017; PlaceWorks, 2020.
Figure 3-1
Regional and Vicinity Map
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PLACEWORKS
22690 STEVENS CREEK BLVD. ALAN ENTERPRISE, LLC
5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-7200
1562.001
03-06-2020
NORTH
JOB NO.
DATE
A1.01
SITE AERIAL
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
CA
M
I
N
O
V
I
S
T
A
D
R
I
V
E
SO
U
T
H
F
O
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
NO
R
T
H
F
O
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
Source: Dahlin, 2020.
Project Site
Project Site
Figure 3-2
Aerial View of the Project Site and Surroundings
Monta Vista
Fire Station
Arcadia
Veterinary
Clinic
Cupertino
Auto Care
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS
2 2 6 9 0 S TE V E NS C RE E K B O UL E V ARD PR O JE CT I NI TI AL STUD Y
C ITY O F CUPE RTI NO
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-4 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
Public schools near the project site within the Fremont Union High School District are Monta Vista High
School to southeast of the project site. Public schools near the project site within the Cupertino Union
School District are Stevens Creek Elementary School to the northeast, and John F. Kennedy Middle School
to the southeast of the project site. Each public school is approximately 1 mile from the project site.
Private schools and/or educational facilities near the project site are Saint Joseph of Cupertino School
approximately 2 miles to the east, Futures Academy of Cupertino approximately 3 miles to the east,
Bethel Lutheran School approximately 3.5 miles to the east, Archbishop Mitty High School approximately
4 miles to the east, Pinewood School approximately 4 miles to the northwest, and Waldorf School of the
Peninsula approximately 4 miles to the northwest. Other sensitive8 land uses near the project site are the
Sunny View Bay Area Retirement Community approximately 0.2 miles to the north, Cupertino Healthcare
and Wellness nursing home approximately 0.3 miles to the south, and Cupertino Senior Center
approximately 1.3 miles to the east.
The major employment centers within approximately 1 to 2 miles of the project site are the Bubb Road
Special Area and De Anza College to the east, and the Permanente Quarry (Lehigh Cement Company) and
Stevens Creek Quarry, Inc. to the southwest.
The nearest public airports are San José International Airport, approximately 8 miles to the northeast, and
Palo Alto Airport, approximately 9.5 miles to the north. The nearest heliports are McCandless Towers
Heliport, approximately 7 miles to the northeast, and County Medical Center Heliport, approximately 7.5
miles to the east. The nearest private (military/corporate) airport is Moffett Federal Airfield, approximately
7 miles to the north. The project site is not located within the boundaries of any airport land use plan.
3.1.3 EXISTING SITE SETTING
SITE CHARACTER
As shown on Figure 3-3, the site is developed with a single structure: a single-story, approximately 2,400
square-foot commercial building with a convenience store and an associated paved and unpaved (gravel)
surface parking adjacent to South Foothill Boulevard. In 1939, the site was occupied by an orchard, and
the orchard trees were gradually cleared from the site between the period of 1939 and 1950. According
to the Department of Toxic Substance Control, when orchards have been removed or became inactive
prior to 1950 organic pesticides are not an issue warranting further testing.9 Review of the historical data
available for the site reveals that the development of the site in its current form most likely took place
between 1950 and 1956.10 Due to the age of the existing building, it may contain asbestos-containing
materials or lead-based paint, which were not regulated in construction until the early 1970’s.
8 Sensitive resources in this context refers to uses or receptors that are most vulnerable to air and noise pollution.
9 California Department of Toxic Substances Control California Environmental Protection Agency, Interim Guidance for
Sampling Agricultural Properties, page 3, August 7, 2008.
10 Achievement Engineering Corp., 2019, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for 22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard,
Cupertino, California, pages 2 and 3, July 29.
Source: Dahlin, 2020. BKF, 2020.
Figure 3-3
Existing Conditions
0
Scale (Feet)
60
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS
2 2 6 9 0 S TE V E NS C R E E K B O UL E V ARD PR O JE C T I NI TI AL STUD Y
C ITY O F CUPE RTI NO
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-6 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
The building is not currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places or the list of California
Historical resources.11
The project site is surrounded by residential and office uses to the north, residential uses and a gas station
and auto repair shop to the east, residential uses to the south, and residential uses and the Monta Vista
Fire Station to the west.
VEGETATION AND LANDCOVER
Using data from the Classification and Assessment with Landsat of Visible Ecological Groupings (CALVEG)12
habitat mapping program, the site is classified as an “urban area.” Property with this classification tends to
have low to poor wildlife habitat value due to replacement of natural communities, fragmentation of
remaining open space areas and parks, and intensive human disturbance. Although there are no trees or
other landscaping features on the project site, according to the Vegetation Map shown in the
Environmental Resources and Sustainability Element of the General Plan, the project site is within the
urban forest (i.e., trees in the city).13 The City recognizes that every tree on both public and private
property is an important part of Cupertino's urban forest and contributes significant economic,
environmental, and aesthetic benefits of the community.14
The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) has no record of special-status plant or animal species
on the project site, but does show there are special-status plant and animal species within a 5-mile area
surrounding the project site. Special-status species have been recorded in the open space areas in the
project vicinity.
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Projection (CAL FIRE) designated the project site as a Local
Responsibility Area (LRA) and a non-very high fire hazard severity zone. The project site is near lands that
CAL FIRE designates as a State Responsibility Area (SRA), which are approximately 1 mile to the west of
the project site.15 The project site is 0.2 miles to the east of the wildland-urban interface, which is an area
of transition between wildland (unoccupied land) and land with human development (occupied land).16
11 California Office of Historic Preservation. 2019. California Historical Resources. Accessed June 4, 2020 at
http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ListedResources/?view=county&criteria=43.
12 The CALVEG system was initiated in January 1978 by the Region 5 Ecology Group of the US Forest Service to classify
California’s existing vegetation communities for use in statewide resource planning. CALVEG maps use a hierarchical classification
on the following categories: forest; woodland; chaparral; shrubs; and herbaceous.
13 City of Cupertino General Plan (Community Vision 2015-2040), Chapter 6, Environmental Resources and Sustainability
Element, Figure ES-1.
14 City of Cupertino, Tree Protection and Tree Removal link on the City’s website, Accessed June 4, 2020 at
https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/community-development/planning/residential-development/tree-protection-
tree-removal.
15 CAL FIRE. 2008. VHSZ Viewer
https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/
16 CAL FIRE. 2018. Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Threat.
http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=d45bf08448354073a26675776f2d09cb, accessed June 4, 2020.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-7
FINAL DRAFT
The site is generally flat with an average elevation of 386 feet above mean sea level with a general
topographic gradient of north-northeast.17 The surficial geology is young, unconsolidated Quaternary
alluvium,18 which is described as Holocene-age younger alluvium and coarse-grained alluvium that are
composed of unconsolidated, poorly sorted gravel, silt, sand, clay, and organic matter. No paleontological
resources have been identified on the project site; however, the presence of Pleistocene deposits that are
known to contain fossils indicates that the overall city, including the project site, could contain
paleontological resources.19
Stormwater from the site drains to City-maintained storm drains in Stevens Creek Boulevard and South
Foothill Boulevard that collect runoff from city streets and carry it to the creeks that run through
Cupertino to the San Francisco Bay. The project site is within an area where some of the storm drains are
deficient in conveying the water from a 10-year storm, based on the 2018 Storm Drain Master Plan.
3.1.4 LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS
GENERAL PLAN
The site is in the Other Non-Residential/Mixed-Use Special Area20 and a Neighborhood Center. 21 The site
is at the northeast corner of the Inspiration Heights Neighborhood at the four-corner intersection where
the Oak Valley, Creston-Pharlap, the Monta Vista North Neighborhood meet.22 The site has a General Plan
land use designation of Commercial/Residential.23 A description of these designations is provided below.
Other Non-Residential/Mixed-Use Special Areas
The City has designated Special Areas along four major mixed-use corridors in the city, which are
designated in the General Plan as key areas within Cupertino where future development and reinvestment
will be focused. In addition to the Special Areas, the Other Non-Residential/Mixed-Use Special Area
include four designated areas and all other nonresidential properties not referenced in an identified
commercial area. The project site is at one of the four key areas identified as the intersection of South
Foothill Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard.24 The vision for the Other Non-Residential/Mixed-Use
17 Achievement Engineering Corp., 2019, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for 22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard,
Cupertino, California, page 2, July 29.
18 US Geological Survey, 1994, Preliminary Quaternary Geologic Maps of Santa Clara Valley, Santa Clara, Alameda, and San
Mateo Counties, California: A Digital Database, Open-File Report 94-231, by E.J. Helley, R.W. Graymer, G.A. Phelps, P.K.
Showalter, and C.M. Wentworth.
19 City of Cupertino, certified General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning EIR, (December
2014) State Clearinghouse Number 2014032007 (October 2015), and approved Addenda (October 2015, July 2019, August 2019,
and December 2019).
20 City of Cupertino General Plan (Community Vision 2015-2040), Chapter 2, Planning Areas, page PA-15.
21 City of Cupertino General Plan (Community Vision 2015-2040), Chapter 3, Land Use and Community Design Element,
Figure LU-1, Community Form Diagram, page LU-17.
22 City of Cupertino General Plan (Community Vision 2015-2040), Chapter 2, Planning Areas, Figure PA-2, Neighborhoods,
page PA-18.
23 City of Cupertino Land Use Map adopted November 15, 2005 and amended August 20, 2019.
24 City of Cupertino General Plan (Community Vision 2015-2040), Chapter 2, Planning Areas, page PA-23
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-8 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
Special Area in the Planning Areas Element (Chapter 2) states that neighborhood centers within the Other
Non-Residential/Mixed-Use Special Areas should be redeveloped using the “Neighborhood Commercial
Center” concept described in the Land Use and Community Design Element (Chapter 3) of the General
Plan. However, developing using only this concept is not mandatory.25 The vision also describes buildings
in the Neighborhood Centers should be typically one to two stories in height but may be up to three
stories in some instances where it is allowed.26 The maximum residential density within Neighborhood
Centers identified in the Community Form Diagram is 15 dwelling units per acre.27
Inspiration Heights Neighborhood
Cupertino has 12 distinct neighborhoods that are each unique in their location, development pattern,
identity, and access to community services. While the Inspiration Heights neighborhood is in the western
foothills of Cupertino, the project site is in the lower elevation portions of the neighborhood that is
urbanized. The project site is in the northeastern corner of this neighborhood on Stevens Creek and
Foothill Boulevards, which provides a transition with the three other adjoining neighborhoods on the
valley floor. The vision for this neighborhood, as described in the General Plan, is to continue to be a low-
intensity and hillside residential area.28 Future development should consider preservation of hillsides,
riparian corridors, and plant and animal wildlife habitat through sensitive site and building design.29
Commercial/Residential Land Use Designation
The Commercial/Residential land use designation allows primarily commercial uses and secondarily
residential uses or a compatible combination of the two uses.30 Commercial use means retail sales,
businesses, limited professional offices, and service establishments with direct contact with customers.
This land use designation applies to commercial activities ranging from neighborhood convenience stores
to regionally oriented specialty stores. Retail stores that would be a nuisance for adjoining neighborhoods
or harmful to the community identity would be regulated by Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) Chapter
19.60, General Commercial Zones, and the associated commercial zoning ordinance use permit
procedures. Smaller commercial parcels in existing residential areas, such as the project site, may be
needed to provide local neighborhood serving retail; otherwise, they may be redeveloped at residential
densities compatible with the surroundings. As previously stated, the maximum residential density on the
project site is 15 dwelling units per acre.31
25 City of Cupertino General Plan (Community Vision 2015-2040), Chapter 2, Planning Areas, page PA-15.
26 City of Cupertino General Plan (Community Vision 2015-2040), Chapter 2, Planning Areas, Vision, page PA-15.
27 City of Cupertino General Plan, Community Vision 2040, Chapter 3, Land Use, Figure LU-2, Community Form Diagram,
pages LU-16 and LU-17.
28 City of Cupertino General Plan (Community Vision 2015-2040), Chapter 2, Planning Areas, Vision, page PA-24 and PA-25.
29 City of Cupertino General Plan (Community Vision 2015-2040), Chapter 3, Land Use and Community Design Element,
Inspiration Heights Neighborhood, page LU-75.
30 City of Cupertino General Plan (Community Vision 2015-2040), Appendix A: Land use definitions, Planning Areas, page A-
4.
31 City of Cupertino General Plan, Community Vision 2040, Chapter 3, Land Use, Figure LU-2, Community Form Diagram,
pages LU-16 and LU-17.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-9
FINAL DRAFT
ZONING DISTRICT
The project site is within the Planned Development with General Commercial (P(CG)) zoning district. As
described in CMC Section 19.80.010, the Planned Development zoning district is intended to provide a
means of guiding land development or redevelopment of the city that is uniquely suited for planned
coordination of land uses. Development in this zoning district provides for a greater flexibility of land use
intensity and design because of accessibility, ownership patterns, topographical considerations, and
community design objectives.32 CMC Chapter 19.80 also allows a project proponent to propose
development standards for their specific project.
All Planned Development districts are identified on the zoning map with the letter coding "P" followed by
a specific reference to the general type of use allowed in the particular planning development zoning
district. The type of use allowed on the project site is General Commercial (CG), which allows commercial
uses such as retail food, drug, apparel, or hardware stores, full-service restaurants, professional and
commercial office services, laundry facilities, non-auto related repair services, and personal services,
along with several other specialty uses.33
The proposed designation of General Commercial with Residential uses (CG, Res), which is consistent with
the General Plan land use designation for the site, is a district in which uses are intended to be a mix of
general commercial and residential.34 The proposed project requires a zoning amendment to allow
residential uses on the project site. This is discussed further, below, in Section 3.2, Project Components.
OTHER REQUIREMENTS
Setback Standards
The proposed project is a housing project that would rezone the project site to Planned Development with
General Commercial and Residential uses (P(CG, Res). Accordingly, the proposed project would be subject
to CMC Chapter 19.80, Planned Development (P) Zoning District, which requires residential projects to
meet the multifamily residential development standards for residential projects. However, pursuant to
CMC Chapter 19.80, the Planned Development Zoning District allows a project proponent to propose
zoning setbacks different from those required in the underlying Zoning District to allow flexibility in the
project, as long as these are approved by the City Council. In any case, the setbacks in the Zoning Code or
the setbacks proposed by the project, the project site must adhere to the General Plan requirement of
maintaining sufficient space for adequate light, requirement for air and visibility at intersections, and the
requirement for general conformity to yard requirements of adjacent or nearby zones, lot, or parcels. The
General Plan does not have any applicable setback requirements for this property.
32 City of Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 19, Zoning, Chapter 19.80, Planned Development, Section 19.80.010, Purpose.
33 City of Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 19, Zoning, Chapter 19.60, General Commercial, Section 19.60.030, Permitted,
Conditional and Excluded Uses in General Commercial Zoning Districts.
34 City of Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 19, Zoning, Chapter 19.80, Planned Development, Section 19.80.030,
Establishment of Districts- Permitted and Conditional Uses.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-10 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
Landscape Ordinance
CMC Chapter 14.15, Landscape Ordinance, implements the California Water Conservation in Landscaping
Act of 2006 by establishing new water-efficient landscaping and irrigation requirements. Any building or
landscape project that involves more than 2,500 square feet of landscape area is required to submit a
Landscape Project Submittal to the Director of Community Development for approval. Existing and
established landscaped areas greater than 1 acre in size, including cemeteries, are required to submit
water budget calculations and audits of established landscapes.35
Bird Safe Design Ordinance
The City of Cupertino draft Bird Safe Design Ordinance, adds CMC Chapter 19.102, Glazing and Lighting
Standards, which contains specific building and site design measures to reduce bird mortality from
windows or other specific glass features known to increase the risk of bird collisions and to reduce light
pollution known to contribute to bird mortality and reduced visibility of the night sky. These requirements,
once adopted, would be applicable to any project that is required to obtain a building permit or a Permit
pursuant to Title 19, Zoning, including the proposed project.
CMC Section 19.102.030, Bird-safe Development Requirements, includes:
Glass requirements for new or replacement windows of twelve square feet or more and facades
requiring no more than 10 percent of the surface area of the façade be untreated glass between
the ground and 60 feet above ground. Treatments can include opaque glass, window muntins,
exterior insect screens, exterior netting, or special glass treatments such as fritting to provide
visual cues and reduce the likelihood of bird collisions.
Indoor lighting requirements to program automatic sensors and timer to turn off at 11:00 p.m.,
within two hours after business closes, or the addition of filtering with the use of interior or
exterior blinds.
Design requirements to avoid funneling of flight paths along buildings or trees to building facades;
avoid use of highly reflective glass or highly transparent glass; and avoid glass skyways or
walkways, freestanding glass walls, transparent building corners, or other design elements where
trees, landscaping, water features, or the sky is visible form the exterior.
CMC Section 19.102.140, Outdoor Lighting Requirements, includes requirements to reduce light pollution
throughout the city. These requirements prohibit outdoor lighting that blinks, flashes, or rotates; outdoor
lighting that projects above the horizontal plan; lighting that unnecessarily illuminates other lots or
interferes with the enjoyment of that lot; high-intensity discharge lighting for recreation courts or private
property; and spotlights.
Outdoor lighting that is not prohibited, must abide by the following:
All outdoor light much be fully shielded fixtures directed downward to meet the particular need
and away from adjacent properties.
35 City of Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 14, Streets, Sidewalks and Landscaping, Chapter 14.15, Landscape Ordinance.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-11
FINAL DRAFT
Illumination levels cannot exceed one foot-candle onto an adjacent property and maximum light
intensity cannot exceed a maintained value of ten foot-candles when measured at finished grade.
All light sources must have a maintained correlated color temperature of 3,000 Kelvin or less.
All outdoor lighting must be turned off by 11:00 p.m. or when people are no longer present in
exterior areas, except for security lighting required and designed according to the California
Building Code.
Automated control systems should be used to meet lighting requirements.
Lighting design must compliment building and landscaping, and fixtures must be appropriate in
height, intensity, and scale to the use.
UTILITIES AND ENERGY
Energy Conservation
The California Green Building Standards Code (Part 11, Title 24, known as “CALGreen”) was adopted as
part of the California Building Standards Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations) to apply to the
planning, design, operation, construction, use, and occupancy of every newly constructed building or
structure, unless otherwise indicated in the California Building Standards Code, throughout the State of
California.36 CALGreen established planning and design standards for sustainable site development, energy
efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation requiring new
buildings to reduce water consumption by 20 percent, material conservation, and internal air
contaminants. The local building permit process enforces the building efficiency standards. CMC Chapter
16.58, Green Building Standards Code, adopts the CALGreen requirements and makes it part of the CMC
along with local amendments for projects in the city. The City’s Green Building Ordinance contains
mandatory, minimum required green building techniques, including measures affecting water use
efficiency and water conservation.
CMC Sections 16.58.100 through 16.58.220 set forth the standards for green building requirements by
type of building. As shown on Table 101.10 in CMC Section 16.58.220, single- and multi-family homes
equal to or less than nine homes are required to meet CALGreen Building Code in accordance with
CALGreen’s minimum thresholds. CMC Section 16.58.230 permits applicants to apply an alternate green
building standard for a project in lieu of the minimum standards outlined in CMC Section 16.58.220 that
meet the same intent of conserving resources and reducing solid waste.
The California Energy Code (Part 6, Title 24) was adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code
(Title 24) to reduce wasteful and unnecessary energy consumption in newly constructed and existing
buildings. The City of Cupertino has adopted the California Energy Code, with local amendments, as CMC
Chapter 16.54, Energy Code. CMC Section 16.54.100(2), Scope for Newly Construction Building, requires
all newly constructed buildings to be All-Electric Buildings. All-Electric Buildings are defined as a building
that has no natural gas or propane plumbing installed within the building, and that uses electricity as the
36 California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11, January 1, 2020, California Green Buildings Standards Code,
https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAGBSC2019/copyright.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-12 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
sole source of energy for its space heating, water heating.37 The City is currently in the process of
approving reach codes, which will go above California Energy Code requirements to reduce energy and
water, and associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Solid Waste Reduction
Consistent with CALGreen, CMC Chapter 16.72, Recycling and Division of Construction and Demolition
Waste, requires that a minimum of 65 percent of all non-hazardous construction and demolition debris
must be recycled or salvaged and that all applicants have a waste management plan for on-site sorting of
construction debris. Additionally, in December 2017, the City adopted a Zero Waste Policy. According to
the Zero Waste Policy, the City will require, through the City’s waste hauling franchise agreement,
steadfast and ongoing efforts by the City’s franchisee to maintain a minimum residential and commercial
waste diversion rate of 75 percent with a goal of reaching and maintaining 80 percent by 2025.
Water Quality
CMC Chapter 9.18, Storm Water Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection provides regulations and
gives legal effect to the Municipal Regional Storm Water National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Permit (MRP) issued to the City. This chapter also ensures ongoing compliance with the most
recent version of the City’s MRP regarding municipal storm water and urban runoff requirements. This
chapter applies to all water entering the storm drain system generated on any private, public, developed,
and undeveloped lands within the city. The CMC contains permit requirements for construction projects
and new development or redevelopment projects to minimize the discharge of storm water runoff.
3.2 PROJECT COMPONENTS
The project applicant proposes to redevelop the project site with a nine-unit, single-family attached
residential (and one accessory dwelling unit) development with associated amenities, infrastructure, and
landscaping. Conceptual and detailed site plans are shown on Figures 3-4 and 3-5. The following sections
provide a detailed description of the key project components. A complete set of preliminary site plans are
available on the City’s website at www.cupertino.org/22690scb and at the City of Cupertino Community
Development Department at 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014.
3.2.1 PROPOSED BUILDINGS
The proposed project would include nine attached single-family dwelling units that would range in size
from 1,767 to 3,045 square feet. The single-family dwelling unit located on the corner of Stevens Creek
Boulevard and South Foothill Boulevard would have an ADU that would be approximately 336 square feet.
The proposed project would include four separate building types; two buildings would have three
attached units (Type 1), one building would have two attached units (Type 2), and one building would be a
37 City of Cupertino Municipal Code, Section 16.54.110, Definitions and Rules of Construction.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-13
FINAL DRAFT
single unit (Type 3). Each residential building would have its own private deck and porch area ranging from
210 square feet to 639 square feet per unit for a total of 2,739 square feet of private outdoor space. The
proposed project includes 1,475 square feet of common open space located at the southeast corner of
the site. All residential buildings would front the northern and eastern perimeter of the project site along
Stevens Creek Boulevard and South Foothill Boulevard, respectively. Each dwelling unit would have an
attached two-car garage that would front the internal roadway network between the new homes and the
adjacent residential properties to the south. The proposed project would also provide a 5-foot landscape
buffer between the internal roadway and the existing adjacent homes to the south. See Figures 3-4 and 3-
5. The proposed residential buildings would be three stories tall and 29 feet and 10.5 inches at the
roofline. Figures 3-6 through 3-8 illustrate the elevations of each building type.
3.2.2 POPULATION AND EMPLOYEE ESTIMATES
Based on an average household size of 2.87 persons,38 the proposed units would generate 26 net new
residents.39 Based on the average ADU household size of 1.5 persons,40 the proposed ADU would generate
2 new residents.41 In total, the project would generate 28 new residents. There are no existing residential
units on the site and the commercial building is currently vacant. The proposed project does not include
any commercial uses, but a future homeowners association, required by the City, could employ landscape
and maintenance personnel for the common areas of the development. It is anticipated that future
residents would be drawn largely from Cupertino and other communities in the San Francisco Bay Area.
3.2.3 CIRCULATION AND ACCESS
VEHICULAR ACCESS
As shown on Figures 3-4 and 3-5 (see above), direct access to the proposed internal roadway on the
project site would be from Camino Vista Drive to the west off of Stevens Creek Boulevard and from South
Foothill Boulevard to the east. The internal roadway would have a two-way, two -lane entrance/exit
circulation pattern between these two access points on South Foothill Boulevard and Camino Vista Drive.
Drivers entering from or exiting to South Foothill Boulevard or Camino Vista Drive may do so by turning
either left or right. The project access points would not change the existing three-way (or “t”) intersection
at Stevens Creek Boulevard/Camino Vista Drive or the intersection at Stevens Creek Boulevard/South
Foothill Boulevard. Proposed emergency access would be the same as the proposed vehicle access. Waste
management would follow a one-way truck route shown in Figure 3-9, with entry access from South
Foothill Boulevard and exit access to Camino Vista Drive.
38 This analysis is based on the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) 2019 projections of the average household size
of 2.87 persons for Cupertino in 2020. This is the standard approach for population and housing analysis in Cupertino.
39 9 new units multiplied by 2.87 persons per unit equals 25.83 new residents.
40 Chapple, Karen; Jake Wegmann; Alison Nemirow; Colin Dentel-Post. June 2012. Yes in My Backyard: Mobilizing the Market
for Secondary Units. The Center for Community Innovation, UC Berkeley.
https://communityinnovation.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/yes_in_my_backyard_mobilizing_the_market_for_secondary_unit
s.pdf?width=1200&height=800&iframe=true.
41 1 ADU multiplied by 1.5 persons per unit equals 1.5 new residents.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BLVD. ALAN ENTERPRISE, LLC
5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-7200
1562.001
08-06-2020
NORTH
JOB NO.
DATE
A1.03
ILLUSTRATED SITE PLAN
STEVENS CREEK BLVD.
CA
M
I
N
O
V
I
S
T
A
D
R
.
S
F
O
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
.
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8
9
1 1 1
1
1
2 2 3
BLDG.
TYPE 1
BLD
G
.
TY
P
E
2
COMMON
OPEN SPACE
10'-1"
2ND FL.
O.H.
20
'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
20
'
-
0
"
5'
-
2
1
/
2
"
9'
-
0
"
18'-0"
10
'
-
0
"
13'-1"
1ST FL.
12'-5"
BLDG.
43'-8"
51'-8 1/2"
42
'
-
0
"
83'-3"83'-3"
14'-0"
4'
-
0
"
1S
T
F
L
.
62
'
-
2
"
4'
-
0
"
32'-10"
44
'
-
7
"
BUILDING/UNIT 3
18
'
-
0
"
9'-0"
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
FOR CORNER
TRIANGLE
DIMENSIONS
SEE CIVIL
DRAWINGS
FOR CORNER
TRIANGLE
DIMENSIONS
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR
DIMENSIONS OF STREET
PARKING, PLANTING STRIP,
AND LANDSCAPE AREA
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
FOR EXTENT OF
COMMON LOT
5'
-
0
"
BL
D
G
.
41
'
-
2
"
5'
-
0
"
BL
D
G
.
5'
-
0
"
BL
D
G
.
5'
-
0
"
BL
D
G
.
5'-0"
BLDG.
5'-0"
BLDG.
5'
-
2
"
BL
D
G
.
8'
-
1
"
BL
D
G
.
3'
-
5
"
DE
C
K
O
.
H
.
8'
-
1
"
BL
D
G
.
3'
-
5
"
DE
C
K
O
.
H
.
3'
-
0
"
2N
D
F
L
.
O
.
H
.
3'
-
1
1
"
1S
T
F
L
.
1'
-
6
"
2N
D
F
L
.
O
.
H
.
1'
-
6
"
2N
D
F
L
.
O
.
H
.
4'
-
0
"
1S
T
F
L
.
2'
-
0
"
2N
D
F
L
.
O
.
H
.
4'
-
0
"
1S
T
F
L
.
BLDG.
TYPE 1 4'
-
0
"
1S
T
F
L
.
1'
-
6
"
2N
D
F
L
.
O
.
H
.
1'
-
6
"
2N
D
F
L
.
O
.
H
.
4'
-
0
"
1S
T
F
L
.
2'
-
0
"
2N
D
F
L
.
O
.
H
.
4'
-
0
"
1S
T
F
L
.
4'-0"
1ST FL.
1'-6"
2ND FL. O.H.
4'-0"
1ST FL.
1'-6"
2ND FL. O.H.
4'-0"
O.H.
TO ⅊
4'-0"
O.H.
TO ⅊
4'-0"
O.H.
TO ⅊
4'-0"
O.H.
TO ⅊
13'-0"
3'
-
6
"
O.
H
.
TO
⅊
3'
-
6
"
5'
-
1
"
1
1 LOT NUMBER
UNIT TYPE
1 PARKING SPACE
5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-720022690 STEVENS CREEK BLVD.ALAN ENTERPRISE, LLC
JOB NO.1562-001
07-20-2020DATE
NORTHSITE PLAN 0 804020
1 2 3
4
5
6
7
8
22690 STEVENS CREEK BLVD. ALAN ENTERPRISE, LLC
5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-7200
1562.001
03-06-2020
NORTH
JOB NO.
DATE
A1.03
ILLUSTRATED SITE PLAN
STEVENS CREEK BLVD.CAMINO VISTA DR.S FOOTHILL BLVD.112345678911111223BUILDING TYPE 1BUILDING TYPE 1BUILDING TYPE 2BUILDING/UNIT 3
COMMON
OPEN SPACE
10'-1"5'-0"
20
'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
4'-0"20'-0"5'-2 1/2"
9'
-
0
"
18'-0"7'-0"5'-0"3'-6"3'-6"10'-0"13'-1"10'-5"43'-8"51'-8 1/2"42'-5 1/2"8'-0"83'-3"83'-3"10'-0"14'-0"45'-2"4'-0"62'-2"4'-0"
32'-10"
44'-7"
1
1 LOT NUMBER
UNIT TYPE
1 PARKING SPACE
5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-720022690 STEVENS CREEK BLVD.ALAN ENTERPRISE, LLC
JOB NO.1562-001
02-21-2020DATE
NORTHSITE PLAN 0 804020
123456
7
8
Source: Dahlin, 2020.
Figure 3-4
Conceptual Site Plan
0
Scale (Feet)
40
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS
2 2 6 9 0 S TE V E NS C RE E K B O UL E V ARD PR O JE CT I NI TI AL STUD Y
C ITY O F CUPE RTI NO
22690 STEVENS CREEK BLVD. ALAN ENTERPRISE, LLC
5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-7200
1562.001
08-06-2020
NORTH
JOB NO.
DATE
A1.04
TECHNICAL SITE PLAN
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8
9
1 1 1
1
1
2 2 3
BLDG.
TYPE 1
BLD
G
.
TY
P
E
2
COMMON
OPEN SPACE 20
'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
20
'
-
0
"
5'
-
2
1
/
2
"
9'
-
0
"
18'-0"
10
'
-
0
"
.
12'-5"
BLDG.
43'-8"
51'-8 1/2"
42
'
-
0
"
83'-3"83'-3"
14'-0"
4'
-
0
"
1S
T
F
L
.
62
'
-
2
"
4'
-
0
"
32'-10"
44
'
-
7
"
BUILDING/UNIT 3
18
'
-
0
"
9'-0"
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
FOR CORNER
TRIANGLE
DIMENSIONS
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR
DIMENSIONS OF STREET
PARKING, PLANTING STRIP,
AND LANDSCAPE AREA
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
FOR EXTENT OF
COMMON LOT
5'
-
0
"
BL
D
G
.
41
'
-
2
"
5'
-
0
"
BL
D
G
.
5'
-
0
"
BL
D
G
.
5'
-
0
"
BL
D
G
.
5'-0"
BLDG.
5'-0"
BLDG.
5'
-
2
"
BL
D
G
.
8'
-
1
"
BL
D
G
.
3'
-
5
"
DE
C
K
O
.
H
.
8'
-
1
"
BL
D
G
.
3'
-
5
"
DE
C
K
O
.
H
.
3'
-
0
"
2N
D
F
L
.
O
.
H
.
3'
-
1
1
"
1S
T
F
L
.
1'
-
6
"
2N
D
F
L
.
O
.
H
.
1'
-
6
"
2N
D
F
L
.
O
.
H
.
4'
-
0
"
1S
T
F
L
.
2'
-
0
"
2N
D
F
L
.
O
.
H
.
4'
-
0
"
1S
T
F
L
.
BLDG.
TYPE 1 4'
-
0
"
1S
T
F
L
.
1'
-
6
"
2N
D
F
L
.
O
.
H
.
1'
-
6
"
2N
D
F
L
.
O
.
H
.
4'
-
0
"
1S
T
F
L
.
2'
-
0
"
2N
D
F
L
.
O
.
H
.
4'
-
0
"
1S
T
F
L
.
4'-0"
1ST FL.
1'-6"
2ND FL. O.H.
4'-0"
1ST FL.
1'-6"
2ND FL. O.H.
4'-0"
O.H.
TO ⅊
4'-0"
O.H.
TO ⅊
4'-0"
O.H.
TO ⅊
4'-0"
O.H.
TO ⅊
13'-0"
3'
-
6
"
O.
H
.
TO
⅊
3'
-
6
"
5'
-
1
"
1
1 LOT NUMBER
UNIT TYPE
1 PARKING SPACE
5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-7200RPRISE, LLC
JOB NO.1562-001
07-20-2020DATE
NORTH0 804020
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8
9
1 1 1
1
1
2 2 3
BLDG.
TYPE 1
BLD
G
.
TY
P
E
2
COMMON
OPEN SPACE
10'-1"
2ND FL.
O.H.
20
'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
20
'
-
0
"
5'
-
2
1
/
2
"
9'
-
0
"
18'-0"
10
'
-
0
"
13'-1"
1ST FL.
12'-5"
BLDG.
43'-8"
51'-8 1/2"
42
'
-
0
"
83'-3"83'-3"
14'-0"
4'
-
0
"
1S
T
F
L
.
62
'
-
2
"
4'
-
0
"
32'-10"
44
'
-
7
"
BUILDING/UNIT 3
18
'
-
0
"
9'-0"
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
FOR CORNER
TRIANGLE
DIMENSIONS
SEE CIVIL
DRAWINGSFOR CORNER
TRIANGLE
DIMENSIONS
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR
DIMENSIONS OF STREET
PARKING, PLANTING STRIP,
AND LANDSCAPE AREA
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGSFOR EXTENT OF
COMMON LOT
5'
-
0
"
BL
D
G
.
41
'
-
2
"
5'
-
0
"
BL
D
G
.
5'
-
0
"
BL
D
G
.
5'
-
0
"
BL
D
G
.
5'-0"
BLDG.
5'-0"
BLDG.
5'
-
2
"
BL
D
G
.
8'
-
1
"
BL
D
G
.
3'
-
5
"
DE
C
K
O
.
H
.
8'
-
1
"
BL
D
G
.
3'
-
5
"
DE
C
K
O
.
H
.
3'
-
0
"
2N
D
F
L
.
O
.
H
.
3'
-
1
1
"
1S
T
F
L
.
1'
-
6
"
2N
D
F
L
.
O
.
H
.
1'
-
6
"
2N
D
F
L
.
O
.
H
.
4'
-
0
"
1S
T
F
L
.
2'
-
0
"
2N
D
F
L
.
O
.
H
.
4'
-
0
"
1S
T
F
L
.
BLDG.
TYPE 1 4'
-
0
"
1S
T
F
L
.
1'
-
6
"
2N
D
F
L
.
O
.
H
.
1'
-
6
"
2N
D
F
L
.
O
.
H
.
4'
-
0
"
1S
T
F
L
.
2'
-
0
"
2N
D
F
L
.
O
.
H
.
4'
-
0
"
1S
T
F
L
.
4'-0"
1ST FL.
1'-6"
2ND FL. O.H.
4'-0"
1ST FL.
1'-6"
2ND FL. O.H.
4'-0"
O.H.
TO ⅊
4'-0"
O.H.
TO ⅊
4'-0"
O.H.
TO ⅊
4'-0"
O.H.
TO ⅊
13'-0"
3'
-
6
"
O.
H
.
TO
⅊
3'
-
6
"
5'
-
1
"
1
1 LOT NUMBER
UNIT TYPE
1 PARKING SPACE
5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-72000 STEVENS CREEK BLVD.ALAN ENTERPRISE, LLC
JOB NO.1562-001
07-20-2020DATE
NORTHTE PLAN 0 804020
STEVENS CREEK BLVD.
CA
M
I
N
O
V
I
S
T
A
D
R
.
S
F
O
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
.
ZONING:
Existing:
Proposed:
DENSITY:
max. allowed
proposed
Front Yard:10 feet (to back of proposed walk)
Side Yard:
Interior Side (ground floor): 14 feet (between buildings)
Interior Side (upper floors): 2739 sq. ft (between buildings)
Street Side (ground floor): 12 feet (to back of proposed walk)
Street Side (upper floors): 10 feet (to back of proposed walk)
Rear Yard:29 feet (to adjacent residential)
Front Yard:10 feet (to back of proposed walk)
Side Yard:
Interior Side (ground floor): 8 feet (between buildings)
Interior Side (upper floors): 6 feet (between buildings)
Street Side (ground floor): 10 feet (to back of proposed walk)
Street Side (upper floors): 10 feet (to back of proposed walk)
Rear Yard:82 feet (to adjacent residential)
Front Yard:N/A
Side Yard:
Interior Side (ground floor): 12 feet (between buildings)
Interior Side (upper floors): 10 feet (between buildings)
Street Side (ground floor): 12 feet (to back of proposed walk)
Street Side (upper floors): 10 feet (to back of proposed walk)
Rear Yard:N/A
Required: 60 sq. ft. per unit
Unit type 1 280 sq. ft. (porch & deck)
Unit type 2 210 sq. ft. (porch & deck)
Unit type 3 639 sq. ft. (porch & deck)
Total Provided:2739 sq. ft 304.33 average sq. ft. per unit
Required: 1350 sq. ft.150 SF / Unit
(excluding setback areas)
Provided:1475 sq. ft.163 SF / Unit
(excluding setback areas)
Height:30 feet 3-stories
Total Required: 26 spaces 2.8/DU (2 garage + 0.8 open)
Covered Spaces:18 spaces (2 garage spaces per unit)
Surface Spaces:8 spaces (0.8 x 9 = 7.2 spaces)
Total Provided:26 spaces (2.88 spaces per unit)
1 unit provided unit #2
AFFORDABLE UNITS:
P-RES (Residential)
GC (General Commercial)
15 du/ac
11.5 du/ac
COMMON OUTDOOR SPACE:
PARKING:
BUIDLING HEIGHT:
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
SETBACKS:
ALONG STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
ALONG S FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
PRIVATE OUTDOOR SPACE:
ALONG CAMINO VISTA DRIVE
1 2 3
4
5
6
7
8 LOT #LOT AREA
(SF)
FLOOR AREA
(SF)FAR LOT
COVERAGE
1 1977 2971 1.50 53.57%
2 1058 2231 2.11 74.10%
3 1760 2971 1.69 60.17%
4 1760 2971 1.69 60.17%
5 1058 2231 2.11 74.10%
6 1660 2971 1.79 63.80%
7 3262 3598 1.10 43.44%
8 1688 2971 1.76 62.74%
9 1667 2971 1.78
63.53%
LOT AREA
(SF)
FLOOR AREA
(SF)FAR LOT
COVERAGE
27,506 21,609 0.79 33.95%
(NET)
LOT AREAS / FAR / COVERAGE
TOTAL
PROJECT
Source: Dahlin, 2020. BKF, 2020.
Figure 3-5
Detailed Site Plan
0
Scale (Feet)
60
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS
2 2 6 9 0 S TE V E NS C RE E K B O UL E V ARD PR O JE CT I NI TI AL STUD Y
C ITY O F CUPE RTI NO
22690 STEVENS CREEK BLVD. ALAN ENTERPRISE, LLC
5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-7200
1562.001
08-06-2020
NORTH
JOB NO.
DATE
A1.10
BUILDING TYPE 1 ELEVATIONS
P.L.
P.L.
P.L.
P.L.
FRONT ELEVATION
REAR ELEVATION RIGHT ELEVATIONLEFT ELEVATION
UNIT 1UNIT 1
UNIT 2 UNIT 1
UNIT 1 UNIT 2
UNIT 1
UNIT 1
1/4” = 1’-0”
29’-10 1/2” TOP OF GRADE
TO TOP OF ROOF FRAMING
1’ - 2’ PARAPET FOR
ARTICULATION OF ROOF LINE
ALUMINUM SIDINGSTONE VENEERDECORATIVE METAL RAILING STUCCO
STUCCO
NOTE: SEE LANDSCAPE SHEETS FOR
PRIVACY SCREENING TREES PLANTED
ALONG PROPERTY LINES. THE
SARATOGA LAUREL TREES REACH
ABOVE 30’ AT MATURITY AND ARE
ON THE CITY’S LIST OF ACCEPTABLE
SCREENING TREES. ADITIONALLY,
ALL WINDOWS OF PROPOSED
HOMES ARE A MINIMUM OF 30’ AWAY
FROM PROPERTY LINES OF ANY
NEIGHBORING SIDE OR REAR YARDS.
2ND FLOOR WINDOW SILL HEIGHT:
13’ MIN. ABOVE GRADE
3RD FLOOR WINDOW SILL HEIGHT:
22’ MIN. ABOVE GRADE
South Elevation
North ElevationWest Elevation East Elevation
Source: Dahlin, 2020.
Figure 3-6
Building Type 1 Elevation
0
Scale (Feet)
16
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS
2 2 6 9 0 S TE V E NS C RE E K B O UL E V ARD PR O JE CT I NI TI AL STUD Y
C ITY O F CUPE RTI NO
22690 STEVENS CREEK BLVD. ALAN ENTERPRISE, LLC
5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-7200
1562.001
08-06-2020
NORTH
JOB NO.
DATE
A1.12
BUILDING TYPE 2 ELEVATIONS
P.L.
P.L.
FRONT ELEVATION
REAR ELEVATION RIGHT ELEVATIONLEFT ELEVATION
UNIT 1 UNIT 1
1/4” = 1’-0”
29’-10 1/2” TOP OF GRADE
TO TOP OF ROOF FRAMING
1’ - 2’ PARAPET FOR
ARTICULATION OF ROOF LINE
ALUMINUM SIDINGSTONE VENEERDECORATIVE METAL RAILING STUCCO
STUCCO
NOTE: SEE LANDSCAPE SHEETS FOR
PRIVACY SCREENING TREES PLANTED
ALONG PROPERTY LINES. THE
SARATOGA LAUREL TREES REACH
ABOVE 30’ AT MATURITY AND ARE
ON THE CITY’S LIST OF ACCEPTABLE
SCREENING TREES. ADITIONALLY,
ALL WINDOWS OF PROPOSED
HOMES ARE A MINIMUM OF 30’ AWAY
FROM PROPERTY LINES OF ANY
NEIGHBORING SIDE OR REAR YARDS.
2ND FLOOR WINDOW SILL HEIGHT:
13’ MIN. ABOVE GRADE
3RD FLOOR WINDOW SILL HEIGHT:
22’ MIN. ABOVE GRADE
West Elevation
East ElevationSouth Elevation North Elevation
Source: Dahlin, 2020.
Figure 3-7
Building Type 2 Elevation
0
Scale (Feet)
16
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS
2 2 6 9 0 S TE V E NS C RE E K B O UL E V ARD PR O JE CT I NI TI AL STUD Y
C ITY O F CUPE RTI NO
22690 STEVENS CREEK BLVD. ALAN ENTERPRISE, LLC
5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-7200
1562.001
08-06-2020
NORTH
JOB NO.
DATE
A1.14
UNIT 3 ELEVATIONS
FRONT ELEVATION
REAR ELEVATION RIGHT ELEVATIONLEFT ELEVATION
1/4” = 1’-0”
29’-10 1/2” TOP OF GRADE
TO TOP OF ROOF FRAMING
1’ - 2’ PARAPET FOR
ARTICULATION OF ROOF LINE
ALUMINUM SIDINGSTONE VENEERDECORATIVE METAL RAILING STUCCO
STUCCO
NOTE: SEE LANDSCAPE SHEETS FOR
PRIVACY SCREENING TREES PLANTED
ALONG PROPERTY LINES. THE
SARATOGA LAUREL TREES REACH
ABOVE 30’ AT MATURITY AND ARE
ON THE CITY’S LIST OF ACCEPTABLE
SCREENING TREES. ADITIONALLY,
ALL WINDOWS OF PROPOSED
HOMES ARE A MINIMUM OF 30’ AWAY
FROM PROPERTY LINES OF ANY
NEIGHBORING SIDE OR REAR YARDS.
2ND FLOOR WINDOW SILL HEIGHT:
13’ MIN. ABOVE GRADE
3RD FLOOR WINDOW SILL HEIGHT:
22’ MIN. ABOVE GRADE
South Elevation
North ElevationWest Elevation East Elevation
Source: Dahlin, 2020.
Figure 3-8
Building Type 3 Elevation
0
Scale (Feet)
16
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS
2 2 6 9 0 S TE V E NS C RE E K B O UL E V ARD PR O JE CT I NI TI AL STUD Y
C ITY O F CUPE RTI NO
5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-720022690 STEVENS CREEK BLVD.ALAN ENTERPRISE, LLC
JOB NO.1562-001
08-05-2020DATE
NORTH
1730 N. FIRST STREET, SUITE 600
SAN JOSE, CA 95112
PRELIMINARY TRASH TRUCK CIRCULATION PLAN
C7.0
Source: Dahlin, 2020. BKF, 2020.
Figure 3-9
Waste Management Vehicle Circulation Plan
0
Scale (Feet)
60
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS
2 2 6 9 0 S TE V E NS C RE E K B O UL E V ARD PR O JE CT I NI TI AL STUD Y
C ITY O F CUPE RTI NO
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-20 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ACCESS
Class II bike lanes currently exist on both sides of South Foothill Boulevard and on the north side of
Stevens Creek Boulevard along the length of the project site. The proposed project would include the
extension of a new Class II bike lane along the southern side of Stevens Creek Boulevard along the length
of the project site.42 The proposed project would include construction of sidewalks along the perimeter of
the project site, alongside Stevens Creek Boulevard, Camino Vista Drive and South Foothill Boulevard. See
Figures 3-4 through 3-5 (previously shown) display site perspectives of the proposed site along with
placement of the proposed sidewalks. These sidewalks would provide pedestrian access to the site.
Pedestrians would also have access to the site from the existing crosswalks on Stevens Creek Boulevard
connecting to South Foothill Drive.
3.2.4 LANDSCAPING
The project would include 10,608 square feet of landscaping and 9,454 square feet of pervious
landscaped surfaces. Figure 3-10 illustrates the landscaping plan. The project site includes landscaping
throughout the project site’s interior, the site perimeter, and in the common open space areas. For
neighborhood privacy, required privacy plantings would occur along the property edge. Trees and other
landscaping would be planted along Camino Vista Drive, Stevens Creek Boulevard, and South Foothill
Boulevard as well as along the internal driveway. As stated above in Section 3.1.4, Land Use and Zoning
Designations, the project is required to submit a Landscape Project Submittal for approval by the City.
The proposed landscaping would be consistent with the surrounding Northern California landscape and
would include native and/or adaptive and drought resistant plant materials of similar water use grouped
by hydrozones, which are areas where plants are organized based on similar water use.43 The majority of
plantings would be drought tolerant grasses, shrubs, and trees that, once established, are adapted to a
dry summer and intermittent rain in the winter season. There would also be appropriate landscaping in
the bioretention area required by the City’s Municipal Regional Permit.
3.2.5 LIGHT, GLARE, AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
As shown in Figure 3-11, the source, intensity, and type of exterior street lighting for the project site
would generally be provided for the purpose of orienting residents and their visitors and for safety needs
along the streets and sidewalks. All permanent on-site lighting would be low-level illumination, downward
directed and shielded to reduce light spill or glare into surrounding residential homes. In landscaped
areas, light sources would be concealed and not visible from a public viewpoint. Unless used for safety, all
outside lighting would be turned off by 11:00 p.m. All exterior surface and above-ground mounted
fixtures would be complementary to the architectural theme and to the surrounding residential uses.
42 Class II Bikeways are bike lanes for bicyclists that are generally adjacent to the outer vehicle travel lanes and have special
lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Class III Bike Routes are designated roadways for bicycle use by signs or other
markings may or may not include additional pavement width for cyclists
43 The California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance defines a hydrozone as a portion of the landscaped area having
plants with similar water needs.
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
CA
M
I
N
O
V
I
S
T
A
D
R
I
V
E
16
7
0
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
A
L
G
A
R
A
G
E
D
R
.
16
7
0
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
A
L
G
A
R
A
G
E
D
R
.
1670 SECTIONAL GARAGE DR.1670 SECTIONAL GARAGE DR.1670 SECTIONAL GARAGE DR.1670 SECTIONAL GARAGE DR.
STREET TREE ON
CAMINO VISTA DRIVE
(CHINESE PISTACHE)
STORMWATER BASIN PLANTING
AREAS ALONG FRONTAGE MINOR ACCENT TREES
(REDBUDS)
SHRUB PLANTING ALONG DRIVEWAY
STANDARDIZED SHRUB
BETWEEN DRIVEWAYS
(INDIA HAWTHORN)
PRIMARY ACCENT TREES
(SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA)
PEDESTAL-MOUNT
CHARCOAL GRILLS
(2 TOTAL)
LOW ACCENT PLANTING
AT WALKWAY ENTRIES ORNAMENTAL GRASSES
ALONG PARKWAY STRIP
PRIVATE GARDEN AREA ENCLOSED
WITH LOW ARCHITECTURAL WALL
SPREADING GROUND
COVER PLANTING
(LANTANA)
18 FT. SQUARE OVERHEAD WOOD
SHADE TRELLIS
DECORATIVE PAVER GATHERING
AREA W/ STEPSTONE 'SONORASTONE'
SQUARE PERCAST PAVERS
LAWN AREA (402 SQ. FT.)
STORMWATER BASIN PLANTING
AREAS ALONG FRONTAGE
STORMWATER
BASIN PLANTING
FLOWERING SHRUBS
(PURPLE SAGE)
MINOR FLOWERING
ACCENT TREE
(REDBUD)
SPREADING GROUND
COVER PLANTING AT
THE PROJECT ENTRIES
(LANTANA)
BROADLEAF EVERGREEN TREES
ALONG PROPERTY LINE @ 10 FT. O.C.
(SARATOGA LAUREL)
SHRUB PLANTING ALONG DRIVEWAY
SPREADING GROUND
COVER PLANTING
(LANTANA)
PRIMARY ACCENT TREES
(FLOWERING PEARS)
STORMWATER BASIN
AREA ALONG FRONTAGE
STORMWATER BASIN
AREAS ALONG FRONTAGE
SCREEN PLANTING AT
TRANSFORMER
DECORATIVE BOLLARD
LIGHTS ALONG PATHWAY
POLE-MOUNTED LIGHT
FIXTURE (16 FT. POLE)
BIKE RACK LOCATION
(PARKING FOR 2 BIKES)
ALL GROUND PLANE PLANTING
IN SIGHT LINE AREAS TO BE
30" MAX. HT. (TYPICAL)
BROADLEAF EVERGREEN TREES
ALONG PROPERTY LINE @ 10 FT. O.C.
(SARATOGA LAUREL)
STORMWATER PLANTERS
IN PARKWAY STRIP (TYP.)
EXISTING 6 FT. HT. WOOD FENCE TO REMAIN
EXISTING 6 FT. HT. WOOD FENCE TO REMAIN
EXISTING 8 FT. HT. WOOD FENCE TO REMAIN
4 FT. WIDE CONCRETE
SURFACE FOR ACCESS
FROM PARALLEL PARKING
STALLS ALONG CURB
11'-6"
DECORATIVE PAVING AT PEDESTRIAN
CROSSWALK (SEE IMAGE)
MEDIUM HEIGHT SHRUBS
ALONG BUILDING FOUNDATIONS
STREET LIGHT
STREET LIGHT
STORMWATER BASIN
PLANTING
DECORATIVE STAMPED PAVING
AT DRIVEWAY (SEE IMAGE)
DECORATIVE STAMPED PAVING
AT DRIVEWAY (SEE IMAGE)
AL
A
N
R
O
W
22
6
9
0
S
T
E
V
E
N
S
C
R
E
E
K
B
L
V
D
.
CU
P
E
R
T
I
N
O
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
Th
o
m
a
s
B
a
a
k
&
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
L
L
P
Ph
:
9
2
5
.
9
3
3
.
2
5
8
3
16
2
0
N
o
r
t
h
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
,
S
u
i
t
e
4
Wa
l
n
u
t
C
r
e
e
k
,
C
A
9
4
5
9
6
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
P
L
A
N
L1
GENERAL NOTES:
1. ALL PLANTING SHALL BE WATERED BY A FULLY AUTOMATIC, WATER-CONSERVING
IRRIGATION SYSTEM W/ WEATHER-BASE CONTROLLER.
2. ALL PLANTING AREAS (EXCEPT STORMWATER BASINS) SHALL RECEIVE A 3" LAYER
OF FIRBARK MULCH DRESSING.
3. STORMWATER BASINS (BOTTOMS) SHALL RECEIVE A 2" LAYER OF RIVERWASHED
PEBBLES.
4. PROPOSED TREES TO ALL BE 15 GALLON SIZE.
5. PLANTING FOR STORMWATER BASIN PLANTERS SELECTED FROM THE
SANTA CLARA VALLEY STORMWATER GUIDEBOOK SUGGESTED PLANT LIST.
6. LANDSCAPE PLAN IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY STANDARDS:
SIGNED:________________________
BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE SPACING
STEVENS CREEK BLVD. STREET TREE (WULCOS MEDIUM WATER USE)
ACER BEURGERIANUM TRIDENT MAPLE 15 GAL +40 FT. O.C.
CAMINO VISTA DRIVE STREET TREE (WUCOLS LOW WATER USE)
PISTACIA CHINENSIS CHINESE PISTACHE 15 GAL N/A
FOOTHILL BLVD. STREET TREE (WUCOLS LOW WATER USE)
QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA CALIFORNIA LIVE OAK 15 GAL 30 FT. O.C.
BROADLEAF EVERGREEN TREE (WUCOLS LOW WATER USE)
LAURUS NOBILIS 'SARATOGA' SARATOGA LAUREL 24" BOX 10 FT. O.C.
PRIMARY ACCENT TREE (WUCOLS MEDIUM WATER USE)
MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA 24" BOX VARIES
MINOR ACCENT TREE (WUCOLS LOW WATER USE)
CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS (STANDARD) WESTERN REDBUD 15 GAL VARIES
STANDARDIZED SHRUB (WUCOLS MEDIUM WATER USE)
PHOTINIA FRASERI PHOTINIA 15 GAL VARIES
STANDARDIZED SHRUB (WUCOLS MEDIUM WATER USE)
RHAPHIOLEPIS 'MAJESTIC BEAUTY' INDIAN HAWTHORN 15 GAL VARIES
RECOMMENDED PLANT MATERIALS LIST BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE SPACING
BUILDING FOUNDATION PLANTING (WUCOLS LOW WATER USE):
CALLISTEMON 'LITTLE JOHN' DWARF BOTTLEBRUSH5 GAL 3 FT.
LOROPETALUM CHINENSIS FRINGE FLOWER 5 GAL 4 FT.
MYRTUS COMMUNIS 'COMPACTA' COMP. MYRTLE 5 GAL 3 FT.
NANDINA 'COMPACTA'COMP. NANDINA 5 GAL 4 FT.
SALVIA NEMEROSA PURPLE SAGE 5 GAL 4 FT.
TEUCRIUM 'COMPACTA'COMP. GERMANDER 5 GAL 4 FT.
PERIMETER HEDGES (WUCOLS LOW WATER USE):
ELAEAGNUS 'MACULATA' GOLDEN ELAEAGNUS 5 GAL 6 FT.
HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA TOYON 5 GAL 6 FT.
LOW PARKING LOT PLANTING (WUCOLS LOW WATER USE):
CALLISTEMON 'LITTLE JOHN' DWARF BOTTLEBRUSH5 GAL 3 FT.
DIETES IRIDIODES FORTNIGHT LILY 1 GAL 4 FT.
LOMANDRA LONG. 'BREEZE' DWARF MAT RUSH 1 GAL 3 FT.
NANDINA 'GULFSTREAM'GULFSTREAM NAND. 5 GAL 4 FT.
PENNISETUM 'BUNNY TAILS' DWF FOUNTAIN GRASS 5 GAL 3 FT.
TEUCRIUM LUCIDRYS GERMANDER 1 GAL 3 FT.
GROUND COVER (WUCOLS LOW WATER USE):
COPROSMA 'KIRKII'CREEPING COPROSMA1 GAL 3 FT.
LANTANA MONTEVIDENSIS WHITE LANTANA 1 GAL 3 FT.
ROSMARINUS 'HUNTINGTON BLUE' ROSEMARY 1 GAL 3 FT.
STORMWATER BIO-TREATMENT BASIN PLANTING (WUCOLS LOW WATER USE):
DESCHAMPSIA CESPITOSA TUFTED HAIR GRASS 1 GAL 3 FT.
FESTUCA CALIFORNICA CALIFORNIA FESCUE 1 GAL 3 FT.
JUNCUS PATENS CALIF. GREY RUSH 1 GAL 3 FT.
MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS DEER GRASS 1 GAL 3 FT.
Source: Thomas Baak & Associates, LLP, 2020.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS
Figure 3-10
Landscape Plan
0
Scale (Feet)
64
2 2 6 9 0 S TE V E NS C RE E K B O UL E V ARD PR O JE CT I NI TI AL STUD Y
C ITY O F CUPE RTI NO
FF
387.80
(TYP.)
FF 389.90
(TYP.)FF 388.30
(TYP.)
FF 387.90
(TYP.)
5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-720022690 STEVENS CREEK BLVD.ALAN ENTERPRISE, LLC
JOB NO.1562-001
08-05-2020DATE
NORTH
1730 N. FIRST STREET, SUITE 600
SAN JOSE, CA 95112
PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN
C5.0
Source: Tarrar Utility Consultants, 2020.
Figure 3-11
Street Lighting Plan
0
Scale (Feet)
40
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS
2 2 6 9 0 S TE V E NS C RE E K B O UL E V ARD PR O JE CT I NI TI AL STUD Y
C ITY O F CUPE RTI NO
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-23
FINAL DRAFT
The proposed project would not include reflective glass. Where glass features such as windows and doors
are proposed, glazing treatments would vary; however, none of the exterior glass would have a light
reflectance value of more than 15 percent.44 The residential units, including balcony railing elements,
could have a combination of UV coatings, frosting, and fritting, which reduces glare and reflections, and
makes the glass visible to birds as a solid obstruction to reduce collisions.
The heating, ventilation, and air conditions (HVAC) unit for each dwelling unit would include an outdoor
heat pump, three indoor fan coil units, and a ceiling exhaust fan in each of the bathrooms and laundry
rooms. The HVAC units would be located on the first floor, near the garage for the two, Type 1 buildings
and the single Type 3 building, and on the front porch of the single Type 2 building. The HVAC systems
would be shielded from view by screening or landscaping at least 3 feet in height, which would also serve
as a noise attenuation feature.
3.2.7 UTILITIES AND ENERGY
The proposed utility infrastructure would connect to the existing water, sewer, storm drain system, natural
gas, and electricity network in the area, and would be served by an existing solid waste landfill.
WATER SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION
To support the proposed project, a new water line would be installed along the new main internal road to
connect to the existing 14-inch water lines along South Foothill Boulevard. Any new connections or
replaced water lines would not encroach on undisturbed areas. All landscape zones would be irrigated as
required by the Cupertino Landscape Ordinance, and water uses would be tailored to meet CALGreen
Building Standards, which as described above in Section 3.1.4.2, Zoning District, requires water
conservation and requires new buildings to reduce water consumption by 20 percent.
SANITARY SEWER SERVICE
As shown on Figure 3-12, the proposed project would connect to the existing 10-inch sanitary sewer
system line on South Foothill Boulevard.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
The proposed project would result in 18,052 square feet of impervious surfaces coverage, as shown in
Figure 3-13. Compared to approximately 2,757 square feet of impervious surfaces coverage in existing
conditions, this would be an increase of 15,295 square feet of impervious surfaces. The proposed project
includes 9,454 square feet of pervious surfaces in the form of landscaping and one on-site bioretention
area that would hold and treat stormwater before it is released into the City’s off-site storm drain
infrastructure.
44A light reflectance value or LRV is a measure of visible and usable light that is reflected from a surface when illuminated by
a light source. LRV is expressed as a percentage from 0 to 100; the higher the number the more visible light that is reflected.
FF
387.80
(TYP.)
FF 389.90
(TYP.)
FF 388.30
(TYP.)
FF 387.90
(TYP.)
5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-720022690 STEVENS CREEK BLVD.ALAN ENTERPRISE, LLC
JOB NO.1562-001
08-05-2020DATE
NORTH
1730 N. FIRST STREET, SUITE 600
SAN JOSE, CA 95112
PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN
C5.0
Source: Dahlin, 2020. BKF, 2020.
Figure 3-12
Utility Plan
0
Scale (Feet)
60
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS
2 2 6 9 0 S TE V E NS C RE E K B O UL E V ARD PR O JE CT I NI TI AL STUD Y
C ITY O F CUPE RTI NO
5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-720022690 STEVENS CREEK BLVD.ALAN ENTERPRISE, LLC
JOB NO.1562-001
08-05-2020DATE
NORTH
1730 N. FIRST STREET, SUITE 600
SAN JOSE, CA 95112
PRELIMINARY STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN
C6.0
Source: Dahlin, 2020. BKF, 2020.
Figure 3-13
Stormwater Plan
0
Scale (Feet)
60
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS
2 2 6 9 0 S TE V E NS C RE E K B O UL E V ARD PR O JE CT I NI TI AL STUD Y
C ITY O F CUPE RTI NO
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-26 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
The project is required to comply with the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program
C.3 requirements, which include minimization of impervious surfaces, measures to detain or infiltrate
runoff from peak flows to match pre-development conditions, and agreements to ensure that the
stormwater treatment and flow control facilities are maintained in perpetuity. The project also must
comply with CMC Chapter 9.18, described above in Section 3.1.4.2, Zoning District, which is intended to
provide regulations and give legal effect to certain requirements of the NPDES permit issued to the City.
SOLID WASTE SERVICES
Recology South Bay (Recology) would provide curbside recycling, garbage, and compost and landscaping
waste service to the project.45 All non-hazardous solid waste collected under the Recology franchise
agreement is taken to Newby Island Sanitary Landfill for processing. Under the agreement between the
City and Recology, Recology also handles recyclable materials (at no cost to customers). The proposed
waste management for the proposed project would focus on waste, recycling, and composting.
OTHER UTILITIES (GAS, ELECTRIC, AND CABLE)
Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) would supply natural gas and electricity infrastructure to the project site.46
The source of electricity would be provided through a partnership with Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE),
which provides a standard electricity offering from a 50 percent renewable portfolio,47 and PG&E. SVCE
also offers a 100 percent renewable option that electricity customers can opt into. Telephone service
would be provided by AT&T and other providers. Cable television service would be available from a
number of providers, including Comcast.
3.2.8 DEMOLITION, SITE PREPARATION, AND CONSTRUCTION
Demolition and construction would take place over a 10-month period, which is anticipated to begin in
January 2022 and end in November 2022, subject to regulatory approval.48 Table 3 -1 shows the
approximate demolition and construction phasing.
Demolition would take place over a two-week period, while grading and site preparation, including
excavation, would be completed over a two-month period. Demolition and construction work would be
conducted between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, as provided for in CMC Section 10.48.053,
Grading, Construction and Demolition. Demolition and construction are not permitted on weekends or
holidays for sites within 750 feet of other residential properties.49 Demolition debris, including soil, would
45 City of Cupertino, Garbage and Recycling, https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/environment-
sustainability/waste, accessed on January 16, 2019.
46 City of Cupertino. 2019. Other Service Providers. https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/other-service-
providers. Accessed May 2, 2019.
47 Silicon Valley Clean Energy. 2019. Your Choices. https://www.svcleanenergy.org/choices/, accessed on May 2, 2019 at
48 New buildings would be constructed to the California 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (effective January 1,
2020).
49 Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 10, Public Peace, Safety and Morals, Chapter 10.48, Community Noise Control, Section
10.48.053, Grading, Construction and Demolition.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLACEWORKS 3-27
FINAL DRAFT
be off-hauled for disposal in accordance with the City of Cupertino’s Recycling and Diversion of
Construction and Demolition Waste Ordinance.50 Debris to be hauled would include approximately 2,400
square feet of building demolition debris and 4,959 square feet of asphalt/concrete material. The soil
would be balanced on site. Typical equipment to be used for demolition and site preparation would
include excavators, a skid steer loader, a grader, a rubber-tired dozer, scrapers, and an off-highway truck.
The project construction would consist of
approximately 20,129 square feet of built space
including hardscape (e.g., curb, gutters, planters, etc.)
and 10,608 square feet of landscaped areas. No pile
driving, rock blasting, or crushing would occur during
the construction phase. Typical equipment to be used
during construction of the project would include a
backhoe, a crane, aerial lifts, a generator, a diesel
pump, dumpers, rollers, and a paver.
During demolition and construction, vehicles, equipment, and materials would be staged and stored on a
centrally located portion of the project site when practical. No long-term staging of equipment would
occur around the perimeter of the site where adjacent to existing residential uses. No staging would occur
in the public right-of-way. The construction site and staging areas would be clearly marked, and
construction fencing would be installed to prevent disturbance and safety hazards. A combination of on-
and off-site parking facilities for construction workers would be identified during demolition, grading, and
construction.
3.3 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS
Following approval of this Initial Study and adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the following
discretionary permits and approvals from the City would be required for the proposed project:
Zoning Map Amendment
Development Permit
Architectural and Site Approval Permit
Use Permit
Vesting Tentative Map
In addition, permits for demolition, grading and building, and the certificate of occupancy would be
required from the City. Encroachment permits from the City would also be required for any work
performed within the public right-of-way.
50 Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 16, Building and Construction, Chapter 16.72, Recycling and Diversion of Construction and
Demolition Waste.
TABLE 3-1 DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION
Activity Phase 1 (Work Days)
Demolition 18
Site Preparation 2
Grading 4
Building Construction 176
Paving 9
Architectural Coating 9
Source: California Emissions Estimator Model Version 2016.3.25,
and PlaceWorks, 2020.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3-28 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
This page intentionally left blank.
PLACEWORKS 4-1
FINAL DRAFT
Environmental Analysis
4.1 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The General Plan EIR included an analysis of the project site as potential Housing Element Site 8 (Bateh
Bros.), although the adopted General Plan did not designate this site as a Priority Housing Element Site.
The evaluation in the General Plan EIR assumed potential redevelopment of the existing commercial
development to commercial and residential uses with 35 dwelling units per acre, or 19 net residential
units, with a maximum of 30 feet in height.51 The cumulative impacts of past, present, and probable
future development,, in conjunction with overall General Plan buildout, including residential development
of the project site, were evaluated in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project is anticipated to be
completed in 2022 (subject to regulatory approval); thus, this Initial Study presents an analysis of the
near-term impacts of the proposed project under existing conditions and 2025 cumulative conditions.
Although the project site was evaluated as Housing Element Site 8 in the General Plan EIR, the adopted
General Plan does not designate this site as a Priority Housing Element Site in the Housing Element.52
Consistent with the analysis presented in the General Plan EIR, and due to the urbanized city setting of the
project site, the proposed project would not have a significant effect on agriculture, forestry, or mineral
resources. Maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency categorize land within Cupertino as Urban and Built-Up Land.53 In addition, according to
the 2006 mapping data from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, the city does not
contain any woodland or forestland cover.54 Finally, the city does not contain land zoned for farmland or
timberland production.55 Consequently, there would be no impacts with regard to agriculture and forestry
resources. The project site is not within an area designated as Mineral Resource Zone, which is an area
containing mineral deposits.56 Consequently, because the site has been developed and is not considered
suitable for protection or conservation, there would be no impacts to mineral resources. For these
reasons, these topics are not discussed further in this Initial Study. After the General Plan EIR was
certified, the CEQA Guidelines were amended by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, which is
the entity charged with developing guidelines to help agencies implement CEQA, and adequacy of parking
51 PlaceWorks. 2015. City of Cupertino General Plan EIR, Chapter 3, Project Description, page 3-86.
52 City of Cupertino. 2015. City of Cupertino General Plan, Housing Element. Page H-16.
53 California Resources Agency, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Santa Clara County Important Farmland
2010, accessed on June 17, 2020.
54 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire and Resource Assessment Program, Land Cover Map,
accessed on June 17, 2020.
55 City of Cupertino, Zoning Map, http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=291, accessed on June 17, 2020.
56 City of Cupertino, General Plan Community Vision 2015–2040, Chapter 6, Environmental Resources and Sustainability,
Figure ES-2, Mineral Resources.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-2 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
is no longer considered to be a significant environmental impact. Accordingly, parking adequacy is not
discussed further in this Initial Study.
I. AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099 (transit
priority area/major transit stop), would the proposed project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State
scenic highway?
c) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic
quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
GENERAL PLAN EIR
Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics, of the General Plan EIR, addressed the impacts to visual resources associated
with buildout of the General Plan including the redevelopment of the project site with up to 19 dwelling
units and a 30-foot height maximum at a program level. The impacts were found to be less than
significant, and no mitigation measures were required.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project site is partially developed with an aging one-story convenience store and associated parking.
However, the majority of the project site is unimproved and partially unpaved. The project site is
immediately surrounded by Stevens Creek Boulevard and existing residential cluster development and
one-story commercial developments to the north and east, and single-family residential development to
the south and west. There is no existing landscaping on the project site.
DISCUSSION
a) Would the proposed project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
As discussed in Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics, of the General Plan EIR, the proposed project would have the
potential to affect scenic vistas and/or scenic corridors if the redevelopment on the project site blocked
views of areas that provide or contribute to such vistas. Potential effects could include blocking views of a
scenic vista/corridor from specific publicly accessible vantage points or the alteration of the scenic
vista/corridor. Such alterations could be positive or negative.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-3
FINAL DRAFT
Public views of scenic corridors are views seen along a linear transportation route and public views of
scenic vistas are views of specific scenic features. Scenic vistas are considered to be long-range views,
while scenic corridors are comprised of short-, middle-, and long-range views. The General Plan does not
have designated scenic corridors or vistas. However, for the purposes of this analysis, the westward views
of the foothills and ridgelines of the Santa Cruz Mountains are considered scenic vistas, and the segment
of I-280 from Santa Clara County line on the west to I-880 on the east also is considered a scenic corridor.
The analysis in the General Plan EIR found that building heights remaining at 30 feet would result in a less-
than-significant impact to the long-range views of the Santa Cruz Mountain Range and foothills because
the maximum heights of the existing on-site and surrounding buildings and mature trees currently limit
the opportunity for views of scenic vistas from street-level public viewing. The project location is not
considered a destination public viewing point nor is it visible from scenic vistas.
As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Initial Study, the existing commercial building would
be removed and replaced by the proposed nine-unit, single-family attached residential project with one
ADU, and all structures would be three stories tall and 29 feet and 10.5 inches at the roofline. There are
no existing trees on-site.
Because the proposed project would not involve height increases above the surrounding development
and are the same as what was evaluated in then General Plan EIR and permitted in the General Plan, and
because existing conditions currently limit views of scenic resources combined with the fact that the site
and surrounding areas are not public viewing locations, impacts would remain consistent with the
conclusions in the General Plan EIR and would be less than significant.
b) Would the proposed project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees,
rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
As discussed in Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics, of the General Plan EIR, the segment of I-280 in Cupertino is not
an officially designated State Scenic Highway but is considered eligible for listing as a designated State
Scenic Highway. The project site is approximately 0.8 miles to the south of the I-280/North Foothill
Boulevard interchange, which is the arterial that connects the project site to I-280. The project site is not
visible from I-280. Therefore, there would be no changes to the I-280 viewshed.
Impacts to views of scenic resources from the I-280 view corridor were determined to be less than
significant in the General Plan EIR. Because the project proposes building heights that are consistent with
what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR and the surrounding development, and are permitted in the
General Plan, and because the site is not visible from the I-280 viewshed, project impacts would remain
consistent with the conclusions in the General Plan EIR and would be less than significant.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-4 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
c) If the proposed project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic quality?
The project site is in an urbanized area that is not designated or otherwise identified as a public viewing
location for surrounding scenic views. Public views of scenic resources including the westward views of
the foothills and ridgelines of the Santa Cruz Mountains, and the segment of I-280 from the Santa Clara
County line on the west to I-880 on the east, are partially obstructed under existing conditions due to the
natural topography and the existing buildings in the project area.
The proposed project would result in a change from the existing one-story commercial building to
multiple three-story residential buildings, none of which would exceed the permitted height limit of 30
feet.
The project site is within the Commercial/Residential General Plan land use designation, which allows
residential densities compatible with the surroundings.57 The proposed project includes a zoning
amendment to change the existing Planned Development with General Commercial (P(CG)), to Planned
Development with General Commercial and Residential (P(CG,Res)). The proposed amendment to the
Zoning Map would allow residential development on the site which would not conflict with any land use
or zoning regulations governing scenic quality.
The proposed development would be required to provide suitable setbacks from public rights-of-way and
appropriate buffers and/or height transitions for buildings adjacent to the surrounding low-density
residential developments. Furthermore, the proposed project would increase the landscaping to include
10,608 square feet of landscaping. Project landscaping would consist of landscaping throughout the
interior, along the perimeter of the project site, and in the common open space areas. For neighborhood
privacy, required privacy plantings would be located along the property edge. Trees and other landscaping
would be planted along Camino Vista Drive, Stevens Creek Boulevard, and South Foothill Boulevard, as
well as along the internal project roadway network.
Furthermore, the proposed project would be subject to the City’s discretionary review processes for the
proposed Development Permit and Architectural and Site Approval Permit, in accordance with Chapters
19.12 and 19.168 of the Zoning Ordinance, which would ensure the proposed project would harmonize
with adjacent development and not degrade the existing visual quality of the site and surrounding land
uses. Accordingly, consistent with the conclusions of the General Plan EIR, the proposed project would not
substantially degrade the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings, or conflict with an
applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality and impacts would remain consistent
with the conclusions in the General Plan EIR and would be less than significant.
57 City of Cupertino. 2015. City of Cupertino General Plan, Appendix A, Land Use Definitions.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-5
FINAL DRAFT
d) Would the proposed project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Nighttime illumination and glare impacts are the effects on adjoining uses and areas from a project’s
exterior lighting. Light and glare impacts are determined through a comparison of the existing light
sources with the proposed lighting plan or policies. As discussed in Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics, of the General
Plan EIR, the project site and surrounding areas contain existing sources of nighttime illumination. These
include street and parking area lights, and exterior lighting on existing commercial buildings. Additional
light and glare in the overall area is caused by adjacent land uses and traffic on surrounding roadways. As
described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Initial Study, the proposed project would redevelop the
project site and replace the existing sources of light and glare with new sources that are consistent with
the surrounding land uses. As shown in Figure 3-11, the source, intensity, and type of exterior street
lighting for the project site would generally be provided for the purpose of orienting residents and their
visitors and for safety needs along the streets and sidewalks and would be typical for single-family homes.
All permanent on-site lighting would be low-level illumination, downward directed, and shielded to reduce
light spill or glare into surrounding residential homes. In landscaped areas, light sources would be
concealed and not visible from a public viewpoint. All exterior surface and above-ground mounted fixtures
would be complementary to the architectural theme and to the surrounding residential uses.
The proposed project would not include reflective glass. Where glass features such as windows and doors
are proposed, glazing treatments would vary, and none of the exterior glass would have a light reflectance
value of more than 15 percent.58 The exterior of the proposed buildings, including balcony railing
elements, could have a combination of UV coatings, frosting, and fritting, which reduces glare and makes
the glass visible to birds to reduce collisions. For these reasons, impacts would remain consistent with the
conclusions in the General Plan EIR and would be less than significant.
II. AIR QUALITY
Would the proposed project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project area is in non-attainment under
applicable federal or State ambient air quality standards?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
58A light reflectance value or LRV is a measure of visible and usable light that is reflected from a surface when illuminated by
a light source. LRV is expressed as a percentage from 0 to 100; the higher the number the more visible light that is reflected.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-6 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
Would the proposed project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
No
Impact
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
GENERAL PLAN EIR
Chapter 4.2, Air Quality, of the General Plan EIR, addressed the air quality impacts associated with
buildout of the General Plan including the redevelopment of the project site with up to 19 dwelling units
and a 30-foot height maximum at a program level. Air quality impacts were found to be significant and
unavoidable in the General Plan EIR because project-specific details of future development were not
available. The City adopted and incorporated mitigation measures into the General Plan to reduce air
quality impacts. Mitigation Measures AQ-2a and AQ-2b are specific measures that are to be implemented
by future projects, such as the proposed project, to reduce construction-related air quality impacts.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2a require applicants for future development projects to comply with the current
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) basic control measures for reducing fugitive dust
emissions (PM10 and PM2.5) during construction, and Mitigation Measure AQ-2b provides additional
measures if there are significant construction exhaust emissions.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The environmental setting normally constitutes the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency
determines whether an impact is significant (CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a)). However, lead agencies
have discretion to consider conditions over a range of time periods to account for a temporary lull or spike
in operations. Because commercial uses, such as the existing convenience store on the project site,
experience periodic transitions in tenants and occupancy, this analysis assumes the commercial building
on site is fully occupied and operational (i.e., historic operations) as the baseline.
The project site is currently developed with one commercial building, which is estimated to generate
approximately 1,829 gross average daily trips on a weekday.59 Commercial uses like the existing
convenience store generate criteria air pollutants from transportation sources, energy (natural gas and
purchased energy), and area sources such as architectural coatings.
Air Pollutants of Concern
Criteria Air Pollutants
Pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are regulated by federal and
State law under the federal Clean Air Act (National) and California Clean Air Act, respectively. Air
59 Hexagon Transportation Consultants. January 2020. Trip Generation Study for a Residential Project on Stevens Creek
Boulevard in Cupertino, CA.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-7
FINAL DRAFT
pollutants are categorized as primary and/or secondary pollutants. Primary air pollutants are those that
are emitted directly from sources. Carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides
(NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM10), fine inhalable particulate matter
(PM2.5), and lead (Pb) are primary air pollutants. Of these, all of them except for ROGs are “criteria air
pollutants,” which means that ambient air quality standards (AAQS) have been established for them. The
National and California AAQS are the levels of air quality considered to provide a margin of safety in the
protection of the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those “sensitive receptors” most
susceptible to further respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people
already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy
adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these
minimum standards before adverse effects are observed.
Toxic Air Contaminants
In addition to criteria air pollutants, both the State and federal government regulate the release of TACs .
The California Health and Safety Code Section 39655 defines a TAC as “an air pollutant which may cause
or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential
hazard to human health.” A substance that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant pursuant to Section 112(b)
of the federal Clean Air Act (42 United States Code Section 7412[b]) is a toxic air contaminant. Under State
law, the California Environmental Protection Agency, acting through the California Air Resources Board
(CARB), is authorized to identify a substance as a TAC if it determines that the substance is an air pollutant
that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or may pose a present or
potential hazard to human health.
DISCUSSION
The Air Quality section of this Initial Study addresses the impacts of the proposed project on ambient air
quality and the exposure of people, especially sensitive individuals, to unhealthful pollutant
concentrations. A background discussion on the air quality regulatory setting, meteorological conditions,
existing ambient air quality in the vicinity of the project site, and air quality modeling can be found in
Appendix A, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, of this Initial Study. The construction health
risk assessment (HRA) is included in Appendix B, Health Risk Assessment, of this Initial Study.
The primary air pollutants of concern for which ambient air quality standards (AAQS) have been
established are ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM10), fine
inhalable particulate matter (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and lead (Pb). Areas are
classified under the federal Clean Air Act and California Clean Air Act as either in attainment or
nonattainment for each criteria pollutant based on whether the AAQS have been achieved. The San
Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB), which is managed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD or Air District), is nonattainment area for California and National O3, California and National
PM2.5, and California PM10 AAQS.
BAAQMD has identified thresholds of significance for criteria pollutant emissions and criteria air pollutant
precursors, including ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5. Development projects below the regional significance
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-8 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
thresholds are not expected to generate sufficient criteria pollutant emissions to violate any air quality
standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or substantially
contribute to health impacts. Where available, the significance criteria established by BAAQMD may be
relied upon to make the following determinations.
For the purpose of this analysis, operational emissions for the proposed project were not quantified.
While the proposed project would generate criteria air pollutant emissions from transportation sources,
energy use, and area sources, because the residential use would result in 85 gross daily trips, a substantial
decrease from the 1,829 gross average daily trips from existing uses. Furthermore, BAAQMD has also
identified screening criteria for project operation and the project would fall substantially below the
screening criteria (e.g., 9 units compared to 451 condominium units). Impacts as a result of the proposed
project’s operation will be discussed qualitatively.
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
The BAAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from area, stationary, and mobile sources in
the SFBAAB to achieve National and California AAQS. In April 2017, BAAQMD adopted its 2017 Clean Air
Plan, which is a regional and multiagency effort to reduce air pollution in the SFBAAB. Regional growth
projections are used by BAAQMD to forecast future emission levels in the SFBAAB. For the Bay Area, these
regional growth projections are provided by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and
transportation projections are provided by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and are
partially based on land use designations in city/county general plans. Typically, only large, regionally
significant projects have the potential to affect the regional growth projections.
The proposed project would include the construction of nine residential units with one ADU resulting in a
density of 13.2 dwelling units per acre and, therefore, would not exceed the 15 dwelling units per acre
limit designated in the General Plan or the 35 dwelling units per acre limit maximum that was evaluated in
the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would not directly result in any additional new
population growth or employment growth beyond what was analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The
proposed project is not considered a regionally significant project under CEQA Guidelines Section 15206
that would affect regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and warrant intergovernmental review by ABAG
and MTC.
As discussed in Section XII, Population and Housing, below, the proposed project would not exceed the
level of population or housing projected in City or regional planning efforts (Plan Bay Area) through 2040,
and it would not have the potential to substantially affect housing, employment, and population
projections within the region, which is the basis of the 2017 Clean Air Plan projections. Furthermore, the
proposed project would create a net decrease in emissions on-site and would not exceed the BAAQMD’s
emissions thresholds (see Operational Impacts discussion in criterion (b) below). The BAAQMD emissions
thresholds were established to identify projects that have the potential to generate a substantial amount
of criteria air pollutants. Because the proposed project would result in an air quality benefit, the proposed
project would not be considered by the BAAQMD to be a substantial emitter of criteria air pollutants.
Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2017 Clean Air
Plan and impacts would be considered less than significant.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-9
FINAL DRAFT
b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project area is in non-attainment under applicable federal or State ambient air quality standards?
This section analyzes potential impacts related to air quality that could occur from a combination of the
proposed project with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects within the SFBAAB. The
SFBAAB is currently designated a nonattainment area for California and National O3, California and
National PM2.5, and California PM10 AAQS. Any project that produces a significant project-level regional air
quality impact in an area that is in nonattainment adds to the cumulative impact. Due to the extent of the
area potentially impacted by cumulative plus project emissions (the SFBAAB), a project ’s contribution to a
cumulative impact is cumulatively considerable when project-related emissions exceed the BAAQMD
emissions thresholds.
BAAQMD has identified thresholds of significance for criteria pollutant emissions and criteria air pollutant
precursors, including ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5. Development projects below the significance thresholds
would not generate sufficient criteria pollutant emissions to violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. The following describes project-related
impacts from regional short-term construction activities and regional long-term operation of the
proposed project.
Regional Short-Term Construction Impacts
Construction activities produce combustion emissions from various sources, such as on-site heavy-duty
construction vehicles, vehicles hauling materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting the
construction crew. Site preparation activities produce fugitive dust emissions (PM10 and PM2.5) from
demolition and soil-disturbing activities, such as grading and excavation. Air pollutant emissions from
construction activities on site would vary daily as construction activity levels change. Construction
activities associated with the project would result in emissions of ROG, NOx, CO, PM10, and fine PM2.5.
Construction Fugitive Dust
Ground disturbing activities during construction would generate fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5). The
amount of dust generated during construction would be variable and is dependent on the amount of
material being disturbed, the type of material, moisture content, and meteorological conditions. If
uncontrolled, PM10 and PM2.5 levels downwind of actively disturbed areas could possibly exceed State
standards. BAAQMD considers all impacts related to fugitive dust emissions from construction to be less
than significant with implementation of BAAQMD’s best management practices shown in Mitigation
Measure AQ-1, which is required pursuant to General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure AQ-2a.
Impact AQ-1: Fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) generated by the proposed project during construction could
potentially result in significant regional short-term air quality impacts without implementation of the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District’s best management practices related to reducing fugitive dust
emissions.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-10 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: The project’s construction contractor shall comply with the following best
management practices for reducing construction emissions of fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) as
required by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Revised California Environmental Quality
Act Air Quality Guidelines:
Water all active construction areas at least twice daily, or as often as needed to control dust
emissions. Watering should be sufficient to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased
watering frequency may be necessary whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour.
Reclaimed water should be used whenever possible.
Pave, apply water twice daily or as often as necessary to control dust, or apply (non-toxic) soil
stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites.
Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at
least 2 feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space between the top of the load and the
top of the trailer).
Sweep daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) or as often as needed all
paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at the construction site to control dust.
Sweep public streets daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) in the vicinity
of the project site, or as often as needed, to keep streets free of visible soil material.
Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas.
Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt/sand).
Limit vehicle traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.
Vegetative ground cover shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered
appropriately until the vegetation is established.
Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff from public roadways.
All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture
of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or moisture probe.
Construction Exhaust Emissions
Analysis of construction emissions is based on the preliminary construction duration and normalized
California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) default schedule developed for the proposed project.
The proposed project would result in demolition, demolition debris hauling, site preparation, grading and
grading soil haul, building construction, paving, and architectural coating that would occur near existing
sensitive land uses. Construction emissions were quantified using the CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2.25
based on information provided by the project applicant, which was reviewed and approved by PlaceWorks
and the City. The approximately 10-month construction period is assumed to begin in January 2022 and
end in November 2022, subject to regulatory approval.
Potential construction-related air quality impacts are determined by comparing the average daily criteria
air pollutants emissions generated by the proposed project-related construction activities to the BAAQMD
significance thresholds in Table 4 -1. Average daily emissions are based on the annual construction
emissions divided by the total number of active construction days.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-11
FINAL DRAFT
TABLE 4-1 CONSTRUCTION-RELATED CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS ESTIMATES
Year
Criteria Air Pollutants (tons/year) a
ROG NOx
Fugitive
PM10 b
Exhaust
PM10 b
Fugitive
PM2.5 b
Exhaust
PM2.5 b
2022 0.81 0.91 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.04
Criteria Air Pollutants (average lbs/day) a
Average Daily Emissions c 2.34 17.30 0.22 0.42 0.07 0.40
BAAQMD Average Daily Project-
Level Threshold 54 54 BMPs 82 BMPs 54
Exceeds Average Daily Threshold No No NA No NA No
Notes: Emissions may not total to 100 percent due to rounding. BMP = Best Management Practices; N/A = not applicable; Reactive Organic Gases =
ROG; Nitrogen Oxides = NOx; Coarse Inhalable Particulate Matter = PM10; Fine Inhalable Particulate Matter = PM2.5
a. Construction phasing and equipment mix are based on the preliminary information provided by the project applicant. Where specific information
regarding project-related construction activities was not available, construction assumptions were based on CalEEMod defaults, which are based on
construction surveys conducted by South Coast Air Quality Management District of construction equipment and phasing for comparable projects.
b. Includes implementation of BMPs for fugitive dust control required by BAAQMD as mitigation, including watering disturbed areas a minimum of two
times per day, reducing speed limit to 15 miles per hour on unpaved surfaces, and street sweeping.
c. Average daily emissions are based on the total construction emissions divided by the total number of active construction days. The total number of
construction days is estimated to be about 218.
Source: California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2016.3.2.25
As shown above in Table 4-1, criteria air pollutant emissions from construction equipment exhaust would
not exceed the BAAQMD average daily thresholds and impacts from project-related construction activities
to the regional air quality would be less than significant and implementation of General Plan EIR
Mitigation Measure AQ-2b is not required.
Operational Impacts
Typical long-term air pollutant emissions are generated by area sources (e.g., landscape fuel use, aerosols,
architectural coatings, and asphalt pavement), energy use (natural gas), and mobile sources (i.e., on-road
vehicles). The proposed project would result in new housing and new paved and landscaped surfaces.
As described in Section XV, Transportation, of this Initial Study, below, the proposed project would
generate a net total of 85 average daily weekday trips, which would be a decrease of 1,744 average daily
weekday trips from the existing land uses at the site. The proposed project would produce an approximate
daily VMT of 538, which would be a daily decrease in VMT of 3,262 miles from the existing land uses at
the site.60 Because transportation emissions would generate the majority of criteria air pollutants
associated with the project, this reduction in average daily weekday trips and associated daily VMT would
result in a project benefit in reducing criteria air pollutant emissions in the city. In addition, the new
buildings would be more energy efficient than the existing structures and would be built to achieve the
latest Title 24 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed
the BAAQMD daily pounds per day or annual tons per year project level threshold and would not create a
cumulatively considerable contribution to the nonattainment designations of the SFBAAB. Because criteria
60 Hexagon Transportation Consultants. January 2020. Trip Generation Study for a Residential Project on Stevens Creek
Boulevard in Cupertino, CA.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-12 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
air pollutant emissions associated with the proposed project are anticipated to decrease from existing
conditions, resulting in a project benefit to air quality, project-related operation activities to the regional
air quality would be less than significant.
Summary
As described, the proposed project would not have a significant long-term operational phase impact.
However, without incorporation of fugitive dust control measures required by BAAQMD, construction
activities associated with the proposed project could potentially result in significant regional short-term
air quality impacts. Mitigation Measure AQ-1, required by the General Plan Mitigation Measure AQ-2a,
would ensure that required fugitive dust control measures are implemented to control project-related
fugitive dust generated during construction activities. Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution to
cumulative air quality impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Development of the proposed project could expose sensitive receptors to elevated pollutant
concentrations. Unlike the construction emissions shown in Table 4-1 in criterion (b), described in pounds
per day (PPD), localized concentrations refer to an amount of pollutant in a volume of air (parts per
millions [ppm] or micrograms per cubic meter [µg/m3]) and can be correlated to potential health effects.
Construction Off-Site Community Risk and Hazards
The proposed project would elevate concentrations of TACs and PM2.5 in the vicinity of sensitive land uses
during construction activities. The BAAQMD has developed Screening Tables for Air Toxics Evaluation
During Construction (2017) to evaluate construction-related health risks associated with residential,
commercial, and industrial projects. According to the screening tables, the surrounding residences are
closer than the distance of 100 meters (328 feet) that would screen out potential health risks and,
therefore, could be potentially impacted from the proposed construction activities. The nearest sensitive
receptors to the project site are the residents along South Foothill Boulevard to the south and east, along
Camino Vista Drive to the west, and along Stevens Creek Boulevard to the north. Additional sensitive
receptors within 1,000 feet of the site are senior living residents at Sunny View Bay Area Retirement
Community, approximately 525 feet to the northeast. Consequently, a site- specific construction health
risk assessment (HRA) of TACs and PM2.5 was prepared (see Appendix B of this Initial Study).
A quantified analysis of the proposed project construction emissions was conducted using the CalEEMod,
Version 2016.3.2.25. Construction emissions were based on 218 working days of the total 10-month
construction duration. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) AERMOD, Version 9.9,
dispersion modeling program was used to estimate excess lifetime cancer risk, chronic non-cancer hazard
index for non-carcinogenic risk, and the PM2.5 maximum annual concentrations at the nearest sensitive
receptors. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 4 -2.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-13
FINAL DRAFT
TABLE 4-2 CONSTRUCTION RISK SUMMARY – UNMITIGATED
Receptor
Cancer Risk
(per million)
Chronic
Hazards
PM2.5
(µg/m3)
Maximum Exposed Receptor – Off-site Resident 59.4 0.133 0.63
Maximum Exposed Receptor – Senior Living Resident 0.009 0.002 0.001
BAAQMD Threshold 10 1.0 0.30
Exceeds Threshold? Yes No Yes
Note: micrograms per cubic meter = µg/m3; PM2.5 – fine particulate matter
Source: Cancer risk calculated using 2015 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Health Risk Assessment Guidance Manual; Lakes
AERMOD View, 9.9.
The results of the HRA are based on the maximum receptor concentration over a 10-month construction
exposure duration for off-site receptors.61 Risk is based on the updated Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Guidance Manual:62
Cancer risk for the maximum exposed off-site resident from construction activities related to the
proposed project were calculated to be 59.4in a million and exceeds the 10 in a million-
significance threshold. Utilizing the latest 2015 OEHHA Guidance Manual, the calculated total
cancer risk conservatively assumes that the risk for the maximum exposed receptor (MER)
consists of a pregnant woman in the third trimester that subsequently gives birth to an infant
during the approximately 10-month construction period; therefore, all calculated risk values were
multiplied by a factor of 10. In addition, it was conservatively assumed that the residents were
outdoors 8 hours a day, 260 construction days per year, and were exposed to all of the daily
construction emissions.
The cancer risk for the maximum exposed senior living residential receptor would not exceed the
10 per million significance threshold.
For non-carcinogenic effects, the chronic hazard index identified for each toxicological endpoint
totaled less than one for all the off-site sensitive receptors. Therefore, chronic non-carcinogenic
hazards are within acceptable limits.
For the residential MER, the maximum annual PM2.5 concentration of 0.63 exceeds the BAAQMD
significance threshold of 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3). Therefore, PM2.5 emissions are
not within acceptable limits.
For the maximum exposed senior living residential receptor, the maximum annual PM2.5
concentration does not exceed the threshold of 0.3 µg/m3. Therefore, PM2.5 emissions are not
within acceptable limits.
Because the incremental cancer risk and maximum annual PM2.5 concentrations for the maximum exposed
receptor would exceed BAAQMD’s significance thresholds due to construction activities associated with
the proposed project, impacts are potentially significant, and the following mitigation is required.
61 The 2015 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual identified
that exposure duration has changed from 70 years to 30 years for operational risk to residents; however, the risk is still averaged
over a 70-year lifetime.
62 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation
of Health Risk Assessments.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-14 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
Impact AQ-2: The proposed project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations during construction.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2: During construction, the construction contractor(s) shall:
Use construction equipment that have engines that meet either United State Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) or California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 4 Interim emission
standards for off-road diesel-powered construction equipment with more than 25 horsepower,
unless it can be demonstrated to the City of Cupertino Building Division that such equipment is
not available. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions
reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by Tier 4 Interim emissions standards for
a similarly sized engine, as defined by the CARB’s regulations.
Prior to issuance of any construction permit, ensure that all construction plans submitted to the
City of Cupertino Planning Department and/or Building Division clearly show the requirement for
Tier 4 Interim emission standards for construction equipment more than 25 horsepower.
Maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the project site for verification by the City of
Cupertino Building Division official or their designee. The construction equipment list shall state
the makes, models, and number of construction equipment on site.
Ensure that all equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with
manufacturer recommendations.
Communicate with all sub-contractors in contracts and construction documents that all
nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to 5 minutes or less in compliance with
CARB Rule 2449 and is responsible for ensuring that this requirement is met.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2, which is not a General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure, would reduce the
proposed project localized construction emissions, as shown in Table 4 -3. The results indicate that, with
mitigation, cancer risks and annual PM2.5 concentrations would be less than the BAAQMD’s significance
thresholds for residential-based receptors. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose off-site
sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of air pollutant emissions during construction and
impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
TABLE 4-3 CONSTRUCTION RISK SUMMARY – MITIGATED
Receptor
Cancer Risk
(per million)
Chronic
Hazards
PM2.5
(µg/m3)
Maximum Exposed Receptor – Off-site Resident 4.9 0.011 0.05
Maximum Exposed Receptor – Senior Living Resident <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
BAAQMD Threshold 10 1.0 0.3
Exceeds Threshold? No No No
Notes: micrograms per cubic meter = µg/m3; PM2.5 – fine particulate matter; Risks incorporate Mitigation Measure AQ-2, which requires all equipment of
25 horsepower, or more be fitted with engines that meet the EPA’s Tier 4 Interim emissions standards.
Source: Cancer risk calculated using 2015 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Health Risk Assessment Guidance Manual; Lakes AERMOD
View, 9.9.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-15
FINAL DRAFT
Operation Phase Community Risk and Hazards
Types of land uses that typically generate substantial quantities of criteria air pollutants and TACs include
industrial (stationary sources), manufacturing, and warehousing (truck idling) land uses. These types of
major air pollutant emissions sources are not included as part of the proposed residential project. The
proposed project would not include stationary sources that emit TACs and would not generate a
significant amount of heavy-duty truck trips (a source of diesel particulate matter [DPM]). Therefore, the
proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of air pollutant
emissions during operation, and impacts would be less than significant.
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Hotspot Analysis
Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of carbon monoxide (CO) called hotspots.
These pockets have the potential to exceed the State 1-hour standard of 20 ppm or the 8-hour standard
of 9 ppm. The proposed project would not conflict with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
(VTA) Congestion Management Program (CMP) because it would not hinder the capital improvements
outlined in the CMP or alter regional travel patterns. VTA’s CMP must be consistent with MTC’s/ABAG’s
Plan Bay Area 2040. An overarching goal of the regional Plan Bay Area 2040 is to concentrate
development in areas where there are existing services and infrastructure rather than locate new growth
in outlying areas where substantial transportation investments would be necessary to achieve the per
capita passenger vehicle, VMT, and associated GHG emissions reductions. The proposed project is an infill
residential development that is in close proximity to existing employment centers, roadways, transit, and
bicycle and pedestrian routes, and for these reasons would be consistent with the overall goals of Plan
Bay Area 2040.
Furthermore, under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a project would have to increase traffic
volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour—or 24,000 vehicles per hour
where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited—in order to generate a significant CO
impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not increase traffic volumes at affected
intersections by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or
horizontal mixing is substantially limited (see Section XV, Transportation, below).63 Project implementation
would generate 143 fewer AM (morning) peak hour trips and 109 fewer PM (evening) peak hour trips.64
As a result, the proposed project would result in a reduction in CO concentrations at intersections.
Localized air quality impacts related to mobile-source emissions would be a project benefit; and therefore,
no impact would occur.
63 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2011 Revised. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality
Guidelines.
64 Hexagon Transportation Consultants. January 2020. Trip Generation Study for a Residential Project on Stevens Creek
Boulevard in Cupertino, CA.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-16 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
Construction and operation of the residential development would not generate odors that would affect a
substantial number of people. The type of facilities that are considered to have objectionable odors
include wastewater treatments plants, compost facilities, landfills, solid waste transfer stations, fiberglass
manufacturing facilities, paint/coating operations (e.g., auto body shops), dairy farms, petroleum
refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical manufacturing, and food manufacturing facilities. Residential
uses are not associated with foul odors that constitute a public nuisance.
During construction activities, construction equipment exhaust and application of asphalt and
architectural coatings would temporarily generate odors. Any construction-related odor emissions would
be temporary and intermittent. Additionally, odors would typically be confined to the immediate vicinity
of the construction equipment. By the time such emissions reach any sensitive receptor sites, they would
be diluted to well below any level of air quality concern.
Odors are also regulated under BAAQMD Regulation 1, Rule 1-301, Public Nuisance, which states that “no
person shall discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material
which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or the
public; or which endangers the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or
which causes, or has a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.”
A limited Phase II ESA subsurface investigation evaluated the soil and water conditions on the project
site.65 As discussed further in Section VIII, Hazards and Hazardous Conditions, the Phase II ESA found no-
risk or hazards above the regulatory values but did find the potential for vapor intrusion that could cause a
nuisance odor. The Phase II ESA included a recommendation to install a vapor barrier beneath the
concrete foundation slab of the proposed building at the site to mitigate any potential odor risks
associated with concentration of vapors resulting from soil vapor contamination at neighboring property
22510 Stevens Creek Boulevard (Cupertino Beacon).66 Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure
AQ-3 is required to reduce potential odor impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Impact AQ-3: Development on the project site could expose future residents to potential odors from non-
hazardous soil vapor contamination from the neighboring property at 22510 Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Mitigation Measure AQ-3: The project applicant shall install a vapor barrier beneath the concrete
foundation slab of the proposed residential buildings at the project site to mitigate potential odor
risks associated with concentration of non-hazardous soil vapor contamination. This mitigation
measure shall be identified on the permit application drawing set and as part of the construction
drawing set, and shall be implemented by the on-site Construction Manager.
65 Achievement Engineering, 2019. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, 22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino,
California, page 2, October 17.
66 Achievement Engineering, 2019. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, 22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino,
California, page 9, October 17.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-17
FINAL DRAFT
III. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the proposed project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on a plant or animal population, or
essential habitat, defined as a candidate, sensitive or special-
status species?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community type?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected
wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species, their wildlife corridors or
nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local ordinances or policies protecting
biological resources?
f) Conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional,
or State habitat conservation plan?
GENERAL PLAN EIR
Chapter 4.3, Biological Resources, of the General Plan EIR, addressed the impacts to biological resources
associated with buildout of the General Plan including the redevelopment of the project site with up to 19
dwelling units and a 30-foot height maximum at a program level. Impacts to biological resources were
found to be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts
to birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Future projects in Cupertino are required
to comply with General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure BIO-1, previously adopted and incorporated into the
General Plan, to ensure the protection of nesting raptors and other birds when in active use, as required
by the federal MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code (CFG Code) if applicable.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project site and surrounding area is urbanized and contains roadways, structures, and other
impervious surfaces. There are no existing trees on-site. Existing conditions include a commercial building
and associated paved surface parking surrounded by an undeveloped and unpaved (dirt and gravel) area
adjacent to Stevens Creek Boulevard and South Foothill Boulevard. The surrounding area is built out and
primarily dominated by buildings and landscaped and non-native vegetation. Based on a review of
historical aerial photographs, the project site has been subject to historic disturbance, including mass
grading between the period of 1939 and 1950. These conditions do not lend themselves to presence of
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-18 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
rare plant and animal populations, and such species are not anticipated to be present prior to or during
project construction.
As previously described in Chapter 3, Project Description, the CALVEG67 habitat mapping program
classifies the site is classified as an “urban area.” Property with this classification tends to have low to poor
wildlife habitat value due to replacement of natural communities, fragmentation of remaining open space
areas and parks, and intensive human disturbance. According to the Vegetation Map shown in the
Environmental Resources and Sustainability Element of the General Plan, the project site is within the
urban forest (i.e., trees in the city),68 although there are no trees or other landscaping on the project site.
A recent search of the CNDDB shows that the project site does not contain any known special-status
species on-site. However, special-status plant and animal species have been recorded within 5 miles of the
project site. All of these special-status species were recorded outside of or near the city limits except for
the Western leatherwood (Dirca occidentalis), Woodland woollythreads (Monolopia congdonii), Cooper’s
hawk (Accipiter cooperi), White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus),
California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense, and the Santa Cruz black salamander (Aneides
flavipunctatus niger). These special-status species were recorded at least 1 mile away from the site.
The nests of most bird species are protected under the MBTA when in active use. Because there are no
existing trees or vacant buildings on-site, there is no habitat for nesting available on-site. There are trees
on the adjacent properties that could have nests that could be disturbed during project construction.
Numerous bat species are found in the Cupertino area, most of which are relatively common and are not
considered special-status species. As previously stated, the CNDDB does not show any occurrences of
special-status bats in the vicinity of the project site but does show records within several miles of
Cupertino. The records include occurrences of Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), hoary
bat (Lasiurus cinereus), and Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis). These three species have no legal
protected status under the State or federal Endangered Species Acts, but Townsend’s big-eared bat is
considered a Species of Special Concern by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. These species
have various priority rankings with the Western Bat Working Group, ranging from “High” for Townsend’s
big-eared bat, “Medium” for hoary bat, to “Low-Medium” for Yuma myotis. Bat species found in the
Cupertino vicinity may forage and occasionally roost in the site vicinity, but suitable habitat conditions for
maternity roosts does not exist on the project site.
Wetlands and jurisdictional waters within the city boundary include creek corridors and associated
riparian scrub and woodland, and areas of freshwater marsh around ponds, seeps, springs, and other
waterbodies. Some remnant stands of riparian scrub and woodland occur along segments of the
numerous creeks through the urbanized valley floor. The project site does not contain these creek
corridors or contain other regulated waters; however, the Stevens Creek Corridor is approximately 0.5
67 The CALVEG system was initiated in January 1978 by the Region 5 Ecology Group of the US Forest Service to classify
California’s existing vegetation communities for use in statewide resource planning. CALVEG maps use a hierarchical classification
on the following categories: forest; woodland; chaparral; shrubs; and herbaceous.
68 City of Cupertino General Plan (Community Vision 2015-2040), Chapter 6, Environmental Resources and Sustainability
Element, Figure ES-1.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-19
FINAL DRAFT
miles to the east of the project site. Existing single-family residential neighborhoods act as a barrier
between Stevens Creek and the project site.
There is no existing wildlife movement corridor designation on the project site by any agency, including
the United States Fish and Wildlife or the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Furthermore, there
are no open space areas or natural lands adjacent to the project site.
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications,
on a plant or animal population, or essential habitat, defined as a candidate, sensitive or special-status
species?
As stated above in the existing conditions discussion, there are no known occurrences of special-status
plant or animal species and no suitable habitat for such species on the project site nor are there any trees
on the project site. The analysis in the General Plan EIR found that impacts to special-status species,
including nesting birds, would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation. Accordingly, the
implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 which is required by General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure
BIO-1, would also be required for the project to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Nesting Birds
While there are no existing trees on the project site, the residential properties immediately adjacent to
the project site to the south contain mature trees that have the potential to have nesting birds.
Accordingly, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 which is required by General Plan EIR Mitigation
Measure BIO-1, would be required for the project to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Impact BIO-1: Demolition and construction activities could disturb active nests in trees at the residential
properties immediately adjacent to the project site to the south, and/or otherwise interfere with nesting
of birds protected under federal and State law.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Nests of raptors and other birds shall be protected when in active use, as
required by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code. The
construction contractor shall indicate the following on all construction plans, if construction activities
and any required tree removal occur during the breeding season (February 1 and August 31).
Preconstruction surveys shall:
Be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to tree removal or grading, demolition, or
construction activities. Note that preconstruction surveys are not required for tree removal or
construction, grading, or demolition activities outside the nesting period.
Be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the start of tree removal or construction.
Be repeated at 14-day intervals until construction has been initiated in the area after which
surveys can be stopped.
Document locations of active nests containing viable eggs or young birds.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-20 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
Protective measures for active nests containing viable eggs or young birds shall be implemented
under the direction of the qualified biologist until the nests no longer contain eggs or young birds,
and the young have left the nest and are foraging independently, or the nest is no longer active.
Protective measures shall include:
Establishment of clearly delineated exclusion zones (i.e., demarcated by identifiable fencing,
such as orange construction fencing or equivalent) around each nest location as determined
by the qualified biologist, taking into account the species of birds nesting, their tolerance for
disturbance and proximity to existing development. In general, exclusion zones shall be a
minimum of 300 feet for raptors and 75 feet for passerines and other birds.
Monitoring active nests within an exclusion zone on a weekly basis throughout the nesting
season to identify signs of disturbance and confirm nesting status.
An increase in the radius of an exclusion zone by the qualified biologist if project activities are
determined to be adversely affecting the nesting birds. Exclusion zones may be reduced by
the qualified biologist only in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Bird Collision
Avian injury and mortality resulting from collisions with buildings, towers, and other man-made structures
is a common occurrence in city and suburban settings. Some birds are unable to detect and avoid glass
and have difficulty distinguishing between actual objects and their reflected images, particularly when the
glass is transparent and views through the structure are possible. Night-time lighting can interfere with
movement patterns of some night-migrating birds, causing disorientation or attracting them to the light
source. The frequency of bird collisions in a particular area is dependent on numerous factors, including:
characteristics of building height, fenestration (the arrangement of windows and doors on the elevations
of a building) and exterior treatments of windows and their relationship to other buildings and vegetation
in the area; local and migratory avian populations, their movement patterns, and proximity of water, food
and other attractants, time of year; prevailing winds; weather conditions; and other variables.
The proposed project would alter the physical characteristics of the site; however, this change is not
expected to contribute to a substantial increase in the risk of collisions to local and migratory birds. This is
due to several reasons, including that the surrounding area is developed with residential and commercial
buildings of similar height (30 feet); the project site does not have existing trees; and the proposed
structures would have limited transparency (i.e., no large uninterrupted windows in the new buildings).
Because the site vicinity is already developed with urban uses and the project site is currently developed
with an occupied structure, most birds, as under existing conditions, would likely acclimate to the
presence of the new building once completed. The potential risk of bird collision with the new buildings
would be extremely low.
While the design of the exterior treatment of the proposed buildings is in the conceptual phase and has
not yet been finalized, and must still go through Design Review, there are design options to minimize the
risk of bird collisions by using well-documented bird-safe designs for window treatments, roof top
equipment, and night-time lighting. While any bird collisions that do occur should not have a substantial
adverse effect on special-status bird species or more common bird species that may be flying through the
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-21
FINAL DRAFT
vicinity, the applicant, as described in Chapter 3, Project Description, has committed to implementing
bird-safe design measures in the new buildings, consistent with the proposed draft Cupertino Bird-Safe
Guidelines, which would further address the low risk of collision. These include the following measures
that would be part of the design of the new building:
Non-Reflective Glass: None of the exterior glass in the new buildings will have a light reflectance
value of more than 15 percent because some birds in certain circumstances might see vegetation
in the reflection and fly into a building.
Fritted Glass: Fritted glass is a non-reflective glass that is used to reduce glare and lower the
danger to birds. The residential units, including balcony railing elements, would have a
combination of UV coatings, frosting, and fritting, which reduces glare and makes the glass visible
to birds to reduce collisions.
Building Lighting: Overly lit buildings can be problematic, especially if there is up-lighting. The
project is required to meet City code minimum standards on exterior lighting, and the new
building would have no up-lighting. The source, intensity, and type of exterior lighting for the
project site would generally be provided for the purpose of orienting site users and for safety
needs. All on-site lighting would be low-level illumination and shielded to reduce light spill or
glare.
Tree Screening: The project site includes landscaping throughout the project site’s interior and the
surrounding perimeter, and additional landscaping in the common open space areas. For
neighborhood privacy, shrubs and screen planting would occur along the southern property edge,
consisting of broadleaf evergreen trees, primary accent trees, and required privacy planting
shrubs. Trees and other landscaping would be planted along Camino Vista Drive, Stevens Creek
Boulevard, and South Foothill Boulevard, as well as along the internal project roadway network.
These trees would help shield the first floors, which shielding would increase as the new trees
grow over time.
The location of the project site, the building design features and selected materials, were determined to
adequately address the remote potential for special-status bird species dispersing through the site vicinity
to collide with the new structure and be injured or killed. These measures would serve to minimize the
potential for bird strikes through the use of bird-friendly design guidelines in the treatment of windows
and other aspects of the proposed buildings and would ensure any potential impact would be less than
significant for special-status birds and more common bird species.
Should the draft City of Cupertino draft Bird Safe Design Ordinance described in Chapter 3, Project
Description, in Section 3.1.4.3, Other Requirements, be adopted by the City Council prior to project
construction, the project applicant would also be required to comply with these standards which would
also ensure that any potential impact would be less than significant for special-status birds and more
common bird species.
Roosting Bats
As described in the existing conditions, the CNDDB records were recently searched for, among other
species, occurrences of Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), hoary bat (Lasiurus
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-22 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
cinereus), and Yuma myotis bat (Myotis yumanensis). These three species have no legal protected status
under the State or federal Endangered Species Acts, but Townsend’s big-eared bat is considered a Species
of Special Concern by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Bat species found in the Cupertino
vicinity may forage and occasionally roost in the site vicinity, but suitable habitat conditions for maternity
roosts is absent from the site. The potential for any special-status bat species to be present on the site is
considered highly remote, given the urbanization of the site vicinity and intensity of human activity, which
typically discourages possible occupation by special-status bats. Accordingly, the construction and
operation of the proposed project would not result in the inadvertent loss of any bats and impacts would
be less than significant.
b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community type?
As discussed in the existing conditions above, the proposed project is located in an urbanized area where
no sensitive natural communities are found. The nearest creek is Stevens Creek, located approximately 0.5
miles to the east of the project site. The existing single-family residential neighborhoods act as a barrier
between Stevens Creek and the project site. Based on the existing conditions and the fact that the
proposed project would redevelop and underdeveloped site, impacts would be consistent with the
conclusions in the General Plan EIR and would remain less than significant.
c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
As discussed in the existing conditions and determined in the General Plan EIR, development of the
proposed project would occur in urbanized areas where no wetlands or jurisdictional waters occur on or
near the project site; therefore, no impact would occur directly. Indirect impacts to wetlands and
jurisdictional or other waters include: 1) an increase in the potential for sedimentation due to
construction grading and ground disturbance, 2) an increase in the potential for erosion due to increased
runoff volumes generated by impervious surfaces, and 3) an increase in the potential for water quality
degradation due to increased levels in non-point pollutants. However, indirect impacts would be largely
avoided through effective implementation of best management practices during construction and
compliance with water quality controls. As discussed in Impact HYDRO-1, water quality impacts from
construction and operation of the proposed project would be less than significant. Accordingly, indirect
impacts to wetlands and jurisdictional waters would remain consistent with the conclusions in the General
Plan EIR and would be less than significant.
d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species, their wildlife corridors or nursery sites?
Development on the project site would occur in an urbanized area where sensitive wildlife resources and
important wildlife movement corridors are no longer present because of the existing development. Given
the absence of trees and mostly paved and gravel surfaces on-site with one building, the types of wildlife
species that are common to urban and suburban habitat would not likely be displaced by construction of
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-23
FINAL DRAFT
the proposed project. The types of species that would be acclimated to the project site are relatively
abundant, and adapted to human disturbance. As discussed in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this
Initial Study, the proposed project would not include the removal of trees, as none currently exist on-site.
Furthermore, the proposed project would provide 10,608 square feet of landscaping that would provide
replacement habitat for wildlife species that may have adapted to the project site. Proposed project
landscaping includes native, drought tolerant landscaping that is beneficial to the environment. Therefore,
project impacts on the movement of fish and wildlife, wildlife corridors, or wildlife nursery sites would
remain consistent with the conclusions in the General Plan EIR and would be less than significant.
e) Would the project conflict with any local ordinances or policies protecting biological resources?
As discussed in criteria (a) through (d), above, the project site is in an urbanized area where sensitive
biological and wetland resources are considered to be absent, and no trees currently exist on the project
site. Additionally, no major conflicts with the relevant policies or ordinances related to biological resources
in the General Plan and/or CMC would occur. Therefore, project impacts would remain consistent with the
conclusions in the General Plan EIR and would be less than significant.
f) Would the project conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?
No adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
conservation plan includes the city or the project site, and the proposed project would not conflict with
any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
conservation plan. Impacts would remain consistent with the conclusions in the General Plan EIR, and no
impact would occur.
IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the proposed project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
GENERAL PLAN EIR
Chapter 4.4, Cultural Resources, of the General Plan EIR, addressed the impacts to cultural and Tribal
Cultural Resources (TCRs) associated with buildout of the General Plan including the redevelopment of
the project site with up to 19 dwelling units and a 30-foot height maximum at a program level. The
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-24 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
impacts were found to be less than significant, and no mitigation measures were required. The following is
a summary of Section, 4.4.1.2, Existing Conditions, of Chapter 4.4, which is based on the cultural resource
analysis conducted by Tom Origer & Associates on July 24, 2013, included as Appendix D, Cultural
Resources Data, of the General Plan EIR. The cultural resources study consists of archival research at the
Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University, examination of the library and files, field
inspection, and contact with the Native American community. As shown in Table 4.4-2, Cultural Resources
in the Project Study Area and Vicinity, and on Figure 4.4-1, Cultural Resources, of the General Plan EIR,
there are no identified cultural resources on the project site.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
As shown in Table 4.4-2, Cultural Resources in the Project Study Area and Vicinity, and Figure 4.4-1,
Cultural Resources, of the General Plan EIR, there are no identified cultural resources on the project site.
In 1939 the site was occupied by an orchard and the orchard trees were gradually cleared from the site
between the period of 1939 and 1950. Review of the historical data available for the site reveals that the
development of the site in its current form most likely took place between 1950 and 1956,69 which is
within the 45-year age limit established by the State Office of Historic Preservation for buildings that may
be of historical value.70 However, the existing building is not currently listed on the National Register of
Historic Places or the list of California Historical resources.71 Nor is the existing building associated with
significant cultural events, persons in California’s past, and does not have any distinctive historical
characteristics, and as such does not have any qualifying historical value.
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as
defined in Section 15064.5?
Under CEQA, both prehistoric and historic-period archaeological sites may qualify as historical resources.72
Archaeological resources are addressed in criterion (b), and human remains are addressed below in
criterion (c), below.
As discussed above in the existing conditions, the project site’s commercial building was developed
between 1950 and 1956. The existing building does not meet the criteria for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources. Additionally, the General Plan EIR did not identify the project site or
existing building as a historic resource, and the existing buildings are not currently listed as California
69 Achievement Engineering Corp. 2019. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for 22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard,
Cupertino, California, pages 2 and 3.
70 Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.
71 California Office of Historic Preservation. 2019. California Historical Resources. Accessed June 19, 2020 at
http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ListedResources/?view=county&criteria=43.
72 California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15064.5(c), Determining the Significance of Impacts on
Historical and Unique Archeological Resources.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-25
FINAL DRAFT
Historical Resources.73 Accordingly, impacts would remain consistent with the conclusions in the General
Plan EIR and less-than-significant impacts to historical architectural resources would occur as a result of
project development.
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
While the project site is currently developed, and the cultural resources study prepared for the General
Plan EIR74 did not identify any known archaeological deposits on the project site. However, the site could
still contain subsurface archaeological deposits, including unrecorded Native American prehistoric
archaeological materials. If subsurface historical and pre-contact archaeological deposits that meet the
definition of historical resource under CEQA Section 21084.1 or CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 are
present at the project site, they could be damaged or destroyed by ground-disturbing construction
activities (e.g., site preparation, grading, excavation, and trenching for utilities) associated with
development allowed under the proposed project. Should this occur, the ability of the deposits to convey
their significance, either as containing information about prehistory or history, or as possessing traditional
or cultural significance to Native American or other descendant communities, would be materially
impaired. Therefore, any project-related ground-disturbing activities have the potential to affect
subsurface prehistoric archaeological resources that may be present. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure CULT-1, which is not required by the General Plan EIR, would reduce impacts to unknown
archaeological deposits to a less-than-significant level.
Impact CULT-1: The proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.
Mitigation Measure CULT-1: A tribal representative shall be permitted on-site at all times during
ground disturbance (including grading, demolition and/or construction) to monitor for potential
prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources. Notice shall be given to the Tribe in a manner
requested by the Tribe at least 48 hours before any ground disturbing activity. Prior to ground
disturbance activities, construction workers conducting the ground disturbing activities shall undergo
cultural resource sensitivity training conducted by the on-site tribal representative.
If any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered during ground-disturbing
(including grading, demolition and/or construction) activities:
All work within 50 feet of the resources shall be halted, the City shall be notified, and a qualified
archaeologist and tribal representative shall be consulted. The contractor shall cooperate in the
recovery of the materials. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation
for tribal cultural resources, historical resources or unique archaeological resources is being
carried out.
73 Office of Historic Preservation, Listed California Historical Resources. Accessed June 19, 2020 at
http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ListedResources/?view=county&criteria=43.
74 City of Cupertino, certified General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning EIR, State
Clearinghouse Number 2014032007. December 4, 2014, Appendix D, Cultural Resources Data, Tom Origer & Associates on July
24, 2013.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-26 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
The qualified archaeologist shall prepare a report for the evaluation of the resource to the
California Register of Historical Places and the City Building Department. The report shall also
include appropriate recommendations in collaboration with a tribal representative regarding the
significance of the find and appropriate mitigations as follows:
If the resource is a non-tribal resource, the archaeologist shall assess the significance of the
find according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.
If the resource is a tribal resource – whether historic or prehistoric – the consulting
archaeologist shall consult with the appropriate tribe(s) to evaluate the significance of the
resource and to recommend appropriate and feasible avoidance, testing, preservation, or
mitigation measures, in light of factors such as the significance of the find, proposed project
design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures
(e.g., data recovery) may be implemented.
All significant non-tribal cultural materials recovered shall be, as necessary, and at the discretion
of the consulting archaeologist, subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and
documentation according to current professional standards.
c) Wou ld the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
There are no known human remains on the project site; however, the potential to unearth unknown
human remains during ground disturbing activities associated with the construction of the project could
occur. Any human remains encountered during ground-disturbing activities associated with the proposed
project would be subject to federal, State, and local regulations to ensure no adverse impacts to human
remains would occur in the unlikely event human remains are found.
Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, and CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5(e) contain the mandated procedures of conduct following the discovery of human
remains. According to the provisions in CEQA, if human remains are encountered at the site, all work in
the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease and necessary steps to ensure the integrity of the
immediate area shall be taken. The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified immediately. The Coroner
shall then determine whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines the remains
are Native American, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24
hours, who would, in turn, notify the person the NAHC identifies as the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) of
any human remains. Further actions shall be determined, in part, by the desires of the MLD. The MLD has
48 hours to make recommendations regarding the disposition of the remains after having been allowed
access to inspect the project site. If the MLD does not make recommendations within 48 hours, the owner
shall, with appropriate dignity, reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from further
disturbance. Alternatively, if the owner does not accept the MLD’s recommendations, the owner or the
descendent may request mediation by the NAHC. This would be included as a condition of approval of the
project to ensure implementation.
Therefore, with the mandatory regulatory procedures described above, potential impacts related to the
potential discovery or disturbance of any human remains accidently unearthed during construction
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-27
FINAL DRAFT
activities associated with the proposed project would impacts would remain consistent with the
conclusions in the General Plan EIR and would be less than significant.
V. ENERGY
Would the proposed project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy
resources, during project construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable
energy or energy efficiency?
GENERAL PLAN EIR
Chapter 4.14, Utilities and Services Systems, of the General Plan EIR addressed energy impacts associated
with buildout of the General Plan including the redevelopment of the project site with up to 19 dwelling
units and a 30-foot height maximum at a program level. Energy impacts were found to be less than
significant, and no mitigation measures were required.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
PG&E supplies electricity and natural gas to much of northern and central California – from Humboldt and
Shasta counties in the north to Kern and Santa Barbara counties in the south – including the infrastructure
for the City of Cupertino. Total electricity consumption in PG&E’s service area is forecast to increase from
104,868 gigawatt-hours (GWh) in 2015 to 119,633 GWh in 2027.75 The nearest PG&E substation to the
project site is the Monta Vista Substation on California Oak Way approximately 0.4 miles northwest of the
project site. The nearest electricity transmission lines to the project site are located adjacent to the
project site along Stevens Creek Boulevard and South Foothill Boulevard.76
The current project site is served by both electricity and natural gas connections. Electricity is supplied to
the project site via infrastructure maintained by PG&E. Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE), a locally
controlled public agency that has a partnership with PG&E, supplies the electricity to the project site.
SVCE provides a standard 50 percent renewable energy portfolio, in addition to a 100 percent renewable
option that electricity customers can opt into. Natural gas and associated infrastructure are provided and
maintained by PG&E.
75 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2017. California Energy Demand Updated Forecast, 2017-2027.
https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=214635, accessed on June 18, 2020.
76 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2012, October 25. Local Reliability Maps for 2013: Enlargement Maps.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/maps/infrastructure/3part_enlargements.html.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-28 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
Current energy demands are derived from the operation of one single-story commercial convenience
store that was constructed between 1950 and 1956.77 Current energy demand includes energy demand
from vehicle trips. When applying the trip generation rate for a convenience market, the existing uses on
the site generate 1,829 gross average daily trips and 3,800 daily VMT.78
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Construction activities use energy from various sources, such as on-site heavy-duty construction vehicles,
vehicles hauling materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew and
vendors. The operation of the proposed residential buildings would use energy for cooling, heating,
lighting, and landscape equipment, and for vehicle trips to and from the residential uses. According to the
existing trip estimates described in Section XV, Transportation, the proposed project would generate 85
net daily weekday vehicle trips and 538 net daily VMT, which is 1,744 average daily weekday vehicle trips
and 3,262 daily VMT less than what is generated for the existing 2,400 square foot convenience market.79
The proposed project is an infill development project that would result in the redevelopment of the
project site in a currently developed portion of the city. The project site currently has access to existing
infrastructure and services; however, the proposed project would require the construction or installation
of new infrastructure and capacity enhancing alterations to existing on-site facilities to connect the new
residential buildings to water, stormwater, sanitary sewer, electricity, and natural gas lines. The
construction of new infrastructure and capacity enhancing alterations would be necessary as part of the
construction of the residential buildings and would be consistent with the design and installation of typical
utility infrastructure for new residential buildings. Therefore, the construction or installation of new
infrastructure and capacity enhancing alterations would not be a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use
of energy.
The proposed project would improve connectivity for pedestrians and bicyclists as it would include the
construction of sidewalks along the perimeter of the project site, alongside Stevens Creek Boulevard,
Camino Vista Drive and South Foothill Boulevard, and the construction of Class II bike lanes along the
project site of Stevens Creek Boulevard. Existing crosswalks and Class II bike lanes on South Foothill
Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard would also remain and would provide additional access to the
project site. As described in Section X, Land Use and Planning, below, of this Initial Study, the proposed
project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation and would not result in new growth
potential from what was considered in the General Plan EIR.
77 Achievement Engineering Corp., 2019, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for 22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard,
Cupertino, California, pages 2 and 3, July 29.
78 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. January 2020. Trip Generation Study for a Residential Project on Stevens Creek
Boulevard in Cupertino, CA. See Appendix G of this Initial Study.
79 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. January 2020. Trip Generation Study for a Residential Project on Stevens Creek
Boulevard in Cupertino, CA. See Appendix G of this Initial Study.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-29
FINAL DRAFT
The proposed residential buildings would meet the 2019 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards of the
California Public Resources Code, Title 24, Part 6, which applies to any project that is proposed to begin
construction on or after August 2020. The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards improve upon the
2016 Standards. The 2019 Standards require 53 percent or more energy efficiency for residential
buildings, and 30 percent or more energy efficiency for non-residential buildings, respectively.80
As described above in Chapter 3, Project Description, in Section 3.1.4.4, Utilities and Energy, the City
enforces the CALGreen Building Standards, which establish planning and design standards for sustainable
site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), in CMC
Chapter 16.58, Green Building Standards Code Adopted. CMC Sections 16.58.100 through 16.58.220 sets
forth the standards for green building requirements by type of building. As shown on Table 101.10 in CMC
Section 16.58.220, single family and multi-family homes equal to or less than nine homes are required to
meet CALGreen Building Code in accordance with CALGreen’s minimum thresholds. CMC Section
16.58.230 permits applicants to apply an alternate green building standard for a project in lieu of the
minimum standards outlined in CMC Section 16.58.220 that meet the same intent of conserving
resources and reducing solid waste. Energy conserving features of the proposed project would include
new landscaping that is native and/or adaptive, and drought resistant to conserve water and subsequently
save energy.
New buildings constructed in accordance with the General Plan land use designation and to the standards
identified above would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy
resources. Accordingly, impacts would remain consistent with the conclusions in the General Plan EIR and
would be less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
As discussed below in criterion (b) of Section VII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the proposed project would
not conflict with the current CARB 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, Plan Bay Area, or the Cupertino
Climate Action Plan, all which involve planning for use of renewable energy planning and energy efficiency
standards. Additionally, as previously discussed, the proposed project would be built to the current 2019
Building and Energy Efficiency Standards of the California Public Resources Code, Title 24, Part 6.
Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required.
80 California Energy Commission. March 2018. 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Accessed May 24, 2019, at
https://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/documents/2018_Title_24_2019_Building_Standards_FAQ.pdf.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-30 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
VI.GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the proposed project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault?
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides, mudslides or other similar hazards?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined by Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
GENERAL PLAN EIR
Chapter 4.5, Geology, Soils, and Seismicity, of the General Plan EIR, addressed geological and seismic-
related impacts associated with buildout of the General Plan including the redevelopment of the project
site with up to 19 dwelling units and a 30-foot height maximum at a program level. Impacts were found to
be less than significant, and no mitigation measures were required. The following discussion is based on
project site information available in Section 4.5.1.2, Existing Conditions, of Chapter 4.5 and project
specific information from the Geotechnical Report dated March 3, 2020, prepared for the project site by
Achievement Engineering Corp. (AEC), which can be found in Appendix C, Geotechnical Report, of this
Initial Study. The report discusses the findings of the geotechnical investigation, including the site soils and
groundwater presence, and provides recommendations for the design and construction of the foundation
of the structures.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The following describes the existing conditions on the project site with respect to geology and soil:
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-31
FINAL DRAFT
Geology. The City of Cupertino lies in the west-central part of the Santa Clara Valley, a broad, mostly
flat alluvial plain that extends southward from San Francisco Bay. The site is generally flat with an
average elevation of 386 feet above mean sea level and the depth of groundwater is estimated to be
25 to 30 feet below ground surface. The soil is Urban Land Flaskan Complex, which is a well-drained
sandy loam, sandy clay loam, gravelly sandy clay loam and very gravelly sandy clay loam soil.81 Surficial
geology is young, unconsolidated Quaternary alluvium,82 which is described as Holocene-age younger
alluvium and coarse-grained alluvium that are composed of unconsolidated, poorly sorted gravel, silt,
sand, and clay and organic matter.
Unique geologic features are those that are unique to the field of geology. Each rock unit tells a story
of the natural processes operating at the time it was formed. The rocks and geologic formations
exposed at the earth’s surface or revealed by drilling and excavation are our only record of that
geologic history. What makes a geologic unit or feature unique can vary considerably. For example, a
geologic feature may be considered unique if it is the best example of its kind and has distinctive
characteristics of a geologic principle that is exclusive locally or regionally, is a key piece of geologic
information important to geologic history, contains a mineral that is not known to occur elsewhere in
the County, or is used as a teaching tool.
Unique geological features are not common in Cupertino. The geologic processes are generally the
same as those in other parts of the state, country, and even the world. The geology and soils on the
project site are common throughout the city and region and are not considered to be unique.
Soils. Web -accessible soil mapping data compiled by the USDA’s Soil Conservation Survey and the
California Soil Resource Laboratory hosted by University of California at Davis was used to identify the
major soil types on the project site. The predominant soil types for the project site are soils of the
Flaskan (formed on slopes of 0 to 30 percent), Landelspark (formed on slopes of 0 to 2 percent), and
Botella (formed on slopes of 0 to 15 percent). In almost all instances, these soils are reportedly deep
and well drained, and are typified by low to medium runoff.83
Fault Rupture. The San Francisco Bay Area is one of the most seismically active regions in the United
States. The significant earthquakes that occur in the Bay Area are generally associated with crustal
movement along well-defined active fault zones such as the San Andreas Fault system. Many of these
zones exhibit a regional trend to the northwest. The site is not located within a State-designated
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (known formerly as a Special Studies Zone) or a Santa Clara
County-designated Fault Rupture Hazard Zone.84 No active fault traces are known to cross the site;
however the San Andreas Fault passes a few miles west of the city of Cupertino.
Liquefaction. The site is not located within a seismically inducted liquefaction hazard zone, as mapped
by the State of California and Santa Clara County. During cyclic ground shaking, such as seismic
81 California Soil Resource Lab. https://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/gmap/, accessed on June 19, 2020.
82 US Geological Survey, 1994, Preliminary Quaternary Geologic Maps of Santa Clara Valley, Santa Clara, Alameda, and San
Mateo Counties, California: A Digital Database, Open-File Report 94-231, by E.J. Helley, R.W. Graymer, G.A. Phelps, P.K.
Showalter, and C.M. Wentworth.
83 UC Davis Soil Resource Laboratory, 2019. California Soil Resource Lab, Online Soil Survey, URL:
https://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/gmap/, accessed June 19, 2020.
84 Santa Clara County, 2012. Santa Clara County Geologic Hazard Zones, Map 18, updated October 26, 2012.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-32 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
shaking during an earthquake, cyclically induced stresses may cause increased pore water pressures
within the soil matrix, resulting in liquefaction. Liquefied soil may lose shear strength that may lead to
large shear deformations and/or flow failure. Liquefied soil can also settle as pore pressures dissipate
following an earthquake.
Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are loose to moderately dense, saturated, non-cohesive soils
with poor drainage, such as sands and silts with interbedded or capping layers of relatively low
permeability soil.
Lateral Spreading. Lateral spreading typically occurs as a form of horizontal displacement of relatively
flat-lying alluvial material toward an open or “free” face such as an open body of water, channel, or
excavation. In soils, this movement is generally due to failure along a weak plane and may often be
associated with liquefaction. As cracks develop within the weakened material, blocks of soil are
displaced laterally toward the open face. Cracking and lateral movement may gradually propagate
away from the face as blocks continue to break free. Because of the low potential for liquefaction, the
risk of lateral spreading at the site is also considered low.
Paleontological Resources. A review of the University of California’s Museum of Paleontology’s fossil
locality database was conducted for the City of Cupertino. No paleontological resources have been
identified on the project site; however, the presence of Pleistocene deposits that are known to
contain fossils indicates that the overall city could contain paleontological resources.
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving: (i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a known fault; (ii) Strong seismic ground shaking; (iii) Seismic-related
ground failure, including liquefaction; (iv) Landslides, mudslides or other similar hazards?
Fault Rupture
As discussed in the General Plan EIR, only one Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone has been mapped
within the City of Cupertino, namely, the zone that flanks the San Andreas Fault in the southwestern most
part of the city. Because the site is not located within a State-designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zone or Santa Clara County-designated Fault Rupture Hazard Zone, and no active faults are known to
traverse the site, the risk of surface fault rupture is considered low. The impacts from project
development as they relate to surface fault rupture are considered less than significant.
Strong Seismic Ground Shaking
The hazards posed by strong seismic ground shaking during a major earthquake, while variable, are nearly
omnipresent in the San Francisco Bay Area. As discussed in the General Plan EIR, in the event of a large,
magnitude 6.7 or greater seismic event, much of the city is projected to experience “strong” ground
shaking, with the most intense shaking forecast for the northeast part of the city where the project is
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-33
FINAL DRAFT
located. Adherence to applicable building code, including conformance to the California Building Code
(CBC) and the City’s building permit requirements would ensure that the impacts associated with strong
seismic ground shaking are minimized to the maximum extent practicable. The impacts of project
development as they relate to strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant.
Liquefaction
The project site is not located within an area mapped by the State of California or Santa Clara County as
having a high potential for seismically induced liquefaction. As discussed in the General Plan EIR, the
potential for seismically induced liquefaction in the vicinity appears low and is limited to a very narrow
strip of alluvial deposits that flank Stevens Creek approximately 0.4 miles east of the project site.
Accordingly, impacts associated with project development as they may relate to seismically induced
liquefaction would be less than significant.
Landslides
The site is generally flat with elevation an average of 386 feet above mean sea level.85 The project site is
not located within an area mapped by the State of California or Santa Clara County as having a high
potential for seismically induced landslides. Therefore, impacts associated with project development as
they may relate to seismically induced landslides would be less than significant.
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil during construction could, in theory, undermine structures and
minor slopes during development of the project site. However, compliance with existing regulatory
requirements, such as the implementation of grading erosion control measures specified in Appendix J,
Grading of the CBC and CMC Section 16.08.110, Interim Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, would reduce
impacts from erosion and the loss of topsoil.
Examples of these control measures are best management practices such as hydroseeding or short-term
biodegradable erosion control blankets; vegetated swales, silt fences, or other forms of protection at
storm drain inlets; post-construction inspection of drainage structures for accumulated sediment; and
post-construction clearing of debris and sediment from these structures.
Section 16.08.110 of the CMC requires the preparation and submittal of Interim Erosion and Sediment
Control Plans for all projects subject to City-issued grading permits, which would minimize the removal of
topsoil, avoid overly steep cut and/or fill slopes, and protect existing vegetation during grading operations.
These requirements are applicable to residential development projects. Adherence to these regulations
would help ensure that the impacts of project development as they relate to substantial soil erosion or
loss of topsoil would be less than significant.
85 Achievement Engineering Corp., 2019, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for 22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard,
Cupertino, California, page 2, July 29.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-34 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable
as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
As discussed in criterion (a), the project site is not located within an area mapped as having significant
potential for seismically induced liquefaction. Because of the low potential for liquefaction, the risk of
lateral spreading at the site would also be low. Therefore, the impacts of project development as they
relate to liquefaction and lateral spreading would be less than significant and no mitigation measures
would be required.
The site is generally flat with an average elevation of 386 feet above mean sea level.86 The properties
surrounding the project site are also at a similar elevation. The impacts of project development as they
relate to landslides would be less than significant.
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined by Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
Expansive soils can undergo dramatic changes in volume in response to variations in soil moisture content.
When wet, these soils can expand; conversely, when dry, they can contract or shrink. Sources of moisture
that can trigger this shrink-swell phenomenon can include seasonal rainfall, landscape irrigation, utility
leakage, and/or perched groundwater. Expansive soil can develop wide cracks in the dry season, and
changes in soil volume have the potential to damage concrete slabs, foundations, and pavement. Special
building/structure design or soil treatment are often needed in areas with expansive soils. Expansive soils
are typically very fine-grained with a high to very high percentage of clay, typically montmorillonite,
smectite, or bentonite clay.
The proposed project would be subject to the CBC regulations and provisions, as adopted in CMC Chapter
16.04, Building Code, and enforced by the City during plan review prior to building permit issuance. The
CBC contains specific requirements for seismic safety, excavation, foundations, retaining walls, and site
demolition, and also regulates grading activities, including drainage and erosion control. Thus, compliance
with existing regulations and policies would ensure that the potential future development impacts
permitted under the proposed project would be reduced. Therefore, the impacts of project development
as they relate to expansive soils are considered less than significant.
e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
The development of the proposed project would not require the construction or use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no impact would occur.
86 Alan Enterprises LLC, 2019. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California,
page 4.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-35
FINAL DRAFT
f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
As discussed above in existing conditions, the geology and soils on the project site are common
throughout the city and region and are not considered to be unique. While no paleontological resources
have been identified on the project site, because the proposed project requires excavation where no such
excavation has previously occurred fossils of potential scientific significance that have not been recorded
could be encountered. Therefore, ground-disturbing construction associated with development under the
proposed project could cause damage to, or destruction of, paleontological resources. Impacts to
paleontological resources or site or unique geologic features on-site would be reduced to a less-than-
significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, which is not required in the General
Plan EIR.
Impact GEO-1: Construction of the proposed project would have the potential to directly or indirectly
affect an unknown unique paleontological resource.
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: The construction contractor shall incorporate the following in all grading,
demolition, and construction plans:
In the event that fossils or fossil-bearing deposits are discovered during grading, demolition, or
building, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted.
The contractor shall notify the City of Cupertino Building Department and a City-approved
qualified paleontologist to examine the discovery.
The paleontologist shall document the discovery as needed, in accordance with Society of
Vertebrate Paleontology standards (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 1995), evaluate the
potential resource, and assess the significance of the finding under the criteria set forth in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5.
The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be
followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find.
If the project applicant determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare
an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the proposed project based on the qualities that
make the resource important. The excavation plan shall be submitted to the City for review and
approval prior to implementation.
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the proposed project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on the environment?
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-36 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
Would the proposed project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
No
Impact
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
GENERAL PLAN EIR
Chapter 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the General Plan EIR, addressed the impacts from GHG
emissions associated with buildout of the General Plan including the redevelopment of the project site
with up to 19 dwelling units and a 30-foot height maximum at a program level. GHG emissions impacts
under the General Plan EIR were found to be less than significant, and no mitigation measures were
required. This section analyzes the types and quantities of GHG emissions from the construction and
operation of the proposed project. An update to the background discussion of the GHG regulatory setting
and air quality modeling in the General Plan EIR is in Appendix A, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, of this Initial Study.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The existing commercial uses generate GHG emissions from transportation sources, energy (natural gas
and purchased energy), and area sources such as landscaping equipment and architectural coatings.
When applying the trip generation rate for a convenience market, the existing land uses generate
approximately 1,829 gross average daily weekday trips and 3,800 daily VMT.87
DISCUSSION
A background discussion on the GHG regulatory setting and GHG modeling can be found in Appendix A to
this Initial Study. For the purpose of this analysis, operational emissions for the proposed project were not
quantified. The proposed project would generate GHG emissions from transportation sources, energy use,
and area sources as well as indirect GHG emissions from water use and wastewater generation and solid
waste disposal. The residential use would result in 85 gross daily trips, a substantial decrease from the
1,829 gross average daily trips from existing uses. Furthermore, BAAQMD has also identified screening
criteria for project operation and the project would fall substantially below the screening criteria (e.g., 9
units compared to 451 condominium units). Thus, impacts as a result of the proposed project’s operation
will be discussed qualitatively.
87 Hexagon Transportation Consultants. January 2020. Trip Generation Study for a Residential Project on Stevens Creek
Boulevard in Cupertino, CA.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-37
FINAL DRAFT
a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
A project does not generate enough GHG emissions on its own to influence global climate change;
therefore, this Section measures the proposed project ’s contribution to the cumulative environmental
impact associated with GHG emissions. Development of the proposed project would contribute to climate
change through direct and indirect emissions of GHG from the construction activities needed to
implement the project, which would generate a short-term increase in GHG emissions. The net increase in
emissions generated by the proposed project was evaluated using CalEEMod, Version 2016.3.2.25. The
net increase in GHG emissions associated with the proposed project are shown in Table 4-4.
TABLE 4-4 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS
Category
GHG Emissions (MTCO2ea/Year)
Project Emissions
Total Construction Emissions 172
30-Year Amortized Construction 6
BAAQMD Emissions Threshold (MTCO2e) 660
Exceeds BAAQMD Thresholds? No
Notes: Emissions may not total to 100 percent due to rounding. N/A = not applicable. New buildings would be constructed to the 2019 Building Energy
Efficiency Standards (effective January 1, 2020) at a minimum. Existing buildings were constructed prior to the 2005 Building Energy Efficiency Standards;
and therefore, the “historic” rates in CalEEMod, which are based on the 2005 Standards, were used to estimate existing building energy use.
Transportation emissions include transportation demand management measures, such as the trip reduction program, required under the Bay Area
Commuter Benefits Program.
a. MTCO2e/year = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year.
Source: California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2016.3.2.25.
Construction Impacts
BAAQMD does not have thresholds of significance for construction related GHG emissions, which are one-
time, short-term emissions and therefore would not significantly contribute to the long-term cumulative
GHG emissions impacts of the proposed project. One-time, short-term emissions are converted to
average annual emissions by amortizing them over the service life of a building. For buildings in general, it
is reasonable to look at a 30-year time frame, since this is a typical interval before a new building requires
the first major renovation.88
As shown in Table 4-4, when evaluated over an average 30-year project lifetime, average annual
construction emissions from the proposed project would represent a nominal source of GHG emissions
and would not exceed the BAAQMD de minimis bright-line threshold of 660 MTCO2e/year.89 Accordingly,
construction GHG emissions from the proposed project would be less than significant.
88 International Energy Agency, 2008. Energy Efficiency Requirements in Building Codes, Energy Efficiency Policies for New
Buildings.
89 California Executive Order B-30-15 requires the state to reduce GHG emission 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. A 40%
reduction from BAAQMD’s 1,100 MTCO2e/year threshold identified in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017,
California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, p.2-4, is 660 MTCO2e/per year.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-38 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
Operational Impacts
The proposed project would generate 1,744 fewer daily weekday trips and 3,262 fewer daily VMT than the
existing on-site land uses. Because transportation emissions would generate the majority of GHG
emissions associated with the proposed project, this reduction in daily trips and VMT would provide a
project benefit in reducing GHG emissions. Additionally, the new buildings would be more energy efficient
than the existing structures and would be built to achieve the latest Title 24 Building and Energy Efficiency
Standards. Operation of the proposed project would result in a net decrease in GHG emissions and would
not exceed the BAAQMD bright-line screening threshold of 660 MTCO2e.90 Because long-term GHG
emissions associated with the proposed project are anticipated to decrease, resulting in a project benefit
to GHGs, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions include the CARB Scoping Plan, Plan
Bay Area 2040, and Cupertino’s CAP. A consistency analysis with these plans is presented below.
CARB’s Scoping Plan
CARB’s Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) outlines the State’s strategies to reduce GHG
emissions in accordance with the targets established under AB 32 and Senate Bill (SB) 32. The Scoping
Plan is applicable to State agencies and is not directly applicable to cities/counties and individual projects.
Nonetheless, the Scoping Plan has been the primary tool that is used to develop performance-based and
efficiency-based CEQA criteria and GHG reduction targets for climate action planning efforts.
Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions in the Scoping Plan include: implementing SB 350, which
expands the Renewable Portfolio Standard to 50 percent by 2030 and doubles energy efficiency savings;
expanding the Low Carbon Fuel Standards to 18 percent by 2030; implementing the Mobile Source
Strategy to deploy zero-electric vehicle buses and trucks; implementing the Sustainable Freight Action
Plan; implementing the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, which reduces methane and
hydrofluorocarbons to 40 percent below 2013 levels by 2030 and black carbon emissions to 50 percent
below 2013 levels by 2030; continuing to implement SB 375; creating a post-2020 Cap-and-Trade
Program; and developing an Integrated Natural and Working Lands Action Plan to secure California’s land
base as a net carbon sink. Statewide GHG emissions reduction measures that are being implemented as a
result of the Scoping Plan would reduce the proposed project’s GHG emissions.
The proposed project would be constructed pursuant to the requirements of the California Green Building
Standards Code and California Energy Code to achieve the standards in effect at the time of construction
permit issuance and would not conflict with statewide programs adopted for the purpose of reducing
90 California Executive Order B-30-15. requires the state to reduce GHG emission 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. A 40%
reduction from BAAQMD’s 1,100 MTCO2e/year threshold identified in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017,
California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, p.2-4, is 660 MTCO2e/per year.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-39
FINAL DRAFT
GHG emissions. As stated above, while the measures in the State’s Scoping Plan are not directly applicable
to individual development projects, the project’s GHG emissions would be reduced through compliance
with statewide measures that have been adopted since AB 32 and SB 32 were adopted. Therefore, the
impact would be less than significant.
Plan Bay Area
Plan Bay Area 2040, the Bay Area’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/Sustainable Community Strategy
(SCS) that identifies the sustainable vision for the Bay Area. To achieve MTC’s/ABAG’s sustainable vision for
the Bay Area, the Plan Bay Area 2040 land use concept plan for the region concentrates the majority of
new population and employment growth in the region in Priority Development Areas (PDAs). PDAs are
transit-oriented, infill development opportunity areas within existing communities. An overarching goal of
the regional plan is to concentrate development in areas where there are existing services and
infrastructure rather than allocate new growth to outlying areas where substantial transportation
investments would be necessary to achieve the per capita passenger vehicle, vehicle miles traveled, and
associated GHG emissions reductions. While the project site is not located in a PDA, as discussed in
Section XII, Population and Housing, growth associated with the proposed project is consistent with ABAG
projections and would not exceed regional population and employment projections (see Chapter 4,
General Plan EIR Consistency Analysis, of this Initial Study). The proposed project is an infill development
project that would result in an increase in land use intensity in a portion of the City that has access to
existing infrastructure and services, including transit service (see Section XV, Transportation). Therefore,
the proposed project would not conflict with the land use concept plan for the City of Cupertino identified
in the Plan Bay Area 2040 and the impact would be less than significant.
Cupertino Climate Action Plan
The Cupertino Climate Action Plan (CAP) is a strategic planning document that identifies sources of GHG
emissions within the City’s boundaries, presents current and future emissions estimates, identifies a GHG
reduction target for future years, and presents strategic goals, measures, and actions to reduce emissions
from the energy, transportation and land use, water, solid waste, and green infrastructure sectors.
The emissions reduction strategies developed by the City followed the BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines (2011)
and the corresponding criteria for a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Program as defined by
the BAAQMD, which in turn were developed to comply with the requirements of AB 32 and achieve the
goals of CARB’s 2008 Scoping Plan. Since the adoption of the CAP in January of 2015, the Legislature
adopted SB 32 (September 2016) and CARB adopted the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (December
2017), aimed at meeting SB 32’s GHG reduction goal of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy
A qualified GHG reduction strategy adopted by a local jurisdiction should include the following elements,
described in the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. BAAQMD’s revised CEQA Guidelines provides the
methodology to determine if a GHG reduction strategy meets these requirements. The following includes
a description of the BAAQMD methodology and how the Cupertino CAP meets the requirement.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-40 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
1. Quantify GHG emissions, both existing and projected over a specified time period, resulting from
activities within a defined geographic area.
Cupertino’s CAP identifies a baseline GHG emissions inventory for year 2010 and business-as-
usual forecasts for 2 020, 2035, and 2050 for land uses within the City.
2. Establish a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to GHG emissions from
activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable.
Cupertino’s CAP has established a goal (or level) of 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and
35 percent below 2005 levels by 2035. The 2020 GHG reduction goal is in line with AB 32.
However, the 2030 goal was adopted prior to SB 32.
3. Identify and analyze the GHG emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions
anticipated within the geographic area.
The GHG emissions sources calculated in the baseline GHG emissions inventory include
commercial, residential, and industrial electricity and natural gas use, on-road transportation,
solid waste disposal, energy use related to water and wastewater, agricultural off-road
equipment and emissions associated with fertilizer application, and off-road equipment use
for construction and lawn and garden activities. GHG emissions from these activities were
calculated from activity data such as kilowatt hours of electricity, therms of natural gas, tons
of waste disposed, and VMT from trips with an origin or destination in Cupertino.
4. Specify measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, that substantial evidence
demonstrates, if implemented on a project-by-project basis, would collectively achieve the specified
emissions level.
The Cupertino CAP has identified groups of measures and performance standards aimed at
achieving these targets: Reduce Energy Use/Improve Facilities; Encourage Alternative
Transportation/Convert Vehicle Fleet; Conserve Potable Water; Reduce Solid Waste; and
Expand Green Infrastructure. The Cupertino CAP strategies achieve the near-term (i.e., 2020)
GHG reduction target. Strategies for the post-2020 targets were not quantified.
5. Establish a mechanism to monitor the plan’s progress toward achieving the target GHG emissions
level and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving specified levels.
The City has a sustainability division that implements and tracks the City’s GHG reduction
strategies and progress toward GHG reduction targets. The City’s sustainability division
prepares annual reports on CAP implementation and progress as part of the monitoring
program, including projects and policies, data, and metrics, as well as inventory updates to
determine if the CAP is achieving its targeted goals.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-41
FINAL DRAFT
6. Be adopted in a public process following environmental review.
The City’s 2015 addendum to General Plan EIR91 demonstrated that that adoption of the
Cupertino CAP would not create any new or substantially more severe significant effects on
the environment that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR certified in 2014.92
Based on the analysis above, the City’s CAP is a qualified GHG reduction plan for the AB 32 targets.
In addition, a specific project proposal is considered consistent with the Cupertino CAP if it does not
conflict with the required GHG reduction measures contained in the adopted CAP. Project consistency
with the adopted GHG reduction measures are shown in Table 4-5.
TABLE 4-5 CUPERTINO CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY MATRIX
Measure Consistency
Measure C-E-1 Energy Use Data and Analysis
Increase resident and building
owner/tenant/operator knowledge about how,
when, and where building energy is used.
2035 GHG Reduction Potential: 850 MT CO2e/yr
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure. This
measure is not relevant because the proposed project receives energy
through Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) and therefore utilizes
renewable energy for the building. As described in Chapter 3, Project
Description, energy conservation measures would be used as part of
interior lighting for the new building, such as various glazing treatments
on exterior facades and efficient irrigation for landscape to reduce water
consumption by 20 percent. The proposed project would not conflict
with implementation of this measure.
Measure C-E-2 Retrofit Financing
Promote existing and support development of new
private financing options for home and commercial
building retrofits and renewable energy
development.
2035 GHG Reduction Potential: 10,525 MT CO2e/yr
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure. The
project proposes new residential buildings that would comply with the
2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen, at minimum,
as stated on pages 3-11 and 3-12 of Chapter 3, Project Description. The
proposed project would not conflict with implementation of this
measure.
Measure C-E-3 Home & Commercial Building
Retrofit Outreach
Develop aggressive outreach program to drive
voluntary participation in energy- and water-
efficiency retrofits.
Supporting Measure
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure. The
proposed project includes the construction of new buildings and
therefore these measures would not apply as a retrofit. Additionally, the
proposed project would comply with the latest building code and utilize
energy and water efficient fixtures. The proposed project would not
conflict with implementation of this measure.
Measure C-E-4 Energy Assurance Plan
Develop a long-term community-wide energy
conservation plan that considers future
opportunities to influence building energy efficiency
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure. The
proposed project includes buildings that would comply with the 2019
Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen, at minimum, as
stated on pages 3-11 and 3-12 of Chapter 3, Project Description.
91 City of Cupertino, approved General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning EIR Final
Addendum, State Clearinghouse Number 2014032007. October 2015.
92 City of Cupertino, certified General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning EIR, State
Clearinghouse Number 2014032007. December 2014.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-42 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
TABLE 4-5 CUPERTINO CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY MATRIX
Measure Consistency
through additional or enhanced building
regulations.
Supporting Measure
Measure C-E-5 Community-Wide Solar
Photovoltaic Development
Encourage voluntary community-wide solar
photovoltaic development through regulatory
barrier reduction and public outreach campaigns.
2035 GHG Reduction Potential: 4,400 MT CO2e/yr
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure. The
proposed project would not conflict with implementation of this
measure.
Measure C-E-6 Community-Wide Solar Hot Water
Development
Encourage communitywide solar hot water
development through regulatory barrier reduction
and public outreach campaigns.
2035 GHG Reduction Potential: 925 MT CO2e/yr
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure. The
proposed project would not conflict with implementation of this
measure.
Measure C-E-7 Community Choice Energy Option
Partner with other Santa Clara County jurisdictions
to evaluate the development of a regional CCE
option, including identification of the geographic
scope, potential costs to participating jurisdictions
and residents, and potential liabilities.
2035 GHG Reduction Potential: 56,875 MT
CO2e/yr
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure. The City of
Cupertino is a member of Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) which
partners with PG&E to provide clean electricity. The proposed project
would receive energy from SVCE. The proposed project would not
conflict with implementation of this measure.
Measure C-T-1 Bicycle & Pedestrian Environment
Enhancements
Continue to encourage multi-modal transportation,
including walking and biking, through safety and
comfort enhancements in the bicycle and
pedestrian environment.
Supporting Measure
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure. As stated
in Section XV, Transportation, of this Initial Study, the proposed project
would not remove existing bicycle facilities along Stevens Creek
Boulevard, nor would it conflict with the City’s 2016 Bicycle
Transportation Plan. Pedestrians would also have access to the site via
the existing crosswalks on Stevens Creek Boulevard connecting to South
Foothill Drive. Therefore, the proposed project would promote these
alternative modes of transportation.
Measure C-T-2 Bikeshare Program
Explore feasibility of developing local bikeshare
program.
Supporting Measure
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure. The
proposed project would not conflict with implementation of this
measure. Class II bike lanes currently exist on both sides of South
Foothill Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard along the length of the
project site. Bicyclists would access the project site from the existing
Class II bike lanes via the internal roadway network.
Measure C-T-3 Transportation Demand
Management
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure. As
described in Section XV, Transportation, of this Initial Study, the
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-43
FINAL DRAFT
TABLE 4-5 CUPERTINO CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY MATRIX
Measure Consistency
Provide informational resources to local businesses
subject to SB 1339 transportation demand
management program requirements and
encourage additional voluntary participation in the
program.
2035 GHG Reduction Potential: 2,375 MT CO2e/yr
proposed project is an infill project near transit stations served by VTA
bus routes 51. The proposed project would not conflict with
implementation of this measure.
Measure C-T-5 Transit Priority
Improve transit service reliability and speed.
Supporting Measure
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure. As
described in Section XV, Transportation, of this Initial Study, the
proposed project is an infill project near transit stations served by VTA
bus routes 51. The proposed project would not conflict with
implementation of this measure.
Measure C-T-6 Transit-Oriented Development
Continue to encourage development that takes
advantage of its location near local transit options
(e.g., major bus stops) through higher densities and
intensities to increase ridership potential.
Supporting Measure
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure. As
described in Section XV, Transportation, of this Initial Study, the
proposed project is an infill project near transit stations served by VTA
bus routes 51. The proposed project would not conflict with
implementation of this measure.
Measure C-W-1 SB-X7-7
Implement water conservation policies contained
within Cupertino’s Urban Water Management Plan
to achieve 20 percent per capita water reductions
by 2020.
Supporting Measure
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure. The
proposed project would comply with SB X7-7, which requires California
to achieve a 20 percent reduction in urban per capita water use by 2020
and would implement best management practices for water
conservation to achieve the City’s water conservation goals. As
described in Chapter 3, Project Description, the project incorporates
water conservation features for on-site irrigation. All landscape zones
would be irrigated as required by the Cupertino Landscape Ordinance,
and water uses would be tailored to meet CALGreen Building Standards,
which requires water conservation and requires new buildings to reduce
water consumption by 20 percent. The proposed project would not
conflict with implementation of this measure.
Measure C-W-2 Recycled Water Irrigation Program
Explore opportunities to use recycled water for
irrigation purposes to reduce potable water
demands.
Supporting Measure
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure. City must
build the infrastructure to provide recycled water for projects to use. As
described in Chapter 3, Project Description, the project incorporates
water conservation features for on-site irrigation. All landscape zones
would be irrigated as required by the Cupertino Landscape Ordinance,
and water uses would be tailored to meet CALGreen Building Standards,
which requires water conservation and requires new buildings to reduce
water consumption by 20 percent. The proposed project would not
conflict with implementation of this measure.
Measure C-SW-1 Zero Waste Goal
Maximize solid waste diversion communitywide
through preparation of a zero-waste strategic plan.
Supporting Measure
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure. As
described in Chapter 3, Project Description, this Initial Study, pursuant
to CMC Chapter 16.72, Recycling and Diversion of Construction and
Demolition Waste, during construction, the project would reduce
construction waste and divert materials from landfill and promote
recycling of construction waste. The proposed project would not conflict
with implementation of this measure.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-44 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
TABLE 4-5 CUPERTINO CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY MATRIX
Measure Consistency
Measure C-SW-2 Food Scrap and Compostable
Paper Diversion
Continue to promote the collection of food scraps
and compostable paper through the City’s organics
collection program.
2035 GHG Reduction Potential: 750 MT CO2e/yr
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for implementing this
measure. The proposed project would include compost and yard waste
disposal services through the City’s contracts with Recology South Bay.
The materials would be collected by the City garbage waste hauler. The
proposed project would not conflict with implementation of this
measure.
Measure C-SW-3 Construction & Demolition Waste
Diversion Program
Continue to enforce diversion requirements in City’s
Construction & Demolition Debris Diversion and
Green Building Ordinances.
2035 GHG Reduction Potential: 550 MT CO2e/yr
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure. As
described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Initial Study, the
proposed project would comply with the City’s Construction and
Demolition Debris Diversion Ordinance (CMC Chapter 16.72), which
requires applicable construction projects to divert 65 percent of
construction waste. Pursuant to CMC Section 16.72.050, Information
Required Before Issuance of Permit, the project would create a
construction waste management plan to reduce construction waste and
divert materials from landfill and promote recycling of construction
waste. Prior to receiving a final building inspection, a construction
recycling report would be submitted to show the tons recycled and
disposed by material type. The proposed project would not conflict with
implementation of this measure.
Measure C-G-1 Urban Forest Program
Support development and maintenance of a
healthy, vibrant urban forest through outreach,
incentives, and strategic leadership.
2035 GHG Reduction Potential: 725 MT CO2e/yr
Consistent. The City is the responsible party for this measure. As
described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Initial Study, there
are no trees or other landscaping on the project site, and the proposed
project would include the planting of approximately 21 trees and 10,608
square feet of landscaping. The new landscaping reduces storm water
run-off, increases carbon dioxide plantings, and reduces the heat sink
profile of the site. The proposed project would not conflict with
implementation of this measure.
Source: City of Cupertino, PlaceWorks, 2020.
Development in Cupertino, including the proposed project, is required to adhere to City-adopted policy
provisions, including those contained in the adopted CAP. The City ensures that the provisions of the
Cupertino CAP are incorporated into projects and permits as part of development review and through
conditions of approval. In general, the proposed project represents a net benefit to GHG emissions
because the project would reduce transportation related GHG emissions on-site. In general, the proposed
project represents a benefit to GHG emissions compared to existing conditions because the mixed-use
and infill development would locate housing and residential serving land uses in an existing neighborhood
and would replace the older structures with newer, more energy efficient structures that achieve the 2019
Building and Energy Efficiency Standards and water efficiency standards and would decrease GHG
emissions. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-45
FINAL DRAFT
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the proposed project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials,
substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment?
e) For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, result in a safety hazard for people living or
working in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
GENERAL PLAN EIR
Chapter 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the General Plan EIR, addressed the hazards and
hazardous materials-related associated with buildout of the General Plan including the redevelopment of
the project site with up to 19 dwelling units and a 30-foot height maximum at a program level. Impacts
were found to be less than significant with mitigation measures to reduce impacts from development on
sites with known hazardous contamination. General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a and HAZ-4b,
previously adopted and incorporated into the General Plan, are required to be implemented for sites with
known contamination and potential residual contamination.
The following is a summary of Section, 4.7.1.2, Existing Conditions, of Chapter 4.7, and project specific
information from the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) dated July 29, 2019, and Phase II ESA
dated October 17, 2019 both prepared for the project site by Achievement Engineering Corp. (AEC) and
reviewed by PlaceWorks and the City. The Phase I ESA and Phase II ESA can be found in Appendix D and
Appendix E, respectively, of this Initial Study. The purpose of the Phase I and Phase II ESAs were to
evaluate the surface and subsurface conditions at the subject site.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-46 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Phase I ESA
Based on aerial photos, in 1939 there was an orchard was on the property that can no longer be seen in
1950 aerial photo. Sometime between 1939 and 1950 the orchard was cleared from the project site.
While the existence of fertilizers, pesticides and metals are possible in the shallow soil due to this
historical land use,93 according to the Department of Toxic Substances and Control (DTSC), when orchards
have been removed or became inactive prior to 1950 organic pesticides are not an issue warranting
further testing.94 Following the removal of the orchards, the historical data and aerial photos available for
the project site reveal that the development of the site, as is, took place between 1950 and 1956. The first
City directory listing for this property occurred in 1975, as Frank’s Liquor and Grocery Store. An interview
conducted in 2017 reveals that before 1976, the building was used as a bar. Bateh Brothers Liquors and
Mini Mart has been located on the project site since 1980.
The Phase I ESA details that the project site did not have pools or sumps containing possible hazardous
substances or petroleum products during the site visitation. No storage tanks or evidence of underground
pipelines bisecting the project site were observed. No evidence of above ground gasoline or diesel storage
tanks was observed, and the historical and regulatory record review revealed no evidence of any
underground storage tanks previously used at the project site. Stormwater from paved surfaces is sloped
to a public drain, and no abnormal accumulation of petroleum run-off or foreign material was observed.
No wastewater pretreatment or discharge control devices were observed or reported.95
The Phase I ESA included a search of hazardous material databases and found the site was not listed in
any database. Such databases include the DTSC’s EnviroStor database and the GeoTracker. The closest off-
site location included in the database search was the neighboring property (Cupertino Beacon) located at
22510 Stevens Creek Boulevard. The Phase I ESA identified that the borings taken at the project site found
benzene concentration in soil vapor, which is a recognized environmental condition (REC), to be above the
environmental screening levels (ESL). Additionally, it identified that the neighboring property (Cupertino
Beacon) has an open Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) case, regulated by the State Water
Resources Control Board, as well as documented soil, groundwater, and soil vapor contamination. These
represent off-site controlled RECs.96
93 Achievement Engineering, 2019. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, 22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino,
California, page 2, October 17.
94 California Department of Toxic Substances Control California Environmental Protection Agency, Interim Guidance for
Sampling Agricultural Properties, page 3, August 7, 2008.
95 Achievement Engineering, 2019. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino,
California, page 21, July 29.
96 Achievement Engineering, 2019. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino,
California, page 26, July 29.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-47
FINAL DRAFT
Phase II ESA
The limited Phase II ESA subsurface investigation evaluated the soil and water conditions regarding the
above-mentioned on- and off-site RECs.97 The Phase II ESA found no-risk or significant levels of total
petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) Gasoline, TPH Diesel, TPH Motor Oils, Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE),
BETEX (a group of volatile organic compounds, comprising benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene),
Organochlorine Pesticides, and heavy metals in the soil, above the regulatory values. However, the Phase
II ESA included recommendations for the preparation and implementation of a routine health and safety
plan to ensure the safety and protection of the public and construction workers during construction and
the installation of vapor barriers beneath the concreate foundation slab of the proposed buildings to
mitigate potential odor risks associated with concentration of vapors. Because the odor risks are a
nuisance and not a hazard, this is discussed in Section II, Air Quality, in criterion (d).98
Lead-Based Paints and Asbestos-Containing Materials
Development of the project site occurred somewhere between 1950 and 1956, and it is unclear when the
building was actually constructed; therefore, the existing buildings may contain asbestos-containing
materials (ACM), lead-based paint (LBP), or polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which have only been
regulated in construction since the early 1970s. ACMs and LBPs in structures do not qualify as RECs
regulated by the DTSC.
Sensitive Receptors
Public schools near the project site are Monta Vista High School to southeast of the project site, Stevens
Creek Elementary School to the northeast, and John F. Kennedy Middle School to the southeast of the
project site. Each public school is approximately 1 mile from the project site. Private schools near the
project site are Saint Joseph of Cupertino School approximately 2 miles to the east, Futures Academy of
Cupertino approximately 3 miles to the east, Bethel Lutheran School approximately 3.5 miles to the east,
Archbishop Mitty High School approximately 4 miles to the east, Pinewood School approximately 4 miles
to the northwest, and Waldorf School of the Peninsula approximately 4 miles to the northwest. Other
sensitive99 land uses near the project site are the Sunny View Bay Area Retirement Community
approximately 0.2 miles to the north, Cupertino Healthcare and Wellness nursing home approximately 0.3
miles to the south, and Cupertino Senior Center approximately 1.3 miles to the east.
Airports
The nearest public airports are San José International Airport, approximately 8 miles to the northeast, and
Palo Alto Airport, approximately 9.5 miles to the north. The nearest heliports are McCandless Towers
Heliport, approximately 7 miles to the northeast, and County Medical Center Heliport, approximately 7.5
97 Achievement Engineering, 2019. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, 22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino,
California, page 2, October 17.
98 Achievement Engineering, 2019. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, 22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino,
California, page 9, October 17.
99 Sensitive resources in this context refers to uses or receptors that are most vulnerable to air and noise pollution.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-48 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
miles to the east. The nearest private (military/corporate) airport is Moffett Federal Airfield, approximately
7 miles to the north. The project site is not within the boundaries of an airport land use plan.
Wildfire
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Projection (CAL FIRE) has designated the project site as a
Local Responsibility Area (LRA) and a non-very high fire hazard severity zone. The project site is near lands
that CAL FIRE designates as a State Responsibility Area (SRA), which are areas of the state where
the State of California is financially responsible for the prevention and suppression of wildfires. SRA’s do
not include lands within city boundaries or in federal ownership. The SRA is approximately 1 mile to the
west of the project site.100 The project site is located 0.2 miles to the east of the wildland-urban interface,
which is an area of transition between wildland (unoccupied land) and land with human development
(occupied land).101
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?
Construction Impacts
Construction activities at the project site would involve the use hazardous materials, such as petroleum-
based fuels for maintenance and construction equipment, and coatings used in construction, which would
be transported to the site periodically by vehicle and would be present temporarily during construction.
These potentially hazardous materials would not be of a type or occur in sufficient quantities to pose a
significant hazard to public health and safety or the environment, and their use during construction would
be short-term. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, and
transportation of hazardous materials would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and
handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for safety impacts to occur.
Consequently, associated impacts from construction of the proposed project would be less than
significant.
Operational Impacts
The proposed residential development would not involve the routine transport or disposal of hazardous
materials. Project operation would involve the use of small amounts of hazardous materials for cleaning
and maintenance purposes, such as cleansers, degreasers, pesticides, and fertilizers. These potentially
hazardous materials would not be of a type or be present in sufficient quantities to pose a significant
hazard to public health and safety or the environment. Furthermore, such substances would be used,
100 CAL FIRE. 2008. VHSZ Viewer
https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/
101 CAL FIRE. 2018. Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Threat.
http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=d45bf08448354073a26675776f2d09cb, accessed June 4, 2020.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-49
FINAL DRAFT
transported, stored, and disposed of in accordance with applicable federal, State, and local laws, policies,
and regulations. Thus, associated impacts from the operational phase of the proposed project would be
less than significant.
b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
As described above in criterion (a), the construction and operation of the proposed project would involve
the storage and use of common cleaning substances, building maintenance products, paints, and solvents,
as well as petroleum-based fuels for maintenance and construction equipment, and coatings used in
construction. As described in the existing conditions, development of the project site could have occurred
before ACMs, LBPs, or PCBs were regulated in construction in the early 1970s.
An impact could occur if construction and operation of the proposed project creates conditions where
these hazardous materials could easily contaminate surrounding soil, water, or air and subsequently be
exposed to construction worker or the public. The most likely scenarios would be from rainwater runoff
spreading contaminated waste. Stormwater runoff is discussed in Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality,
below, of this Initial Study and impacts were found to be less than significant.
Construction Impacts
Petroleum products used during construction activities are required to be handled in accordance with
existing federal, State, and local regulations. All spills or leakage are required to be immediately contained,
the hazardous material identified, and the material remediated in compliance with applicable State and
local regulations. All contaminated waste would be required to be collected and disposed of at an
appropriately licensed disposal or treatment facility. Furthermore, strict adherence to all emergency
response plan requirements set forth by the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health
Hazardous Materials Compliance Division would be required through the duration of the construction of
the project.102
Although the Phase II ESA did not identify any hazardous materials on-site, in the event that removal and
handling of hazardous materials would occur, it would be done in accordance with existing federal, State,
and local regulations. These regulations include the USEPA’s National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants (Code of Federal Regulation Part 61), BAAQMD’s Regulation 11, Title 8 of the California
Codes of Regulations, the Unified Program, and the City’s General Plan Health and Safety Element Policy
HS-6.1, which would ensure that risks associated with the transport, storage, use, and disposal of such
materials would be reduced to the maximum extent practical.
The demolition of the existing building could expose construction workers or the public to ACMs, LBPs, or
PCBs. Removal of these types of hazardous materials would be conducted by contractors licensed to
102 Santa Clara County Ordinance Code, Division B11, Chapter XIII (Hazardous Materials Storage Ordinance), Chapter XIV
(Toxic Gas Ordinance).
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-50 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
remove and handle these materials and in accordance with existing federal, State, and local regulations,
including United States Environmental Protection Agency’s National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (Code of Federal Regulation Part 61), Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s Regulation 11,
Title 8 of the California Codes of Regulations, the Unified Program, and the City’s General Plan Health and
Safety Element Policy HS-6.1, and would ensure that risks associated with demolition and the transport,
storage, use, and disposal of such materials would be reduced to the maximum extent practical.
The General Plan EIR found that for any sites with known contamination or potential residual
contamination, implementation of Mitigation HAZ-4a would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant
level. While the soil testing conducted for the Phase II investigation found no contaminants that exceeded
the regulatory screening levels, the Phase II recommended that a routine health and safety plan be
implemented to protect construction workers and the public during the construction phase. Therefore,
the implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, which is required pursuant to General Plan EIR
Mitigation Measure HAZ-4a, would be required for the project to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant
level.
Impact HAZ-1: Demolition and construction activities could expose construction workers and the public to
hazardous materials during the construction phase.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: The project applicant shall prepare an Environmental Site Management
Plan (ESMP) in consultation with applicable agencies (e.g., the Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB), the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Santa Clara County Department of
Environmental Health (SCCDEH), or Santa Clara County Fire Department), if any, or in the alternative
to the satisfaction of the City based on a third-party peer review, as appropriate. The purpose of the
ESMP is to protect construction workers, the general public, the environment, and future site
occupants from subsurface hazardous materials previously identified at the site and to address the
possibility of encountering unknown contamination or hazards during demolition, grading, excavation,
and construction activities. The ESMP shall summarize soil and groundwater analytical data collected
on the project site during past investigations; identify management options for grading, if
contaminated media are encountered during grading; and identify monitoring, irrigation, or other
wells requiring proper abandonment in compliance with local, State, and federal laws, policies, and
regulations.
The ESMP shall include measures for identifying, testing, and managing soil and groundwater
suspected of or known to contain hazardous materials. The ESMP shall: 1) provide procedures for
evaluating, handling, storing, testing, and disposing of soil and groundwater during project grading; 2)
describe required worker health and safety provisions for all workers potentially exposed to hazardous
materials in accordance with State and federal worker safety regulations; and 3) designate personnel
responsible for implementation of the ESMP.
Operational Impacts
The proposed residential development is not considered the type of project that would create a
hazardous materials threat to the users of the site or the surrounding land uses. The Santa Clara County
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-51
FINAL DRAFT
Hazardous Materials Compliance Division (HMCD) is the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for
Santa Clara County, including the City of Cupertino, and is responsible for enforcing Chapter 6.95 of the
California Health and Safety Code. As the CUPA, Santa Clara County HMCD is required to regulate
hazardous materials business plans (HMBP) and chemical inventory, hazardous waste and tiered
permitting, underground storage tanks, and risk-management plans. Santa Clara County Department of
Environmental Health, Hazardous Materials Compliance Division is required to conduct ongoing routine
inspections to ensure compliance with existing laws and regulations; to identify safety hazards that could
cause or contribute to an accidental spill or release; and to suggest preventative measures to minimize
the risk of a spill or release of hazardous substances. Compliance with these regulations, as necessary,
would ensure that the risk of accidents and spills is minimized to the maximum extent practicable during
the operation of the proposed project. Consequently, associated impacts would be less than significant.
c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances or waste
within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school?
There are no schools within 0.25 miles of the project site, but as described in the existing conditions the
Sunny View Bay Area Retirement Community is approximately 0.2 miles to the north, and Cupertino
Healthcare and Wellness nursing home is approximately 0.3 miles to the south. As discussed in criterion
(a) and (b), the proposed project would not involve the storage, handling, or disposal of hazardous
materials in sufficient quantities to pose a significant risk to the public. Thus, no impact related to
hazardous emissions or hazardous material handling to schools or other sensitive receptors that are
within 0.25 miles of the project site would occur and no mitigation measures are required.
Also see Section II, Air Quality, criterion (c), which concludes that the potential for impacts to sensitive
receptors due to the release of hazardous materials during construction would be less than significant
with mitigation.
d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
As stated in the existing conditions above, the project site was not identified as being on a listed site
pursuant to California Government Code Section 65952.5. Therefore, no impact would occur.
e) For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people
living or working in the project area?
The project site is not within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a public use airport. Thus, there
would be no impact related to public airport hazards.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-52 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The City of Cupertino Office of Emergency Services is responsible for coordinating agency response to
disasters or other large-scale emergencies in the City of Cupertino with assistance from the Santa Clara
County Office of Emergency Services and the Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD). The Cupertino
Emergency Operations Plan (EOP)103 establishes policy direction for emergency planning, mitigation,
response, and recovery activities within the city. The Cupertino EOP addresses interagency coordination,
procedures to maintain communications with county and State emergency response teams, and methods
to assess the extent of damage and management of volunteers.
The proposed project would not block roads and would not impede emergency access to surrounding
properties or neighborhoods. As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Initial Study,
emergency vehicle access would be provided at two points on the project site, with ingress and egress
located at both South Foothill Boulevard and Camino Vista Drive, via left or right turn lanes, as shown in
Figures 3-4 and 3-5.
During demolition and construction, vehicles, equipment, and materials would be staged and stored on a
portion of the project site. The construction site and staging areas would be clearly marked, and
construction fencing would be installed to prevent disturbance and safety hazards. No staging would
occur in the public right-of-way. A combination of on- and off-site parking facilities for construction
workers would be identified during demolition, grading, and construction. The proposed project would
not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan, or emergency evacuation plan; therefore,
impacts would be less than significant.
g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss,
injury, or death involving wildland fires?
As described in the existing conditions, above, the project site is in an LRA and a non-very high fire hazard
severity zone. The project site is located 0.2 miles to the east of the wildland-urban interface.104 The
proposed project would construct additional single-family homes in an urbanized residential area with
adequate emergency access, and would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury,
or death involving wildfires and impacts would be less than significant.
103 City of Cupertino, Office of Emergency Services. Emergency Operations Plan. September 2005.
104 CAL FIRE. 2018. Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Threat.
http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=d45bf08448354073a26675776f2d09cb, accessed June 18, 2020.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-53
FINAL DRAFT
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the proposed project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or
ground water quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site;
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-
or off-site;
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed
the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff; or
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk the release of
pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
GENERAL PLAN EIR
Chapter 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the General Plan EIR, addressed the hydrology- and water
quality-related impacts associated with buildout of the General Plan including the redevelopment of the
project site with up to 19 dwelling units and a 30-foot height maximum at a program level. Impacts were
found to be less than significant, and no mitigation measures were required. The following is a summary
of Section, 4.8.1.2, Existing Conditions, of Chapter 4.8.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project site lies within the Stevens Creek Watershed,105 approximately 0.4 miles west of Stevens
Creek, and approximately 1.7 miles north of Stevens Creek Reservoir. No creeks or natural drainage
features are present on the project site. In addition to the natural drainage system within the watershed, a
105 City of Cupertino, certified General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning EIR, State
Clearinghouse Number 2014032007. December 4, 2014, Chapter 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, Figure 4.8-1, Watersheds.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-54 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
network of storm drains collects runoff from city streets and conveys it to four creeks, including Stevens
Creek, with ultimate discharge into San Francisco Bay.
The City of Cupertino Department of Public Works is responsible for the design, construction, and
maintenance of City-owned facilities including public streets, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and storm drains.
The capacity of the storm drain facilities within the City of Cupertino was evaluated and documented in
the 2018 Storm Drain Master Plan, which identifies areas within the system that do not have the capacity
to handle runoff during a 10-year storm event, which is the City’s design standard.
As described in the 2018 Storm Drain Master Plan, the project site is in an area where the storm drains
are deficient in conveying water from a 10-year storm. The storm drains beneath Stevens Creek Boulevard
and South Foothill Boulevard adjacent to the project site are currently under capacity and are designated
as high priority for replacement.106 The proposed storm drain improvements identified in the 2018 Storm
Drain Master Plan to reduce flooding impacts along Foothill Boulevard are to increase the pipe size
beneath Stevens Creek Boulevard east of South Foothill Boulevard from 36 inches to 60 inches and to
increase the pipe size beneath South Foothill Boulevard next to the project site from 30 inches to 48
inches.107
The project site, as well as the entire city, is within the Santa Clara Subbasin of the Santa Clara Valley
Groundwater Basin. In 2017, approximately 42 percent of the water used in Santa Clara County was
pumped from groundwater.108 Three borings advanced to 40 feet below ground surface (bgs) at the site
during a Phase II site investigation did not encounter groundwater.109 However, previous investigations
indicated a depth of groundwater from about 21.6 to 29 feet bgs.110 Based on the proposed excavation
and type of construction for this project,111 construction dewatering would not be required. Most of the
water supplied to the County is purchased from the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), which
receives surface water from the State Water Project (SWP) and the Central Valley Project. Additional
details on water usage and local water purveyors are provided in Section XVII, Utilities and Service
Systems, of this Initial Study.
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program was established by the
federal Clean Water Act (CWA) to regulate municipal and industrial discharges to surface waters of the
United States from their municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s). Municipal storm water
discharges in the City of Cupertino are subject to the Waste Discharge Requirements of the Municipal
Regional Permit (MRP; Order Number R2-2015-0049) as amended by Order No. R2-2019-0004.
106 Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers. 2018. Cupertino Storm Drain Master Plan.
107 Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers. 2018. Cupertino Storm Drain Master Plan.
108 Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2017. Annual Groundwater Report for Calendar Year 2017, page ES-1.
109 Achievement Engineering, 2019. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report. Dated October 17, 2019.
110 Achievement Engineering, 2019. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino,
California, page 19, July 29.
111 Achievement Engineering, 2020. Geotechnical Report for the New Development at 22690 Stevens Creek, Cupertino, CA
95014. Dated March 3, 2020.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-55
FINAL DRAFT
All new development or redevelopment projects that create and/or replace 10,000 square feet or more of
impervious surfaces would be required to incorporate source control, site design, and stormwater
treatment measures into the project, pursuant to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention
Program C.3 requirements. The requirements include minimization of impervious surfaces, measures to
detain or infiltrate runoff from peak flows, and agreements to ensure that the stormwater treatment and
flow control facilities are maintained in perpetuity.
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB monitors surface water quality through implementation of the Water
Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan) and designates beneficial uses for surface
water bodies and groundwater within the Santa Clara Valley. The Basin Plan also contains water quality
criteria for groundwater. Groundwater quality in the Santa Clara subbasin is generally considered to be
good, and water quality objectives are met in at least 95 percent of the County water supply wells without
the use of treatment methods.112
The project site is not located in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain or Special Flood Hazard Area. The
project site is not within the dam inundation zone of Stevens Creek Reservoir or any other dams.113 The
City of Cupertino is more than 8 miles south of the San Francisco Bay and is more than 100 feet above
mean sea level, which places the City at a distance beyond the impacts of a tsunami.114 There are no large
bodies of water within the City of Cupertino or near the project site; thus, the project site would not be
impacted by a seiche.
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
The proposed project would create and/or replace 10,000 square feet of impervious surfaces, and
therefore would be required to incorporate source control, site design, and stormwater treatment
measures into the project, pursuant to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program
C.3 requirements. The low impact development (LID) requirements include minimization of impervious
surfaces, measures to detain or infiltrate runoff from peak flows, such as bioretention areas, and
agreements to ensure that the stormwater treatment and flow control facilities are maintained in
perpetuity. The proposed project would include 9,454 square feet of pervious surfaces in the form of
landscaping and one on-site bioretention area that would hold and treat stormwater before it is released
into the City’s off-site storm drain infrastructure. The bioretention area is designed to detain stormwater
runoff, filter runoff through biotreatment soil media, remove pollutants such as suspended solids, metals,
and nutrients and eventually discharge the runoff to the City’s storm drain system. Implementation of
112 Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2016. Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2016. 2016 Groundwater Management Plan.
113 Santa Clara County Fire Department. 2012. Joint Stevens Creek Dam Failure Plan.
https://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=7424 accessed on September 26, 2019.
114 Association of Bay Area Governments, 2019. Interactive Tsunami Inundation Map.
http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/Hazards/?hlyr=tsunami , accessed September 26, 2019.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-56 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
these measures and compliance with the C.3 requirements of the MRP would ensure that post-
development impacts to water quality would be less than significant.
The project must comply with CMC Chapter 9.18, Storm Water Pollution Prevention and Watershed
Protection, described above in Section 3.1.4.2, Zoning, which is intended to provide regulations and give
legal effect to certain requirements of the MRP permit issued to the City. CMC Chapter 9.18 also ensures
ongoing compliance with the most recent version of the MRP regarding municipal storm water and urban
runoff requirements and applies to all water entering the storm drain system generated on any private,
public, developed, and undeveloped lands within the city. The CMC contains permit requirements for
construction projects and new development or redevelopment projects to minimize the discharge of
storm water runoff. The City of Cupertino also requires submittal and approval of a Stormwater
Management Plan (SMP) prior to the start of construction (CMC Section 9.18.120, Stormwater
Management Plan Required for Regulated Projects). The SMP must include the C.3 impervious surface
form, LID feasibility worksheets, site design measures to limit impervious surfaces, numeric sizing criteria
for stormwater treatment facilities, source control measures to limit the discharge of pollutants to the
storm drain system, and an operation and maintenance (O&M) plan, including certification that the
treatment measures will be maintained for perpetuity.
The project applicant must also install full trash capture devices to collect litter and debris from the
project site, prior to connecting to the City’s storm drain system., as per CMC Section 9.18.115, Trash Load
Reductions to Storm Drain Collection System. and the provisions of the MRP. A list of approved devices is
available from the Public Works Department. The trash capture devices must be located onsite and
situated so that trash carried by stormwater from the site is collected onsite does not flow directly into
the City’s storm drain system. The trash capture devices must be properly designed and sized to ensure
that the devices do not cause an obstruction to onsite stormwater flow. The trash capture devices must
also be maintained, following manufacturer’s recommendations, for the life of the project.
Implementation of these measures will improve the water quality of stormwater entering the City’s storm
drain system.
The project site is not covered under the SWRCB’s General Construction Permit, since it is less than one
acre in size, and preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is not required. However,
the project would be required to adhere to the City’s Construction Best Management Practices (BMPs),115
and grading activities are typically limited to the dry season (April 15 to October 15). In addition, an
interim erosion and sediment control plan, either integrated with the site map/grading plan or submitted
separately, must be prepared that shows the location of all erosion control measures that will be
implemented and a schedule for their maintenance and upkeep.
Adherence to applicable water quality regulations, implementation of best management practices during
construction, preparation of an erosion and sediment control plan, and compliance with the CMC would
ensure that water quality standards are not violated during construction. Implementation of stormwater
site design, source control and stormwater treatment measures, compliance with C.3 provisions of the
115 City of Cupertino, 2020. Construction Best Management Practices, accessed at
https://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=12309 on January 10, 2021.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-57
FINAL DRAFT
MRP and the City of Cupertino’s stormwater requirements, and preparation of a SMP that describes the
installation and operation and maintenance requirements for the bioretention area would result in less-
than-significant impacts during operation of the project. Consequently, potential impacts associated with
water quality during construction and operation would be less than significant.
b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of
the basin?
The project would be connected to municipal water supplies and does not propose any groundwater wells
on the property. Water is supplied to the site by the San José Water (SJW), which obtains its water from
groundwater production (40 percent), purchases of surface water from the SCVWD (50 percent), and local
mountain surface water (10 percent).116 The 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) for the
SCVWD, which includes the area for the project site, states that there is sufficient water for SCVWD
customers for normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years until 2025. The SCVWD identifies actions in the
water shortage contingency plan in its UWMP that would ensure water demand is met through 2040.117
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a depletion of groundwater supplies or result in a
lowering of groundwater levels. Water supply is discussed in further detail in Section XVII, Utilities and
Service Systems.
Groundwater beneath the site is greater than 20 feet bgs. Therefore, no construction dewatering would
be required. As a result, development of the proposed project would not interfere with groundwater
recharge that takes place in the McClellan Ponds recharge facility located within the City of Cupertino or
the creeks and streams that run through the city. Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant
impact with respect to groundwater recharge.
The proposed project would be located on a site that is already developed and has about 2,757 square
feet of existing impervious surfaces. The proposed project would increase the amount of impervious
surfaces by 15,295 square feet. The proposed project would provide 9,454 square feet of pervious
surfaces in the form of landscaping and one on-site bioretention area that would contribute to
groundwater recharge. The use of site design features required by provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional
Permit (MRP) and compliance with the City of Cupertino General Plan policies would reduce the impact of
an increase in impervious surfaces on groundwater recharge. Therefore, the proposed project would have
a less-than-significant impact on groundwater supplies and groundwater recharge, and no mitigation
measures are needed.
c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would: result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off-site;
116 San José Water, For Your Information, Education and Safety, Water Supply,
https://www.sjwater.com/for_your_information/education_safety/water_supply, accessed on June 19, 2020.
117 Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan,
https://www.valleywater.org/sites/default/files/SCVWD%202015%20UWMP-Report%20Only.pdf, accessed on June 19, 2020.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-58 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or off-site; create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
impede or redirect flood flows?
The proposed project would take place within the boundaries of a developed site that is currently
connected to the City’s storm drain system. The proposed redevelopment does not involve the alteration
of any natural drainage channels or any watercourse.
During construction, the project applicant would be subject to the City of Cupertino’s construction BMPs
and would be required to implement the erosion and sediment control measures specified in the Interim
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Once constructed, the requirements for new development or
redevelopment projects include source control measures and site design measures that address
stormwater runoff and would reduce the potential for erosion or siltation. In addition, Provision C.3 of the
MRP would require the project to implement on-site water treatment measures, such as the proposed
bioretention area, to contain site runoff, using specific numeric sizing criteria based on volume and flow
rate. The bioretention area will filter out sediment from the stormwater runoff.
The project would also be required to install stormwater trash capture devices that meet the
requirements of the MRP. The trash capture devices must be located onsite and situated to ensure that
trash carried by stormwater is collected onsite and does not flow directly into the City’s storm drain
system. With implementation of these erosion and sediment control measures, the proposed project
would not result in significant increases in erosion and sedimentation and these impacts would be less
than significant.
As described in the 2018 Storm Drain Master Plan, the project site is in an area where the storm drains
are deficient in conveying water from a 10-year storm. The storm drains beneath Stevens Creek Boulevard
and South Foothill Boulevard adjacent to the project site are currently under capacity and are designated
as high priority for replacement.118 The proposed project would minimize the amount of stormwater
runoff from the site with the installation of one bioretention area to temporarily detain peak stormwater
flow rates. The bioretention area would collect runoff from roof areas, parking lots, and sidewalks for
treatment and flow control prior to discharge into the on-site storm drain system, which connects to the
City’s storm drain system at the southwest corner of the intersection of South Foothill Boulevard and
Stevens Creek Boulevard. The on-site stormwater treatment system would exceed the C.3 requirements of
the MRP.
To ensure that runoff from the site would not exceed the capacity of the City’s storm drain system, the
project applicant will prepare a hydrology and hydraulics report for review and approval by the Director of
Public Works prior to the start of construction. The hydrology study shall include pre- and post-
development flow rates and the ability of the bioretention area to detain peak stormwater flows, reduce
the amount of runoff from the site, and improve water quality. Additionally, the trash capture devices
118 Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers. 2018. Cupertino Storm Drain Master Plan.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-59
FINAL DRAFT
would be designed and sized to ensure that if the devices cause an obstruction to onsite stormwater flow,
onsite flooding will not occur.
With compliance with these regulatory requirements, preparation of a hydrology/hydraulics study, and
installation of on-site stormwater treatment systems to mitigate peak flows, the proposed project would
not contribute to flooding on-site or off-site and impacts would be less than significant.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk the release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
The project site is not located near the San Francisco Bay or the Pacific Ocean and is not within a mapped
tsunami inundation zone.119 There are no large bodies of water in the vicinity of the project site;
therefore, there would be no potential for seiches to impact the project site. The project site is also
outside of the Stevens Creek Reservoir dam inundation zone.120 In addition, the site is in a relatively flat
area of the city and is outside of the ABAG mapped zones for earthquake-induced landslides or debris
flow source areas.121 Therefore, no impact would occur with respect to the release of pollutants from
these types of natural hazard events.
e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management plan?
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB monitors surface water quality through implementation of the Water
Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin, also referred to as the “Basin Plan,” and designates
beneficial uses for surface water bodies and groundwater within the Santa Clara Valley. The Basin Plan
also contains water quality criteria for groundwater.
As required by storm water management guidelines discussed under criterion (a), best management
practices and LID measures would be implemented across the project site during both construction and
operation of the proposed project. These measures would control and prevent the release of sediment,
debris, and other pollutants into the storm drain system. Implementation of best management practices
during construction would be in accordance with the provisions of the NPDES construction permit
requirements and the erosion and sediment control plan, which would minimize the release of sediment,
soil, and other pollutants. Operational best management practices would be required to meet the C.3
provisions of the MRP. These best management practices, along with the proposed LID measures, include
the incorporation of site design, source control, and treatment control measures to treat and control
runoff before it enters the City’s storm drain system. The proposed treatment measures would include the
use of one bioretention area to treat and detain runoff prior to discharge to the City’s storm drain system.
119 Association of Bay Area Governments, 2019. Interactive Tsunami Inundation Map.
http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/Hazards/?hlyr=tsunami accessed on June 19, 2020.
120 Santa Clara County Fire Department. 2012. Joint Stevens Creek Dam Failure Plan.
https://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=7424 accessed on June 19, 2020.
121 Association of Bay Area Governments, 2019. Rainfall-Induced Landslides, Debris Flow Source Areas and Earthquake
Induced Landslides. Accessed at http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/landslides/ on June 19, 2020.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-60 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
The project site is within the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin, which is covered under the 2016
Groundwater Management Plan.122 The Department of Water Resources characterizes this basin as a
medium priority subbasin and therefore is subject to the requirements to develop and implement a
Groundwater Sustainability Plan. The Groundwater Management Plan states that the total recharge to the
Santa Clara and Llagas subbasins exceeds the total outflow via groundwater pumping and subsurface
outflow, with excess groundwater storage of 1,500 acre-feet. This indicates that the subbasins are in long-
term balance and meet the criteria for sustainable groundwater conditions. Although SJW does use
groundwater as a source of water supply, the Water Supply Evaluation prepared for the General Plan EIR
included new development on the project site at a greater number of units than proposed under the
project (19 new units as compared to project’s 9 new units plus one accessory unit); therefore, water and
groundwater supply impacts were adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR.
As discussed in criterion (b), the project would be connected to municipal water supplies and does not
propose any groundwater wells on the property. The depth of groundwater is estimated to be greater
than 20 feet below ground surface and the proposed project would not disturb groundwater during
construction.
With implementation of these best management practices and LID measures in accordance with City and
MRP requirements, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the
Basin Plan or the Groundwater Management Plan, and potential impacts on water quality would be less
than significant.
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the proposed project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with
any land use plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
GENERAL PLAN EIR
Chapter 4.9, Land Use and Planning, of the General Plan EIR, addressed impacts to land use and planning
associated with buildout of the General Plan including the redevelopment of the project site with up to 19
dwelling units and a 30-foot height maximum at a program level. Impacts were determined to be less than
significant, and no mitigation measures were required. The following is a summary of Section, 4.9.1.2,
Existing Conditions, of Chapter 4.9.
122 Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2016 Groundwater Management Plan, Santa Clara and Llagas Subbasins.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-61
FINAL DRAFT
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The General Plan land use designation for the project site is Commercial/Residential and the project site is
within the (P(CG)) Zoning District. A complete description of the Commercial/Residential land use
designation and (P(CG)) Zoning District is presented in Section 3.1.4, Land Use Designation and Zoning, in
Chapter 3 of this Initial Study.
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project physically divide an established community?
Because the development of the proposed project would occur on a site that is currently developed,
would retain existing roadway patterns, and would not introduce any new major roadways or other
physical features through existing residential neighborhoods or other communities that would create new
barriers, the project would not physically divide an established community. Therefore, no impact would
occur.
b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any applicable land
use plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
The proposed project does not include a request for any modification to the existing General Plan land use
designation. However, the project does include a request to modify the existing (P(CG)) Zoning District to
General Commercial with Residential (CG, Res) Zoning District to allow residential uses on the project site.
This request would make the Zoning District for the project site more consistent with the
Commercial/Residential General Plan land use designation, which allows for residential uses. The
proposed project (at 13.2 units per acres and with a building height of 29 feet and 10.5 inches at the
highest point) is within the development parameters evaluated in the General Plan EIR (15 dwelling units
per acre and a maximum building height of 30 feet tall) and the General Plan EIR found land use impacts
associated with only residential use of the site to be less than significant. The proposed residential
development would be consistent with the types of development allowed in the Commercial/Residential
land use designations. Accordingly, the proposed project would also result in less-than-significant impacts
with regard to conflicts with land use plans.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-62 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
XI. NOISE
Would the proposed project result in:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase
in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or in other applicable local, state, or federal
standards?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or
an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise levels?
GENERAL PLAN EIR
Chapter 4.10, Noise, of the General Plan EIR addressed the impacts from noise and vibration associated
with buildout of the General Plan including the redevelopment of the project site with up to 19 dwelling
units and a 30-foot height maximum at a program level. Noise impacts were found to be significant and
unavoidable in the General Plan EIR because the project-specific details for future development were not
available. No feasible mitigation measures were identified to reduce noise impacts to a less-than-
significant level and project-specific noise evaluation is required to assess noise impacts from the
proposed redevelopment of the site.
This section includes a summary of Section, 4.10.1.3, Existing Conditions, of Chapter 4.10, and analyzes
the noise and vibration that would be generated by the construction and operation of the proposed
project at a project level.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Noise is defined as unwanted sound and is known to have several adverse effects on people, including
hearing loss, speech and sleep interference, physiological responses, and annoyance. Based on these
known adverse effects of noise, the federal government, State of California, and City of Cupertino have
established criteria to protect public health and safety and to prevent disruption of certain human
activities. Noise terminology and fundamentals, pertinent existing local regulations, and construction
noise modeling can be found in Appendix F, Noise Data, of this Initial Study.
Residences are located directly south, adjacent to the project site, across Stevens Creek Boulevard to the
north, across South Foothill Boulevard to the east, and across Camino Vista Drive to the west. The nearest
sensitive receptors to the project site are the adjacent single-family residences to the south. The principal
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-63
FINAL DRAFT
noise source in the project area is roadway traffic on Stevens Creek Boulevard and South Foothill
Boulevard.
The nearest public airports are San José International Airport, approximately 8 miles to the northeast, and
Palo Alto Airport, approximately 9.5 miles to the north. The nearest heliports are McCandless Towers
Heliport, approximately 7 miles to the northeast, and County Medical Center Heliport, approximately 7.5
miles to the east. The nearest private (military/corporate) airport is Moffett Federal Airfield, approximately
7 miles to the north. The project site is not located within the boundaries of any airport land use plan.
The noise environment in the project area is approximately 60 to 70+ dBA CNEL based on the noise
contour map in the General Plan Health and Safety Element (Attachment D. Community Noise), with
ambient noise levels decreasing at further distance from Stevens Creek Boulevard and South Foothill
Boulevard. It is important to note that with the Supreme Court decision regarding the assessment of the
environment’s impacts on projects (California Building Industry Association (CBIA) v. Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD), 62 Cal. 4th 369 (No. S 213478) issued December 17, 2015) is generally
no longer the purview of the CEQA process to evaluate the impact of existing environmental conditions on
any given project. As a result, while the noise from existing sources is taken into account as part of the
baseline, the direct effects of existing outside (exterior) noise from nearby noise sources as it relates to
land use compatibility of the project is no longer a required topic for impact evaluation under CEQA. No
determination of significance is required or made in this Initial Study.
DISCUSSION
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of
the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other
applicable local, State, or federal standards?
A significant stationary-source impact would occur if the activities or equipment at the proposed project
site produce noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors in excess of local standards.
With respect to permanent traffic-related increases, noise impacts can be placed into three categories.
The first is “audible” impacts, which refer to increases in noise level that are perceptible to humans.
Audible increases in general community noise levels generally refer to a change of 3 decibels (dBA) or
more since this level has been found to be the threshold of perceptibility in exterior environments. The
second category, “potentially audible” impacts, refers to a change in noise level between 1 and 3 dBA. The
last category includes changes in noise level of less than 1 dBA that are typically “inaudible” to the human
ear except under quiet conditions in controlled environments. Only “audible” changes in noise levels at
sensitive receptor locations (i.e., 3 dBA or more) are considered potentially significant. Note that a
doubling of traffic flows (i.e., 10,000 vehicles per day to 20,000 per day) would be needed to create a 3
dBA increase in traffic-generated noise levels. For the purposes of this analysis, an increase of 3 dBA CNEL
is used as the threshold for a substantial increase.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-64 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
Project-Related Construction Noise
In terms of the proposed construction activities, the demolition, site preparation, grading, and paving
activities are expected to generate the highest noise levels, since they involve the largest and most
powerful equipment. Construction equipment for the proposed project would include equipment such as
concrete saws, excavators, dozers, tractors, loaders, backhoes, cranes, forklifts, pavers, and rollers. Two
types of short-term noise impacts could occur during construction: (1) mobile-source noise from the
transport of workers, material deliveries, and debris/soil hauling and (2) stationary-source noise from use
of construction equipment. Construction activities are anticipated to last approximately 10 months. The
following discusses construction noise impacts to the off-site sensitive receptors.
Construction Vehicles
The transport of workers and materials to and from the construction site would incrementally increase
noise levels along local roadways. Individual construction vehicle pass-bys may create momentary noise
levels of up to approximately 85 dBA (Lmax) at 50 feet from the vehicle, but these occurrences would
generally be infrequent and short lived. Therefore, noise impacts from construction-related truck traffic
would be less than significant at noise-sensitive receptors along the construction routes and no mitigation
measures would be required.
Construction Equipment
According to CMC Section 10.48.053, construction is allowed during “daytime hours” (7:00 a.m. to 8:00
p.m. Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekends) and exempt from the City’s
daytime and nighttime maximum noise level limits, provided that such construction activities do not
exceed 80 dBA at the nearest affected property or individual equipment items do not exceed 87 dBA at 25
feet. Only one of these two criteria must be met. In addition, construction is prohibited on holidays and
within 750 feet of residential areas on weekends, holidays, and during the nighttime, unless a special
exception has been granted, and during nighttime hours unless it meets the nighttime noise level
standards. Even with these restrictions, project construction would temporarily increase ambient noise.
However, noise levels would subside again after construction is completed.
Noise generated by on-site construction equipment is based on the type of equipment used, its location
relative to sensitive receptors, and the timing and duration of noise-generating activities. Each stage of
construction involves different kinds of equipment and has distinct noise characteristics. Noise levels from
construction activities are typically dominated by the loudest several pieces of equipment. The dominant
equipment noise source is typically the engine, although work-piece noise (such as dropping of materials)
can also be noticeable.
The noise produced at each construction stage is determined by combining the contributions from each
piece of equipment used at a given time, while accounting for the on-going time-variations of noise
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-65
FINAL DRAFT
emissions (commonly referred to as the usage factor) to determine the L10 and Leq noise levels.123 Heavy
equipment, such as a bulldozer, can have maximum, short-duration noise levels of up to 85 dBA at 50 feet.
However, overall noise emissions vary considerably, depending on what specific activity is being
performed at any given moment. Noise attenuation due to distance, the number and type of equipment,
and the load and power requirements to accomplish tasks at each construction phase would result in
different noise levels from construction activities at a given receptor. Since noise from construction
equipment is intermittent and diminishes at a rate of at least 6 dBA per doubling of distance
(conservatively ignoring other attenuation effects from air absorption, ground effects, and/or
shielding/scattering effects), the average noise levels at noise-sensitive receptors could vary considerably,
because mobile construction equipment would move around the site with different loads and power
requirements. Noise levels from project-related construction activities were calculated from the
simultaneous use of all applicable construction equipment at spatially averaged distances (i.e., from the
acoustical center of the general construction site or phase) to the property line of the nearest receptors.
Although construction may occur across the entire phase area, the area around the center of construction
activities best represents the potential construction-related noise levels from multiple pieces of
equipment at the various sensitive receptors.
The expected construction equipment mix was estimated and categorized by construction activity and the
three loudest equipment per activity phase using the Federal Highway Administration Roadway
Construction Noise Model (RCNM). The associated, aggregate noise levels, grouped by construction
activity, are summarized in Tables 4-6 and 4-7.
TABLE 4-6 PROJECT-RELATED CONSTRUCTION NOISE, L10 NOISE LEVELS, DBA
Construction
Activity Phase
Noise Level at the Nearest Receptors
Residences (south) a Residences (north) b Residences (southeast) c Residences (west) d
Demolition 85.4 79.7 76.9 74.3
Site Preparation 85.1 79.4 76.6 74.0
Grading 84.7 79.0 76.2 73.6
Building Construction 82.6 76.9 74.1 71.5
Paving 87.8 78.3 76.9 74.2
Notes:
a. Approximately 70 feet from the center of construction for demolition, site preparation, grading, and building construction; and approximately 50
feet from the center of paving activities.
b. Approximately 135 feet from the center of construction for demolition, site preparation, grading, and building construction; and approximately
150 feet from the center of paving activities.
c. Approximately 185 feet from the center of construction for demolition, site preparation, grading, and building construction; and approximately
175 feet from the center of paving activities.
d. Approximately 250 feet from the center of construction for demolition, site preparation, grading, and building construction; approximately 240
feet from the center of paving activities.
Source: PlaceWorks, 2020.
123 The Leq is the energy average noise levels and the L10 is the noise level exceeded 10 percent of the time. The CMC defines
“sound level” as the “maximum continuous or repeated peak value,” which is interpreted to be the L10 for the purposes of this
analysis. Leq noise levels are provided for informational purposes.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-66 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
TABLE 4-7 PROJECT-RELATED CONSTRUCTION NOISE, ENERGY-AVERAGE (LEQ) NOISE LEVELS, DBA
Construction
Activity Phase
Noise Level at Nearest Receptors
Residences (south) a Residences (north) b Residences (southeast) c Residences (west) d
Demolition 82.4 76.7 73.9 71.3
Site Preparation 82.1 76.4 73.6 71.0
Grading 81.7 76.0 73.2 70.6
Building Construction 79.6 73.9 71.1 68.5
Paving 84.8 75.3 73.9 71.2
Notes:
a. Approximately 70 feet from the center of construction for demolition, site preparation, grading, and building construction; and approximately 50
feet from the center of paving activities.
b. Approximately 135 feet from the center of construction for demolition, site preparation, grading, and building construction; and approximately
150 feet from the center of paving activities.
c. Approximately 185 feet from the center of construction for demolition, site preparation, grading, and building construction; and approximately
175 feet from the center of paving activities.
d. Approximately 250 feet from the center of construction for demolition, site preparation, grading, and building construction; and approximately
240 feet from the center of paving activities.
Source: PlaceWorks, 2020.
As shown in Tables 4-6 and 4-7, construction activities would increase noise levels at and near the
proposed project. Construction-related noise levels would range from approximately 82.6 to 87.8 dBA L10
and 79.6 to 84.8 dBA Leq at the nearest residences to the south during construction, which would be
greater than the 80 dBA limit in CMC Section 10.48.053. Construction noise levels at receptors further
away are estimated to be less than 80 dBA. Construction noise levels would create a substantial
temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of the allowable noise
limit. This would be considered a potentially significant impact. With implementation of Mitigation
Measure NOISE-1, which is not required in the General Plan EIR, project-related construction noise
impacts to the nearby residences would be less than significant.
Impact NOISE-1: The proposed project could result in the generation of a substantial temporary increase
in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site during the construction phase that would be in
excess of standards established in the City of Cupertino Municipal Code.
Mitigation Measure NOISE-1: The following shall be incorporated in all activity phases and
construction plans, as required by the Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC). Construction activities shall
take place only during daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and due to the close
proximity of the adjacent residential land use to the south, construction may occur on the weekends,
holidays or nighttime only if a special exception has been granted by the City. In addition, the
construction crew shall adhere to the following best management practices:
At least 90 days prior to the start of any construction, demolition, or grading activities, all off-site
businesses and residents within 300 feet of the project site will be notified of the planned
activities. The notification will include a brief description of the project, the activities that would
occur, the hours when activity would occur, and the construction period’s overall duration. The
notification should include the telephone numbers of the contractor’s authorized representatives
that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-67
FINAL DRAFT
The project applicant and contractors shall prepare and submit a Construction Noise Control Plan
to the City’s Building Department and Code Enforcement for review and approval prior to
issuance of any grading, demolition, and/or building permits. The Construction Noise Plan shall
demonstrate compliance with the 80-dBA limit in the CMC. The details of the Construction Noise
Control Plan, including those details listed herein, shall be included as part of the permit
application drawing set and as part of the construction drawing set, shall be implemented by the
on-site Construction Manager, and shall include, but not be limited to, the following available
controls to comply with the 80 dBA performance standard:
At least 10 days prior to the start of construction activities, a sign will be posted at the
entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, which includes permitted construction
days and hours, as well as the telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized
representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint. If
the authorized contractor’s representative receives a complaint, he/she will investigate, take
appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the City.
During the entire active construction period, equipment and trucks used for project
construction will utilize the best available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers,
equipment re-design, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically
attenuating shields or shrouds), wherever feasible.
Include noise control requirements for equipment and tools, including concrete saws, to the
maximum extent feasible. Such requirements could include, but are not limited to, erecting
temporary plywood noise barriers between construction areas and nearby sensitive
receptors; performing work in a manner that minimizes noise; and undertaking the noisiest
activities during times of least disturbance to nearby sensitive receptors.
During the entire active construction period, stationary noise sources will be located as far
from sensitive receptors as possible, and they will be muffled and enclosed within temporary
sheds, or insulation barriers or other measures will be incorporated to the extent feasible.
Select haul routes that avoid the greatest amount of sensitive use areas and submit to the
City of Cupertino Public Works Department for approval prior to the start of the construction
phase.
Signs will be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the on-site construction zones, and
along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling. All
other equipment will be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes.
During the entire active construction period and to the extent feasible, the use of noise
producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells will be for safety warning
purposes only. The construction manager will use smart back-up alarms, which automatically
adjust the alarm level based on the background noise level or switch off back-up alarms and
replace with human spotters in compliance with all safety requirements and law.
Prior to start of construction, erect a temporary noise barrier/curtain between the
construction zone and adjacent residences along the boundary (see Figure 4-1, Temporary
Noise Barrier Locations, of the Initial Study). The temporary sound barrier shall have a
minimum height of 12 feet and be free of gaps and holes. The barrier can be (a) a ¾-inch-
thick plywood wall OR (b) a hanging blanket/curtain with a surface density or at least 2
pounds per square foot.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BLVD. ALAN ENTERPRISE, LLC
5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-7200
1562.001
03-06-2020
NORTH
JOB NO.
DATE
A1.03
ILLUSTRATED SITE PLAN
STEVENS CREEK BLVD.
CA
M
I
N
O
V
I
S
T
A
D
R
.
S
F
O
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
.
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8
9
1 1 1
1
1
2 2 3
BUILDING TYPE 1 BUILDING TYPE 1
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
TY
P
E
2
BUILDING/UNIT 3
COMMON
OPEN SPACE
10'-1"
5'
-
0
"
20
'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
4'
-
0
"
20
'
-
0
"
5'
-
2
1
/
2
"
9'
-
0
"
18'-0"
7'
-
0
"
5'-0"
3'
-
6
"
3'
-
6
"
10
'
-
0
"
13'-1"
10'-5"
43'-8"
51'-8 1/2"
42
'
-
5
1
/
2
"
8'-0"83'-3"83'-3"10'-0"
14'-0"
45
'
-
2
"
4'
-
0
"
62
'
-
2
"
4'
-
0
"
32'-10"
44
'
-
7
"
1
1 LOT NUMBER
UNIT TYPE
1 PARKING SPACE
5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-720022690 STEVENS CREEK BLVD.ALAN ENTERPRISE, LLC
JOB NO.1562-001
02-21-2020DATE
NORTHSITE PLAN 0 804020
1 2 3
4
5
6
7
8
22690 STEVENS CREEK BLVD. ALAN ENTERPRISE, LLC
5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-7200
1562.001
03-06-2020
NORTH
JOB NO.
DATE
A1.03
ILLUSTRATED SITE PLAN
STEVENS CREEK BLVD.CAMINO VISTA DR.S FOOTHILL BLVD.112345678911111223BUILDING TYPE 1BUILDING TYPE 1BUILDING TYPE 2BUILDING/UNIT 3
COMMON
OPEN SPACE
10'-1"5'-0"
20
'
-
0
"
5'
-
0
"
4'-0"20'-0"5'-2 1/2"
9'
-
0
"
18'-0"7'-0"5'-0"3'-6"3'-6"10'-0"13'-1"10'-5"43'-8"51'-8 1/2"42'-5 1/2"8'-0"83'-3"83'-3"10'-0"14'-0"45'-2"4'-0"62'-2"4'-0"
32'-10"
44'-7"
1
1 LOT NUMBER
UNIT TYPE
1 PARKING SPACE
5865 Owens Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-251-720022690 STEVENS CREEK BLVD.ALAN ENTERPRISE, LLC
JOB NO.1562-001
02-21-2020DATE
NORTHSITE PLAN 0 804020
123456
7
8
Source: Dahlin, 2020.
Temporary Nose Barrier Figure 4-1
Temporary Noise Barrier Location
0
Scale (Feet)
40
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS
2 2 6 9 0 S TE V E NS C RE E K B O UL E V ARD PR O JE CT I NI TI AL STUD Y
C ITY O F CUPE RTI NO
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-69
FINAL DRAFT
Project-Related Operational Noise
Stationary-Source Noise
Noise from sources such as people talking and using outdoor common areas, or property maintenance
may contribute to the total noise environment within the direct vicinity of the proposed project site.
However, these types of noise are commonly associated with uses that already exist on the project site
and surrounding uses. Noise associated with landscape maintenance activities is exempted from the
provisions of the CMC, provided said activities take place between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on
weekdays, and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. Therefore, impacts from occasional
property maintenance activities associated with the proposed project would be less than significant.
The 1,475 square foot common space area is approximately 20 feet, as measured from the center, from
the adjacent single-family homes to the south. A typical conversation between two people 3 feet apart is
60 dBA.124 At a distance of 20 feet, noise levels would attenuate to approximately 44 dBA. Noise from
typical use of the open space area would result in noise levels less than the CMC, Section 10.48.040 50
dBA limit. Therefore, impacts from the proposed common outdoor use area would be less than
significant.
The nine single-family attached residential units are anticipated to have mechanical HVAC equipment on
the ground next to units and a common open space area on the south portion of the project site. The
exterior mechanical and HVAC equipment associated with the proposed use are expected to be similar to
the existing commercial uses or quieter. Because mechanical specifications for these proposed units are
not yet available, it is conservatively assumed that noise from these units would be up to 75 dBA Leq at a
distance of 3 feet and that they could be located within approximately 30 feet from the nearest residential
property lines to the south. At this distance, the sound pressure level associated with a common HVAC
unit would be approximately 55 dBA. Therefore, the noise level associated with HVAC in the backyards of
the future residential units could exceed the CMC Section 10.48.040 standards, which limit nighttime
noise to 50 dBA at nearby residential uses. Therefore, this impact would be potentially significant. With
implementation of Mitigation Measure NOISE-2, project-related operational noise impacts would be less
than significant.
Impact NOISE-2: The proposed project could result in the generation of a substantial permanent increase
in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project during the operation phase that could be in excess of
standards established in the City of Cupertino Municipal Code.
Mitigation Measure NOISE-2: Mechanical equipment shall be selected and designed to reduce
impacts on surrounding uses to meet the Cupertino Municipal Code noise limits of 60 dBA and 50 dBA
at residential uses during daytime and nighttime, respectively, and 65 dBA and 55 dBA at non-
residential sensitive uses during daytime and nighttime, respectively. A qualified acoustical consultant
124 Engineering ToolBox, 2005. Voice Level at Distance. Accessed June 19, 2020.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/voice-level-d_938.html
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-70 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
shall be retained to review mechanical noise as these systems are selected to determine specific noise
reduction measures necessary to reduce noise to comply with the City’s noise level requirements.
Mechanical equipment shall be selected and designed to reduce impacts on surrounding uses to meet
the City’s noise level requirements. Noise reduction measures could include, but are not limited to:
Selection of equipment that emits low noise levels;
Installation of noise dampening techniques, such as enclosures and parapet walls, to block the
line-of-sight between the noise source and the nearest receptors; or
Locating equipment in less noise-sensitive areas, where feasible.
Mobile-Source Noise
The proposed project is anticipated to result in a net decrease in traffic trips when compared to existing
traffic trips associated with the existing commercial building. The trip generation associated with the
previous use is estimated to be 1,829 gross daily trips. The proposed project is estimated to result in 85
gross daily trips, which is a net decrease of 1,744 daily trips. Therefore, since the project would result in a
net decrease in trips, no increase from traffic noise would occur and impacts would be less than
significant.
b) Would the project expose people to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or ground borne
noise levels?
Operational Vibration
Operation of the proposed project would not generate substantial levels of vibration because there are no
known sources of vibrational energy associated with the proposed project, such as industrial machinery or
railroad operations. Thus, vibration effects or impacts from operations sources would be less than
significant and no mitigation measures would be required.
Construction Vibration
Construction activities generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction
procedures, construction equipment used, and proximity to vibration-sensitive uses. The generation of
vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and
perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Table 4-8 lists reference
vibration levels for different types of commonly used construction equipment.
TABLE 4-8 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT VIBRATION LEVELS
Equipment Approximate PPV Velocity at 25 Feet (in/sec)
Vibratory Roller 0.210
Large Bulldozer 0.089
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Jackhammer 0.035
Small Bulldozer 0.003
Notes: PPV = Peak Particle Velocity in inches per second
Source: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 2018.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-71
FINAL DRAFT
Proposed construction would include demolition and grading, which would include equipment such as
loaders and bulldozers. Paving activities may also generate construction vibration and would include
equipment such as pavers and rollers. Using the vibration source level of construction equipment
provided in Table 4-8 and the construction vibration assessment guidelines published by the Federal
Transit Administration’s (FTA), the vibration impacts associated with the proposed project were assessed
in terms of potential architectural damage due to vibration.
The City does not have specific, vibration-related standards. Thus, project-related construction vibration
was evaluated for its potential to cause minor architectural damage based on FTA’s architectural damage
criteria. The term ‘architectural damage’ is defined as minor surface cracks (in plaster, drywall, tile, or
stucco) or the sticking of doors and windows. This is below the severity of ‘structural damage’ which
entails the compromising of structural soundness or the threatening the basic integrity of the building
shell. Building damage is typically not a concern for most projects, with the occasional exception of
blasting and pile driving during construction. No blasting, pile driving, or hard rock ripping/crushing
activities would be required during project construction. Since vibration-induced architectural damage
could result from an instantaneous vibration event, distances are measured from the receptor facade to
the nearest location of potential construction activities.
A peak particle velocity (PPV) of 0.2 inches/second (in/sec) is used as the threshold for “non-engineered
timber and masonry buildings” (which would apply to the surrounding structures).125 Proposed driveways
would be paved within 25 feet of nearby residential structures to the south and, therefore, could exceed
the 0.2 in/sec PPV threshold if vibratory rollers are used. If grading equipment such as a large dozer
operates within approximately 15 feet of a nearby residential structure, the 0.2 in/sec PPV threshold may
be exceeded. This is considered a potentially significant impact. With implementation of Mitigation
Measure NOISE-3, project-related construction vibration impacts to the adjacent residences to the south
would be less than significant.
Impact NOISE-3: The proposed project could result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration
in the vicinity of the project during the construction phase that would be in excess of established
thresholds.
Mitigation Measure NOISE-3: If paving activity during construction is required within 25 feet of nearby
residential structures, the use of a static roller in lieu of a vibratory roller shall be employed. Grading
and earthwork activities within 15 feet of adjacent residential structures shall be conducted with off-
road equipment that is limited to 100 horsepower or less. This mitigation measure shall be identified
on the permit application drawing set and as part of the construction drawing set, and shall be
implemented by the on-site Construction Manager.
125 Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 2018.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-72 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
As discussed above, the proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles
of an airport. The project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive
aircraft noise levels. There would be no impact.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the proposed project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial unexpected population growth or growth for
which inadequate planning has occurred, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly
(for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
GENERAL PLAN EIR
Chapter 4.11, Population and Housing, of the General Plan EIR, addressed the impacts to population
growth and displacement associated with buildout of the General Plan including the redevelopment of
the project site with up to 19 dwelling units and a 30-foot height maximum at a program level. Impacts
were determined to be less than significant, and no mitigation measures were required.
As discussed in the General Plan EIR, the General Plan would introduce approximately 12,998 new
residents126 and 16,855 new jobs127 to Cupertino. These new residents and jobs combined with existing
conditions would result in 71,200 residents, 24,040 households, and 33,110 jobs at the 2040 buildout
horizon.128 The proposed project is anticipated to be complete in 2022. As discussed in the General Plan
EIR, according to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Cupertino is projected to have 62,500
residents and 30,110 jobs by 2020 and 66,800 residents and 31,370 jobs by 2030.
126 Population is calculated by 4,421 units times 2.94 persons per household, which is the ABAG 2040 estimated generation
rate.
127 Jobs are calculated applying the City’s generation rates as follows; 4,040,231 square feet of office allocation divided by
300 square feet equals 13,467 jobs; 1,343,679 square feet of commercial allocation divided by 450 square feet equals 2,986 jobs;
and 1,339 hotel rooms at .3 jobs per room equals 402 jobs for a total of 16,855 jobs.
128 City of Cupertino, 2015. Cupertino General Plan Community Vision 2015-2040, Housing Element, Table HE-2.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-73
FINAL DRAFT
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The site is currently developed with a commercial use serving as a convenience store. Applying a
generation rate of 1 job to 450 square feet for commercial land uses to the existing 2,400 square feet of
commercial building, the existing business is capable of generating approximately 6 jobs.129
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project induce substantial unexpected population growth or growth for which inadequate
planning has occurred, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
The proposed project would construct nine single-family residential units, and one accessory dwelling
unit, which would not result in any additional new population growth or employment growth beyond
what was accounted for in the General Plan EIR. Table 4 -11 in Section XIX, Mandatory Findings of
Significance, shows the relationship to the proposed project to the other reasonably foreseeable projects
in Cupertino and illustrates that the proposed when combined with the other reasonably foreseeable
projects in Cupertino would not exceed the maximum buildout potential evaluated in the General Plan
EIR.
The future homeowner’s association, required by the City, could employ landscape and maintenance
personnel for the common areas of the development, which would likely come from Cupertino and
surrounding Bay Area communities. As described above, the existing commercial building is capable of
supporting approximately 6 employees. Construction of the proposed project would result in a decrease
of 6 permanent employees on the project site.
The proposed project would directly contribute to housing through the construction of residential units.
Based on a projected average household size of 2.87 persons for single-family units and 1.5 persons for
accessory dwelling units,130,131 it is assumed the proposed project would introduce 28 new residents132 to
the project site, which would increase the number of residents on the site from zero residents to
approximately 28 residents at project buildout in 2022.
The 28 residents in combination with other future projects would not increase the overall City buildout
beyond the year 2040 projections (see Table 4 -11, Reasonably Foreseeable Development Projects in
Cupertino, in Section XIX, Mandatory Findings of Significance). Therefore, the proposed project is well
within the population projections considered in the General Plan EIR and adopted General Plan Housing
129 2,400 square feet divided by 450 square feet equals 5.3 employees.
130 This analysis is based on the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) 2019 projections of the average household
size of 2.87 persons for Cupertino in 2020. This is the standard approach for population and housing analysis in Cupertino.
131 Based on a study completed by the Center for Community Innovation at University of California Berkeley in five Bay Area
communities, accessory dwelling units have an average household size of 1.5 persons per unit.
132 (9 new units multiplied by 2.87 persons per unit equals 25.83 new residents) plus (1 ADU multiplied by 1.5 equals 1.5
new residents) equals 27.33 new residents.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-74 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
Element. The growth occurring as a result of the project would be limited to the project site, and the
project does not include infrastructure to allow indirect off-site development.
As discussed in Section X, Land Use and Planning, the project is consistent with the General Plan land use
designation for the site (Commercial/Residential), but would require a Zoning Map amendment rezoning
the site from P(CG) to P(CG, Res) to make the zoning consistent with the General Plan land use
designation. Accordingly, there would be no impacts related to substantial unexpected population growth
or growth for which inadequate planning has occurred.
b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The project site is currently used for commercial uses and does not include any existing housing on site.
The project proposes the construction of nine single-family residential units on-site, which would not
necessitate the construction of housing elsewhere. Therefore, the project would have no impact
associated with the displacement of substantial numbers of housing.
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the proposed project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any
of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Libraries?
GENERAL PLAN EIR
Chapter 4.12, Public Services and Recreation, of the General Plan EIR, addressed the impacts to public
service providers and public parks associated with buildout of the General Plan including the
redevelopment of the project site with up to 19 dwelling units and a 30-foot height maximum at a
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-75
FINAL DRAFT
program level. The General Plan EIR estimated that and 56 new residents133 could occupy the project site
by 2040. Impacts were determined to be less than significant, and no mitigation measures were required.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The public service providers for the project site are as follows:
The City of Cupertino contracts with the Santa Clara County Fire District (SCCFD) for fire
protection, emergency, medical, and hazardous material services.
The City of Cupertino contracts with the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office (Sheriff’s Office) and West
Valley Patrol Division for police protection services.
The project site is within the Fremont Union High School District (FUHSD). The project site is in
attendance area of the Monta Vista High School, which is located approximately 1 mile to the
southeast of the project site.134
The project site is within the Cupertino Union School District (CUSD) which includes all elementary
and middle schools in the city. The project site is in attendance area of the Stevens Creek Elementary
School, located approximately 1 mile to the northeast of the project site, and John F. Kennedy Middle
School, located approximately 1 mile to the southeast of the project site.135
The Santa Clara County Library District governs and administers seven community libraries, one
branch library, two bookmobiles, the Home Service Library, and the online library for all library users.
The closest library to the project site is the Cupertino Library located at 10800 Torre Avenue in
Cupertino.
A discussion of the existing conditions for each of these service providers is included in Chapter 4.12 of
the General Plan EIR.
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services: fire protection, police protection, schools, and
libraries?
The primary purpose of the public services impact analysis is to examine the impacts associated with
physical improvements to public service facilities required to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
133 19 units times 2.94 persons per household for Cupertino in 2040 equals 55.86 persons. Note that the 2.94 persons per
household rate for year 2040 was applied in the General Plan EIR. Applying the ABAG rates for population estimates is the
standard approach for population and housing analysis in Cupertino.
134 Fremont Union High School District, District Boundary Maps, Monta Vista High School Attendance Boundary,
https://www.fuhsd.org/about-us/general-information/district-boundry-maps, accessed June 18, 2020.
135 Cupertino Union School District, https://www.cusdk8.org/domain/96, accessed June 18, 2020.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-76 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
times or other performance objectives. Public service facilities need improvements (i.e., construction,
renovation, or expansion) as demand for services increase. Increased demand is typically driven by
increases in population. The proposed project would have a significant environmental impact if it would
exceed the ability of public service providers to adequately serve residents, thereby requiring construction
of new facilities or modification of existing facilities.
As discussed in Section XII, Population and Housing, above, the proposed project would result in a net
increase of nine single-family dwelling units and approximately 28 residents, which is the approximate
number of dwelling units and residents anticipated and discussed in the General Plan EIR. As described in
the General Plan EIR, the proposed project would include the payment of residential development impact
fees, prior to issuance of construction permits, that provide support to public services to offset the
project’s fair share of impacts to public service providers. Because impacts to public service providers
were determined to be less than significant in the General Plan EIR and the proposed project would result
in a similar number of residents and residential density considered in the General Plan EIR, impacts to
public service providers as a result of the proposed project would also be less than significant and no
mitigation measures would be required.
XIV. PARKS AND RECREATION
Would the proposed project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered park and recreational
facilities, or result in the need for new or physically altered park
and recreational facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts?
GENERAL PLAN EIR
Chapter 4.12, Public Services and Recreation, of the General Plan EIR, addressed the impacts to public
service providers and public parks associated with buildout of the General Plan including the
redevelopment of the project site with up to 19 dwelling units and 56 new residents136 on the site at a
program level. Impacts were determined to be less than significant, and no mitigation measures were
required.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
136 19 units times 2.94 persons per household for Cupertino in 2040 equals 55.86 persons. Note that the 2.94 persons per
household rate for year 2040 was applied in the General Plan EIR. Applying the ABAG rates for population estimates is the
standard approach for population and housing analysis in Cupertino.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-77
FINAL DRAFT
The City of Cupertino Recreation and Community Services and the Public Works Department Grounds
Division is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the City’s recreational facilities within the city
boundary. The City of Cupertino owns or manages 224 acres of parks, trails, creek corridors, sports fields,
and recreation facilities at 32 sites.137 The City of Cupertino has an adopted parkland dedication standard
of three acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. According to the October 2019 City of Cupertino
Parks and Recreation System Master Plan there is approximately 3.7 acres per 1,000 residents.138
The parks nearest to the project site are Monta Vista Park, located approximately 0.2 miles to the south,
Varian Park, located approximately 0.5 miles to the northeast; McClellan Ranch Preserve approximately
0.5 miles to the southeast, and Linda Vista Park approximately 1.7 miles to the southeast.
Regional park facilities operated by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) and the
Santa Clara County Parks could be used by residents of the project site. The closest Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District parks to Cupertino are the Fremont Older, Picchetti Ranch, and Rancho San Antonia,
which are located just west of the city boundaries. Santa Clara County Park facilities that serve Cupertino
include Rancho San Antonio County Park located south of I-280 and west of Foothill Boulevard, and the
Stevens Creek County Park. Both County Parks are roughly 1 mile from the project site.
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
As discussed in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Initial Study, the project includes usable common
open space available to residents. The proposed project includes 1,475 square feet of common open
space located at the southeast corner of the site (0.04 acres).
As discussed in Section XIII, Population and Housing, above, the proposed project would result in nine
new residential units, and one accessory dwelling unit, and 28 new residents at the project site, which is
similar to, though less than what was considered in the General Plan EIR. The City’s parkland-to-resident
ratio is three acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents139Although the proposed project is not required
to provide on-site parkland, the proposed project would include the payment of City-required impact fees
to contribute to the City’s parks and recreation fund. As discussed in the General Plan EIR, the proposed
project would be required to comply with Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 14.05, Park Maintenance
Fee, Chapter 13.08, Park Land Dedication Fee, and Chapter 18.24, Dedications and Reservations, which
require the payment of impact fees to maintain existing parks and recreation facilities and offset the
project’s fair share of impacts to parklands. Therefore, considering the proposed project’s provision of
1,475 square feet (0.04 acres) of residential common open space, in conjunction with the collection of
137 City of Cupertino Parks and Recreation System Master Plan, October 2019 (adopted by the City Council on February 18,
2020), page 4.
138 City of Cupertino Parks and Recreation System Master Plan, October 2019 (adopted by the City Council on February 18,
2020), page 51.
139 Cupertino General Plan Community Vision 2015 to 2040, Chapter 9: Recreation, Parks and Community Services Element,
“Park Standards.”
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-78 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
impact fees that support the City’s parks and recreation fund, the impacts to the City’s recreational
facilities would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required.
New residents of the project site would also be expected to use the regional park facilities operated by
the MROSD and the Santa Clara County Parks. According to the MROSD’s Budget and Action Plan for Fiscal
Year 2019-20, a portion of the District’s financing is provided by property taxes, which the project is
required to pay. Because the project site would pay property taxes that fund the MROSD, the use of
regional parks by the relatively small number of new residents of the proposed project would not result in
substantial deterioration of those parks. The increase in usage that could potentially result from the
proposed project is not likely to require the construction of new park facilities over and above the facilities
already foreseen in the long-range planning completed for the regional parks in the vicinity of the project
site. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact to regional parks would occur and no mitigation measures
would be required.
b) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered park and recreational facilities, or result in the need for new or physically altered
park and recreational facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts?
As discussed in criterion (a) above, the proposed project includes open space features and would be
required to pay impact fees that support the City’s parks and recreation fund, which would create less-
than-significant impacts to the City’s recreational facilities. The project does not propose the construction
of a park or any physical alterations to an existing park or recreational facilities; however, the payment of
impact fees would go toward supporting the City’s park fund that could be applied to the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities that could have an adverse physical effect on the environment. It is not
known at what time or location such facilities would be required or what the exact nature of these
facilities would be, so it cannot be determined what specific environmental impacts would occur from
their construction and operation. Because the payment of impact fees is the City requirement to offset
the project’s fair share of impacts to parklands, the City would be responsible for any environmental
review in accordance with CEQA, as necessary, which would ensure that any environmental impacts are
disclosed and mitigated to the extent possible for any future City project related to the expansion of or
improvement to a City recreational facility. Accordingly, impacts to park and recreational facilities as a
result of the proposed project would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be
required.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-79
FINAL DRAFT
XV. TRANSPORTATION
Would the proposed project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
GENERAL PLAN EIR
Chapter 4.13, Transportation and Circulation, of the General Plan EIR, addressed the impacts to the
transportation network in the Cupertino area associated with buildout of the General Plan including the
redevelopment of the project site with up to 19 dwelling units and a 30-foot height maximum at a
program level. The General Plan EIR estimated that and 56 new residents140 could occupy the project site
by 2040. Impacts related to pedestrians, bicycles, transit, and emergency access were found to be less
than significant and no mitigation measures were required. The General Plan EIR also found that the
implementation of the General Plan would support and would not conflict with plans, programs and
policies regarding bicycle or pedestrian facilities, or decrease the performance and safety of such facilities.
As discussed in the General Plan EIR, the VMT per capita is projected to increase from 10.5 (2013) to 10.9
(2040).
METHODOLOGY
The following discussion of impacts is based in part on the transportation memo dated January 10, 2020,
prepared for the proposed project by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc, a transportation
consulting firm, and reviewed and approved by the City of Cupertino Transportation Division. The study is
included in Appendix G, Transportation Data, of this Initial Study.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section describes existing conditions in the immediate project site vicinity, including bicycle and
pedestrian facilities, transit facilities, and VMT.
140 19 units times 2.94 persons per household for Cupertino in 2040 equals 55.86 persons. Note that the 2.94 persons per
household rate for year 2040 was applied in the General Plan EIR. Applying the ABAG rates for population estimates is the
standard approach for population and housing analysis in Cupertino.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-80 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
Pedestrian Facilities
Walkability is defined as the ability to travel easily and safely between various origins and destinations
without having to rely on automobiles or other motorized travel. The ideal “walkable” community
includes wide sidewalks, a mix of land uses such as residential, employment, and shopping opportunities,
a limited number of conflict points with vehicle traffic, and easy access to transit facilities and services.
Pedestrian facilities consist of crosswalks, sidewalks, pedestrian signals, and off-street paths, which
provide safe and convenient routes for pedestrians to access destinations such as institutions, businesses,
public transportation, and recreation facilities.
The project site does not have adequate pedestrian access, because sidewalks are not present along
Stevens Creek Boulevard, South Foothill Boulevard, or Camino Vista Drive within the project vicinity. The
2018 Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan (Pedestrian Plan) contains goals, policies, and specific
recommendations to increase the walkability of Cupertino, including the Pedestrian Guidelines. The
Pedestrian Plan is a companion document to the City of Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan (discussed
below). It includes specific recommendations to improve pedestrian conditions. Consistent with the
Pedestrian Plan and any other applicable recommendations, the project applicant would be required to
contribute to implementing any recommended pedestrian improvements in the project area. The
Pedestrian Plan does not include specific pedestrian improvements in the project area.
Bicycle Facilities
Bicycle facilities near the project site include Class II bike lanes, which are lanes on roadways designated
for use by bicycles through striping, pavement legends, and signs. The Class II bike lanes are provided
along both sides of South Foothill Boulevard and on the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard along the
length of the project site. There is not adequate signage for the bicyclists to maneuver without confusion
along the length of the project site fronting Stevens Creek Boulevard. Overall, existing bicycle facilities
provide adequate connectivity between the proposed project site and the adjacent residential
neighborhoods.
In 2016, the City of Cupertino adopted the Bicycle Transportation Plan (Bike Plan), which is a citywide plan
to encourage bicycling as a safe, practical, and healthy alternative to the use of the family car. The Bike
Plan illustrates Cupertino’s current bicycle network, identifies gaps in the network, and proposes
improvement projects to address the identified gaps.141 The Bike Plan includes standards for engineering,
encouragement, education, and enforcement intended to improve the bicycle infrastructure in the city to
enable people to bike to work and school, to utilize a bicycle to run errands, and to enjoy the health and
environmental benefits that bicycling provides cyclists of every age. The Bike Plan recommends that the
existing Class II Bike Lane on Stevens Creek Boulevard through the project area be improved to a Class IV
Separated Bikeway and the existing Class II Bike Lane on South Foothill Boulevard through the project area
be improved to a Class II Buffered Bike Lane.
141 City of Cupertino, 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan, Figure 3-7: Bikeway projects.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-81
FINAL DRAFT
The VTA adopted the Santa Clara Countywide Bicycle Plan (CBP). The CBP guides the development of
major bicycle facilities in the County by identifying Cross County Bicycle Corridors and other bicycle
projects of countywide or intercity significance. The CBP maps one on-street Cross-County Bicycle
Corridor (CCBC) along South Foothill Boulevard in the project area. This CCBC is not a high-priority
corridor.
Transit Facilities
VTA operates bus services in the City of Cupertino and in the project vicinity. The closest bus stop is
located within a 15-minute walk (about 300 feet to the east) to and from the project site, providing access
to local bus route 51. Bus route 51 provides transportation between Moffett Field/Ames Center and West
Valley. Bus route 51 operates from 6:14 a.m. to 6:20 p.m. and has a peak headway of 50 minutes to 1 hour
depending on the stop and direction.142
Vehicles Miles Traveled
The project site currently contains a 2,400 square-foot commercial building, which generates an annual
VMT of 1,387,000, or a daily VMT of 3,800.143
Daily Trips
The current land use generates approximately 1,829 gross average daily trips.144
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Roadway Facilities
Operational Traffic
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, which took effect on July 1, 2020, contains new requirements for
evaluating a project’s transportation impacts. As of July 1, 2020, impacts on auto delay or level of service
are no longer be considered a significant impact under CEQA for land use projects.
VMT measures the overall effects of a project on the transportation system. VMT is the sum of all of the
vehicle trips generated by a project multiplied by the lengths of their trips to and from the site on an
142 Operating hours consider earliest and latest stop at each bus lines closest stop to the project site. Headways are defined
as the time interval between two transit vehicles traveling in the same direction over the same route.
143 Hexagon Transportation Consultants. January 2020. Trip Generation Study for a Residential Project on Stevens Creek
Boulevard in Cupertino, CA.
144 Hexagon Transportation Consultants. January 2020. Trip Generation Study for a Residential Project on Stevens Creek
Boulevard in Cupertino, CA.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-82 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
average weekday. A vehicle driven 1 mile is 1 VMT. Therefore, a project with a higher VMT would have a
greater environmental effect than a project with a lower VMT.
The trip lengths vary by the land use type and the trip purpose. For example, a trip from a residence to a
job may be longer than the trip from a residence to a neighborhood school. The VMT values stated below
represent the full length of a given trip, and are not truncated at city, county, or region boundaries.
Many factors affect travel behavior and trip lengths such as density of land use, diversity of land uses,
design of the transportation network, distance to high-quality transit, and demographics. Low-density
development separated from other land uses and located in areas with poor access to transit generates
more automobile travel and higher VMT compared to development located in urban areas with more
access to transit.
As previously discussed, development of the project would not exceed the 15 du/ac currently permitted in
the General Plan or the 35 du/ac maximum that was evaluated in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the
proposed project would not directly result in any additional new population growth or employment
growth beyond what was analyzed in the General Plan EIR. As stated in Section II, Air Quality, and Section,
VII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the proposed project is not considered a regionally significant project
under CEQA Guidelines Section 15206 that would affect regional VMT and warrant intergovernmental
review by ABAG and MTC.
The current land uses generate approximately 1,829 gross average daily weekday trips, 3,800 daily VMT,
and 1,387,000 annual VMT. The proposed project would generate 85 gross daily weekday trips, 538 daily
VMT, and 196,370 annual VMT. Therefore, the project would generate fewer daily trips and fewer VMT
than existing conditions and would have a net benefit with respect to roadway facilities.
The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s (OPR) Technical Advisory On Evaluating Transportation
Impacts in CEQA145 and the City’s White Paper SB 743 Implementation Decisions for the City of
Cupertino146 provide guidance on evaluating transportation impacts for small projects, such as the
proposed project. According to these guiding documents a project that generates less than 110 daily trips
may be assumed to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact.147 This threshold is based on
CEQA’s categorical exemption148 for existing facilities (Class 1), including additions to existing structures of
up to 10,000 square feet, so long as the project is in an area where public infrastructure is available to
allow for maximum planned development and the project is not in an environmentally sensitive area.
145 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Technical Advisory On Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, December
2018.
146 City of Cupertino White Paper SB 743 Implementation Decisions for the City of Cupertino, Appendix E: Appendix E, Small
Project Screening for SB 743, February 2021.
147 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Technical Advisory On Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, December
2018, page 12 and City of Cupertino White Paper SB 743 Implementation Decisions for the City of Cupertino, Appendix E: Small
Project Screening for SB 743, February 2021, pages 138 and 139.
148 Section 15300 of the CEQA Guidelines, Categorical Exemptions, states that Section 21084 of the Public Resources Code
requires these Guidelines to include a list of classes of projects which have been determined not to have a significant effect on
the environment and which shall, therefore, be exempt from the provisions of CEQA.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-83
FINAL DRAFT
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(e)(2).) Typical project types for which trip generation increases relatively
linearly with building footprint (i.e., general office building, single tenant office building, office park, and
business park) generate or attract an additional 110 to 124 average daily trips or 836 VMT per 10,000
square feet. A 20-unit housing project generates an equivalent number of VMT to a 10,000-square-foot
non-residential.149 Therefore, absent substantial evidence otherwise, OPR and the City determined that it
is reasonable to conclude that the addition of 20 housing units or 10,000 square feet of non-residential
space could be considered a less-than-significant impact.
Furthermore, the OPR’s Technical Advisory On Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA also recognizes
that for redevelopment projects on infill sites, such as the proposed project, where a project replaces
existing VMT-generating land uses, if the replacement leads to a net overall decrease in VMT, the project
would lead to a less-than-significant transportation impact.150 This is consistent with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.3(b), which states that projects that decrease VMT in the project area compared to existing
conditions should be presumed to have a less-than-significant transportation impact.
On February 16, 2021, the City adopted CMC Chapter 17.08, Evaluation of Transportation Impacts Under
the California Environmental Quality Act, which provides screening criteria and VMT thresholds for land-
use development projects, transportation projects, and other projects pursuant to the CEQA. CMC
Chapter 17.08 went into effect on April 1, 2021. Under CMC Chapter 17.08, a project would be screened
out from more detailed VMT analysis if the project is consistent with applicable General Plan policies and
supported by substantial evidence demonstrating cumulative VMT is declining. Project screening may be
used for projects that meet one or more of the following criteria:
A project located within one-quarter mile of a High-Quality Transit Corridor or transit stop as defined
by CEQA;
Local-serving retail of 50,000 square feet or less; or
Land-use projects consisting of 100 percent affordable housing.
Under CMC Chapter 17.08, a project would have a significant impact if:
The total project generated VMT per service population would exceed the City’s target VMT reduction
of 14.4 percent below the citywide baseline VMT rate, and
If the project increases total countywide VMT compared to baseline conditions.
As described in Section X, Land Use and Planning, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan
and applicable policies. The proposed project, an infill redevelopment project currently served by existing
public infrastructure and not in an environmentally sensitive area, would generate less than 836 daily VMT
(i.e., 538 VMT), which as described above is equivalent to the standards applied to a project qualifying for
149 Using statewide average data from the 2012 California Household Travel Survey (CHTS), the amount of daily VMT
associated with 10,000 square feet of non-residential space is 836 VMT. Also using statewide average CHTS data, this level of
VMT is associated with 20 housing units.
150 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Technical Advisory On Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, page 17,
December 2018.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-84 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
a CEQA exemption. The proposed project would generate significantly fewer VMT than existing conditions
(proposed 538 daily VMT and 196,370 annual VMT compared to existing 3,800 daily VMT and 1,387,000
annual VMT), which demonstrates a contribution to a decline in cumulative VMT. Accordingly, the
proposed project would meet the standards to be screened out from detailed VMT evaluation under the
City’s standards as well as CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b), and transportation impacts during
operation of the proposed project would be less than significant.
Construction Traffic
Demolition and construction would take place over a 10-month period, which is anticipated to begin in
June 2021 and end in March 2022, subject to regulatory approval. During this period, the project would
result in changes to existing transportation conditions. New traffic would be generated by construction
employees and construction activities, including haul trucks. Construction traffic is temporary and would
generate fewer daily VMT than existing conditions and the projected VMT during project operation.
During demolition and construction, vehicle, equipment, and materials would be staged and stored on a
portion of the project site. The construction site and staging areas would be clearly marked, and
construction fencing would be installed to prevent disturbance and safety hazards. No staging would
occur in the public right-of-way. Therefore, no hazards for vehicle, pedestrians, and/or cyclists in the area
would occur during this phase.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Class II bike lanes currently exist on both sides of South Foothill Boulevard and on the north side of
Stevens Creek Boulevard along the length of the project site The proposed project would include the
extension of a new Class II bike lane along the southern side of Stevens Creek Boulevard along the length
of the project site.151 The proposed project would include construction of sidewalks along the perimeter
of the project site, alongside Stevens Creek Boulevard, Camino Vista Drive, and South Foothill Boulevard.
Figures 3-4 and 3-5 show site perspectives of the proposed site along with placement of the proposed
sidewalks. These sidewalks would provide pedestrian access to the site. Pedestrians would also have
access to the site via the existing crosswalks on Stevens Creek Boulevard connecting to South Foothill
Drive.
Transit Facilities
VTA operates bus services in the City of Cupertino and in the project vicinity. The closest bus stop is
located within 300 feet of the project site, providing access to local bus route 51. The VTA has not
established policies or significance criteria related to transit vehicle delay. The 28 residents that would
result from construction and operation of the proposed project are anticipated to come from Cupertino
and surrounding Bay Area communities and would not introduce new riders to the VTA operated bus
151 Class II Bikeways are bike lanes for bicyclists that are generally adjacent to the outer vehicle travel lanes and have special
lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Class III Bike Routes are designated roadways for bicycle use by signs or other
markings may or may not include additional pavement width for cyclists.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-85
FINAL DRAFT
services that serve the project area. Therefore, the new transit trips generated by the proposed project
are not expected to create a significant demand in excess of the capacity of the transit service that is
currently provided.
Conclusion
In summary, the nine-unit residential project would be expected to generate 1,744 fewer daily vehicle
trips and 3,262 fewer daily VMT than the existing use. The proposed project would not displace modify or
interfere with any sidewalk, bicycle lanes, or sidewalks. In addition, the project would not generate a
demand for transit that would exceed the capacity of the system. Therefore, the project would not conflict
with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding pedestrian, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities.
Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
As discussed in criterion (a), above, the existing 2,400 square foot convenience market on-site has a daily
VMT of 3,800 and an annual VMT of 1,387,000. The proposed nine-unit residential project would produce
an approximate daily VMT of 538 and annual VMT of 196,370. Therefore, the proposed project would
result in a daily reduction of 3,262 VMT and annual reduction of 57,670 VMT for the project site.
The proposed project would reduce VMT from the existing conditions at the project site by 86 percent.
Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.3(b) and impacts would be less than significant.
c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
The project proposes a two-way, two-lane entrance/exit circulation pattern with the access points on
Camino Vista Drive and South Foothill Boulevard. Entering and exiting the project site via these access
points would be accomplished through left or right turns. Access to the project site would not modify the
existing three-way (or “t”) intersection at Stevens Creek Boulevard/Camino Vista Drive or the intersection
at Stevens Creek Boulevard/South Foothill Boulevard. The proposed project would not create a significant
impact on the expected left-turn or right-turn queues at the study intersections.
The proposed project would not modify any design features to a public road or introduce a potentially
unsafe feature that would increase hazards. No impacts would occur, and no mitigation measures would
be required.
d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
The proposed project is located in a predominately residential neighborhood with residential driveways
and neighborhood streets adjacent and in close proximity to the project site. Emergency access would
occur the same way that standard vehicle access would occur for the proposed project. Emergency access
to the proposed internal roadway on the project site would be from Camino Vista Drive to the west off of
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-86 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
Stevens Creek Boulevard and from South Foothill Boulevard to the east. The internal roadway would have
a two-way, two -lane entrance/exit circulation pattern between these two access points on South Foothill
Boulevard and Camino Vista Drive. Drivers could enter or exist via left or right turns onto South Foothill
Boulevard or Camino Vista Drive. The project access points would not modify the existing three-way
intersection at Stevens Creek Boulevard/Camino Vista Drive or the four-way intersection at Stevens Creek
Boulevard/South Foothill Boulevard.
All circulation aisles would be 20 feet wide, and the turning radii would be adequate for emergency and
service vehicles. The SCCFD and City of Cupertino Building Division coordinate the review of building
permits. All access driveways would be designed in accordance with City of Cupertino standards and
would have to be reviewed and approved by SCCFD.
Project plans include approved fire and emergency access through all phases of construction and
operation. Compliance with the provisions of the Cupertino Fire Code and the Cupertino Building Code
would ensure that adequate access would be provided. Therefore, the proposed project would not result
in inadequate emergency access, no impacts would occur, and no mitigation measures would be required.
XVI. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the proposed project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code
Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the
size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object
with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe,
and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code Section 5020.1(k), or
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in
its discretion and supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1.
In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of
the Public Resource Code Section 5024.1 for the
purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall
consider the significance to a California Native
American tribe.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-87
FINAL DRAFT
GENERAL PLAN EIR
As described above in Section IV, Cultural Resources, the General Plan EIR addressed impacts to cultural
resources associated with associated with buildout of the General Plan including the redevelopment of
the project site with up to 19 dwelling units and a 30-foot height maximum at a program level. The
impacts were found to be less than significant, and no mitigation measures were required. The cultural
resources study prepared for the General Plan EIR consists of archival research at the Northwest
Information Center at Sonoma State University, examination of the library and files, field inspection, and
contact with the Native American community. The cultural resources study addressed impacts associated
with archeological resources, including those of Native Americans. As shown in Table 4.4-2, Cultural
Resources in the Project Study Area and Vicinity, and on Figure 4.4-1, Cultural Resources, of the General
Plan EIR, there are no identified cultural resources, including those affiliated with Native Americans,
present on the project site.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
CEQA Sections 21074 and 21084.2 contain CEQA standards of significance that relate to Native American
consultation and added “tribal cultural resources” to the specific cultural resources protected under
CEQA. CEQA sections 21080.3.1 requires the CEQA lead agency to begin consultation with any California
Native American Tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed
project if the Tribe requests in writing, to be informed by the lead agency through formal notification of
the proposed projects in the area. The consultation is required before the determination of whether a
negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or EIR is required. In addition, CEQA Section
21080.3.1 includes time limits for certain responses regarding consultation. Pursuant to CEQA Section
21084.3, public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resources.
Information shared by tribes as a result of consultation shall be documented in a confidential file, as
necessary, and made part of a lead agency’s administrative record. The City of Cupertino has not received
a request from any Tribes in the geographic area with which it is traditionally and culturally affiliated with
or otherwise to be notified about projects in the city.
CEQA Section 21074.3(a) defines a tribal cultural resource as a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that
is geographically defined in terms of size and scope, sacred place, and object with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe that is either included or eligible for inclusion in the California Register of
Historic Resources or included a local register of historical resources, or if the City, acting as the lead
agency, supported by substantial evidence, chooses at its discretion to treat the resource as a tribal
cultural resource.
DISCUSSION
a) Would the proposed project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural
Resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-88 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or
object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of the Public Resource Code Section 5024.1 for the purposes
of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance to a California Native American tribe?
The discussion in Section IV, Cultural Resources, is applicable to impacts to tribal cultural resources. As
discussed under criteria (b) and (c) in Section IV, Cultural Resources, no known archeological resources,
ethnographic sites, or Native American remains are located on the project site. As discussed under
criterion (b), implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-1 would reduce impacts to unknown
archaeological deposits, including tribal cultural resources, to a less-than-significant level. As discussed
under criterion (c), compliance with State and federal regulations would reduce the likelihood of
disturbing or discovering human remains, including those of Native Americans. Therefore, implementation
of Mitigation Measure CULT-1, which is not a General Plan EIR mitigation measure, and compliance with
State and federal regulations related to the protection of human remains would reduce impacts to tribal
cultural resources to a less-than-significant level.
Impact TRC-1: The proposed project could cause a substantial adverse impact to an unknown Tribal
Cultural Resource.
Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Implement Mitigation Measure CULT-1.
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the proposed project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
b) Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project
and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal,
dry and multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-89
FINAL DRAFT
Would the proposed project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
No
Impact
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair
the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
GENERAL PLAN EIR
Chapter 4.14, Utilities and Services Systems, of the General Plan EIR, addressed the impacts to water
supply, wastewater, and solid waste associated with buildout of the General Plan including the
redevelopment of the project site with up to 19 dwelling units and a 30-foot height maximum at a
program level. Impacts were found to be less than significant with mitigation. The City is required to
implement General Plan Mitigation Measures UTIL-6a through UTIL-6c, and UTIL-8, which were previously
adopted and incorporated into the General Plan, to ensure impacts related to wastewater and solid waste
are less than significant. General Plan Mitigation Measures UTIL-6a through UTIL-6c require the City to
work with the Cupertino Sanitary District (CSD) to increase the available citywide treatment and
transmission capacity, identify appropriate and current wastewater generation rates that are approved by
CSD and establish a monitoring and tracking system for wastewater generation to better understand the
City’s need for potential capacity upgrades from CSD. General Plan Mitigation Measure UTIL-8 requires
the City to continue current recycling and zero-waste practices, monitor solid waste generation, and seek
new landfill sites to replace the Altamont and Newby Island landfills, at such time that these landfills are
closed. These mitigation measures, which were previously adopted by the City and incorporated into the
General Plan, will be implemented by the City.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The existing conditions for each of the utility providers is listed below:
The Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) is the primary water resources agency for Santa Clara
County. The project site is within the San José Water (SJW) service area until 2022. SJW would supply
water to the project site. Water supply for the SJW is a combination of groundwater from wells in the
Santa Clara Groundwater Basin, treated water purchased from SCVWD, and local mountain surface
water from the Santa Cruz Mountains.
Cupertino Sanitary District (CSD) provides sanitary sewer services for the project site. Wastewater
would be treated at the San José /Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant (SJ/SCWPCP).
Recology South Bay (Recology) would provide curbside recycling, garbage, and compost and yard
waste service to the residents of the project. The City has a contract with Newby Island Sanitary
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-90 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
Landfill (NISL)152 until 2023, which, according to CalRecycle, had a remaining capacity of 21,200,000
cubic yards as of October 31, 2014, and permitted maximum disposal capacity of 4,000 tons per
day.153 The landfill is scheduled to operate until 2041. In 2019, the landfill accepted 582,174 tons of
waste, which equates to approximately 1,940 tons/day.154 This results in a residual capacity of about
2,060 tons/day.
Electricity and natural gas would be supplied to the project site via infrastructure maintained by
Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). Electricity would be supplied by Silicon Valley Clean Energy.
Telephone service would be provided by AT&T and other providers. Cable television service would be
available from numerous providers, including Comcast.
DISCUSSION
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Water Treatment Facilities
The Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) operates three treatment plants. The Rinconada Water
Treatment Plant, which serves the project site, draws water from the South Bay Aqueduct and the San Luis
Reservoir, which is treated and supplied to residential and commercial water dealers, such as SJW, which
serves the site. The plant can provide up to 80 million gallons of water per day. The water treatment plant
is currently under renovation to modernize the system and will result in an increased capacity of 100
million gallons per day as well as improved water quality and greater seismic stability.155
As discussed in the General Plan EIR and criterion b) below, buildout of the General Plan including the
proposed project would not result in insufficient water supplies from SJW under normal year conditions or
during single-dry year and multiple-dry years, with the proposed and existing water conservation
regulations and measures in place. Therefore, implementation of the project would not require any new
water treatment facilities or improvements other than those currently under construction.
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Wastewater from the project site would be discharged to the CSD sewer collection system, which then
conveys it to the SJ/SCWPCP, which is jointly owned by the cities of San José and Santa Clara. The NPDES
permit for this facility (NPDES No. CA0037842) is currently in the process of being renewed by the San
Francisco Bay RWQCB (Tentative Order No. R2-2020-XXXX). The NPDES permit currently allows dry
152 City of Cupertino, Garbage and Recycling Services Fact Sheet,
http://www.recyclestuff.org/Guides/CityGuideCupertino.pdf, accessed June 8, 2020.
153 CalRecycle website, http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/43-AN-0003/Detail/, accessed July 15, 2020.
154 Assuming 300 operational days/year; the landfill is open six days a week.
155 Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2020. Rinconada Water Treatment Plant. Accessed at
https://www.valleywater.org/node/98 on January 11, 2021.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-91
FINAL DRAFT
weather discharges of up to 167 million gallons per day (mgd) with full tertiary treatment. The plant is
designed to route fully treated secondary effluent in excess of the filtration design capacity around the
filters (250 mgd) during extreme wet weather flow events and recombine it with filter effluent prior to
disinfection. As discussed below in criterion (c), future demands from the proposed project would not
exceed the design or permitted capacity of the SJ/SCWPCP that serves the project site. Future wastewater
treatment demand was assessed in consultation with the City of Cupertino and includes consideration of
development in the city through the 2040 buildout horizon of the General Plan. Therefore, development
of the proposed project would not require any improvements not already considered and the impact of
the proposed project on SJ/SCWPCP would be less than significant.
Stormwater Drainage
Municipal stormwater discharges in the City of Cupertino are subject to the Waste Discharge
Requirements of the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP; Order Number R2-2015-0049, as amended by
Order No. R2-2019-0004) and NPDES Permit No. CAS612008. As previously discussed in Section IX,
Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project would be subject to Provision C.3 guidelines for
stormwater control. Through C.3 compliance, the proposed project would minimize runoff from the
project site as described in Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality. The project also would comply with
CMC Chapter 9.18, described in Section 3.1.4.2, Zoning, which implements the requirements of the
NPDES permit issued to the City. Additionally, the project would submit am SMP to the City for review and
approval prior to the start of construction that describes the stormwater treatment measures that would
be implemented to reduce stormwater runoff to the City’s storm drain system.
The project site is within an area where the storm drains are deficient in conveying the water from a 10-
year storm based on the 2018 Storm Drain Master Plan. The lines on Stevens Creek Boulevard and South
Foothill Boulevard adjacent to the project site are currently under capacity and designated as high priority
for replacement.156 The proposed project would provide one bioretention area for the project site. This
would collect runoff from roof areas, parking lots, sidewalks, and streets for treatment and flow control
prior to discharge into the internal storm drain system, which connects to the City’s storm drain system at
the southwest corner of the intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and South Foothill Boulevard. The
on-site stormwater treatment area would exceed the C.3 requirements of the MRP. In addition, to ensure
that the stormwater runoff from the site does not exceed the capacity of the City’s storm drain system, a
hydrology and hydraulics report will be prepared for submittal and review by the Director of Public Works
prior to the start of construction.
The proposed project would not require the expansion of existing stormwater facilities or the construction
of new facilities, the construction of which could otherwise have significant impacts. Therefore, impacts
would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required.
156 Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers. 2018. Cupertino Storm Drain Master Plan.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-92 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
Other Utility Facilities
Other utility facilities that serve the project site include electric power, natural gas, and
telecommunications facilities. PG&E would supply natural gas and electricity infrastructure and Silicon
Valley Clean Energy would provide electricity to the project site. AT&T and other providers would provide
telephone service. Cable television service would be available from various providers, including Comcast.
The proposed project is an infill development project that would result in an increase in land use intensity
in a portion of the city that has access to existing infrastructure and services, which was accounted for in
the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would include appropriate on-site infrastructure to connect to
the existing PG&E and telecommunication systems and would not require new off-site facilities and
distribution infrastructure or capacity enhancing alterations to any existing facilities. Accordingly, impacts
would be less than significant.
b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
As described in the General Plan EIR in Chapter 4.14, the water supply for the City of Cupertino at project
buildout year 2022 would be 13,078 acre-feet157 per year (afy) and at General Plan buildout year 2040
would be 16,984 afy. Buildout associated with the General Plan would result in sufficient water supplies
from SJW under normal year conditions or during single-dry year and multiple-dry years, with the
proposed and existing water conservation regulations and measures. The Water Supply Evaluation
prepared for the General Plan EIR included new development on the project site at a greater number of
units than proposed under the project (19 new units compared to nine net new units and one accessory
unit); therefore, water supply impacts were adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR.
The proposed project’s water demand was calculated using Cupertino Sanitary District’s Flow Modeling
Analysis.158 For the residential component of the project, a total indoor residential water demand of 155
gallons/day/unit was calculated. The irrigation demand was based on the Maximum Applied Water
Allowance (MAWA) as per the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. This conservatively assumes that all
the pervious area at the site will be irrigated; actual irrigation water usage will most likely be less than the
calculated amount. The results are provided in Table 4-9.
157 One acre-foot equals about 326,000 gallons, or enough water to cover an acre of land, about the size of a football field,
one foot deep.
158 Mark Thomas & Co. Inc., December 6, 2019, Cupertino Sanitary District Flow Modeling Analysis Homestead Flume Outfall
to City of Santa Clara.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-93
FINAL DRAFT
TABLE 4-9 WATER DEMAND FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Development Type Water Demand Factora Size Water Demand
Residential 155 gpd/unit 9 units 1,395 gpd
Irrigation Based on ETWU 10,608 sq ft of landscaping 326 gpd
Total Water Demand 1,721 gpd
Notes: ETWU = Estimated Total Water Use
a. Water demand factor calculated as 60 gal/resident/day x 2.87 residents per unit x 10 percent reduction for new construction and low-flow fixtures
Source: Mark Thomas & Company, Inc., 2019. Cupertino Sanitary District, Flow Modeling Analysis, Homestead Flume Outfall to City of Santa Clara.
The projected water demand for the project would be approximately 1,721 gpd or 1.93 afy. This is less
than 0.01 percent of Cupertino’s water supply at the buildout year of 2040 and the project was accounted
for in the General Plan at a higher density land use and thus a higher water demand rate. Accordingly, the
water demand under the proposed project would not exceed the available water supply in 2022 at project
buildout or General Plan buildout by year 2040 and impacts to water supply would be less than
significant.
c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or
may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
The calculated wastewater demand for the proposed project is provided in Table 4-10. The proposed
project with nine housing units would generate approximately 1,323 gallons/day of wastewater, or 0.0011
mgd of wastewater. The wastewater demand calculations are based on the residential water demand
factor of 155 gpd/unit and the assumption that 95 percent of the water demand would result in
wastewater generation.
TABLE 4-10 WASTEWATER DEMAND FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Development Type Wastewater Demand Factor Size Wastewater Demand
Residential 147 gpd/unit a 9 units 1,323 gpd
Notes:
a. Water demand factor of 155 gpd/unit x 95 percent (amount of water demand that becomes wastewater).
Source: Mark Thomas & Company, Inc, 2019. Cupertino Sanitary District, Flow Modeling Analysis, Homestead Flume Outfall to City of Santa Clara.
The wastewater demand under existing conditions was also calculated to determine the net increase in
wastewater demand with implementation of the proposed project. Based on the CSD’s Flow Modeling
Analysis, the wastewater demand factor for retail and commercial uses of 0.073 gpd per square foot, and
assuming that the existing commercial buildings total 2,400 square feet, the current wastewater demand
would be 175 gpd or approximately 0.0002 mgd of wastewater. The proposed project would generate up
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-94 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
to 1,323 gpd or approximately 0.0011 mgd of wastewater.159 Therefore, the proposed project would
increase wastewater generation at the site by 1,148 gpd or 0.0011 mgd of wastewater.160 However, the
project wastewater demand would be much less than was assumed for the proposed buildout of the site
in the General Plan, which presumed 19 new units for a wastewater demand of 2,793 gpd. These
wastewater demand calculations are conservative, because no credit is taken for water conservation
measures that would be applicable with new construction, thus reducing the amount of wastewater
generated.
The SJ/SCWPCP’s projected peak wet weather capacity stated in The San Jose Santa Clara Water Pollution
Control Plant Master Plan, November 2013, is 450 mgd. The proposed project’s wastewater generation
(0.0011 mgd) and the existing wastewater generated in the SJ/SCWPCP’s service area (110 mgd) would
not exceed the SJ/SCWPCP’s current total peak wet weather capacity of 450 mgd. The ADWF capacity is
167 mgd pursuant to the most recent National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for
the SJ/SCWPCP (Order No. R2-2014-0034, NPDES No. CA0037842). Combined, the proposed project’s
wastewater generation (0.0011 mgd) and the existing wastewater generated (110 mgd) would not exceed
the SJ/SCWCP’s current ADWF capacity limits.
The CSD has a contractual maximum treatment allocation of 7.85 mgd with the SJ/SCWPCP. At the time of
the General Plan EIR, the CSD estimated the existing wastewater generation for the City of Cupertino to
be 5.3 mgd and the proposed General Plan build-out would generate 7.2 mgd of wastewater.161
Combined, the existing wastewater flow (5.3 mgd) plus the proposed project (0.0011 mgd) would not
exceed the City’s contractual allocation limits (7.85 mgd). Furthermore, the proposed nine-unit residential
development with one accessory unit is within the 4,421 residential units evaluated in the General Plan
EIR. Furthermore, as demonstrated in Table 1.1 in Section 1.2, Tiering Process, the project site was
originally proposed for 19 units. Therefore, the project would not result in an exceedance of the City’s
contractual agreement with SJ/SCWPCP and there would be no significant impact with respect to
wastewater treatment capacity.
However, the CSD wastewater flows through a portion of the City of Santa Clara’s sewer system. The
contractual agreement between CSD and the City of Santa Clara, for this portion of the Santa Clara sewer
system, allows the City 13.8 mgd of capacity in the sewer system during peak wet weather flows. The
existing CSD peak wet weather flow into the Santa Clara system is 13.14 mgd.162 However, the estimated
wastewater generation from the proposed project and from other potential projects in Cupertino, as
established by the General Plan and other approved projects, is approximately 14.61 mgd, which is the
159 Mark Thomas & Co. Inc., December 6, 2019, Cupertino Sanitary District Flow Modeling Analysis Homestead Flume Outfall to
City of Santa Clara.
160 Mark Thomas & Co. Inc., December 6, 2019, Cupertino Sanitary District Flow Modeling Analysis Homestead Flume Outfall to
City of Santa Clara.
161 City of Cupertino, General Plan (Community Vision 2015–2040, Appendix B: Housing Element Technical Report, 4.3
Environmental, Infrastructure & Public Service Constraints, page B-93.
162 Mark Thomas & Co. Inc, December 6, 2019, Cupertino Sanitary District Flow Modeling Analysis Homestead Flume Outfall
to City of Santa Clara.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-95
FINAL DRAFT
total capacity needed to serve the General Plan buildout.163 Therefore, the proposed project, and other
approved and potential projects as established by the General Plan buildout, will require a reduction in
sewer generation from the CSD system prior to flowing into the City of Santa Clara system, or additional
capacity rights will need to be acquired from the City of Santa Clara.
Until such corrections to the system can occur, future projects in Cupertino, including of the proposed
project would exceed the 13.8 mgd contractual limit through the City of Santa Clara sewer system
resulting in a potentially significant impact.
Impact UTIL-1: Implementation of the proposed project may result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve the proposed project, that it does not have adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.
Mitigation Measure UTIL-1: No building permits shall be issued by the City for the proposed 22690
Stevens Creek Boulevard Project that would result in exceeding the permitted peak wet weather flow
capacity of 13.8 mgd through the Santa Clara sanitary sewer system. The project applicant shall
demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City of Cupertino and Cupertino Sanitary District (CSD), that
the proposed project would not exceed the peak wet weather flow capacity of the Santa Clara
sanitary sewer system by implementing one or more of the following methods:
1. Reduce inflow and infiltration in the CSD system to reduce peak wet weather flows; or
2. Increase on-site water reuse, such as increased grey water use, or reduce water consumption of
the fixtures used within the proposed project, or other methods that are measurable and reduce
sewer generation rates to acceptable levels, to the satisfaction of the CSD.
The proposed project’s estimated wastewater generation shall be calculated using the generation
rates used by the CSD in the Flow Modeling Analysis for the Homestead Flume Outfall to the City of
Santa Clara, prepared by Mark Thomas & Co. Inc. dated December 6, 2019, unless alternative (i.e.,
lower) generation rates achieved by the proposed project are substantiated by the project applicant
based on evidence to the satisfaction of the CSD. To calculate the peak wet weather flow for a 10-year
storm event, the average daily flow rate shall be multiplied by a factor of 2.95 as required by CSD
pursuant to their December 2019 flow modeling analysis.
If the prior agreement between CSD and the City of Santa Clara that currently limits the permitted peak
wet weather flow capacity of 13.8 mgd through the Santa Clara sanitary sewer system were to be updated
to increase the permitted peak wet weather flow, this impact would then be less than significant. If this
were to occur prior to the City’s approval of building permits, then Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 would no
longer be required to be implemented.
Significance With Mitigation: Less than significant. Implementation of the Mitigation Measure UTIL-1
would guarantee that no development on the project site could occur that would exceed 13.8 mgd peak
163 Mark Thomas & Co. Inc, December 6, 2019, Cupertino Sanitary District Flow Modeling Analysis Homestead Flume Outfall
to City of Santa Clara.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-96 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
wet weather flow contractual limit through the City of Santa Clara and CSD by ensuring that no building
permit would be issued for any structures or units that result in the contractual limit being exceeded until:
(1) additional capacity is available through the City of Santa Clara’s sewer system; (2) improvements would
be made to the CSD sewer system that reduce the peak wet weather flows that enter the City of Santa
Clara system; (3) improvements would be made on the project site that ensure the contractual limit is not
exceed; or (4) the completion of any combination of these approaches that adequately addresses
potential capacity issues. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
The City contracts with Recology to provide solid waste collection services to residents and businesses in
the city. The City has a contract with Newby Island Sanitary Landfill (NISL) until 2023 but has not secured a
new landfill contract for landfill disposal after that date. However, according to the Integrated Waste
Management Plan, the landfills in the County (including NISL where the City’s collected solid waste is
currently being landfilled) have adequate disposal capacity beyond 2026 and NISL’s’ operational life has
recently been extended to 2041.164 The City, therefore, has options for landfill service once the City’s
existing contract with NISL ends in 2023. In addition to the Newby Island Landfill, solid waste generated in
Cupertino can also be disposed of at the Altamont Landfill and Resource Recovery facility, the Corinda Los
Trancos Landfill, Forward Landfill Inc., Guadalupe Sanitary Landfill, Kirby Canyon Recycling and Disposal
Facility, the Monterey Peninsula Landfill, Recology Hay Road, the Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill, the Zanker
Material Processing Facility, and the Zanker Road Class III Landfill.
Waste management for the proposed project includes recycling and composting. Solid waste generated by
construction of the proposed project would largely consist of demolition waste from the existing building
as well as construction debris. The project would be required to comply with CMC Chapter 16.72,
Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition Waste, and the City’s Zero Waste Policy, which
requires the recycling or diversion of at least 65 percent of all construction and demolition (C&D) waste by
salvage or by transfer to an approved facility.165,166 Prior to the issuance of any demolition, grading, and/or
building permits, the applicant is required to submit a properly completed Waste Management Plan to the
Cupertino Public Works Department, Environmental Programs Division. The Waste Management Plan shall
do the following:
Identify the materials to be diverted from disposal by recycling, reused on the project, or salvaged for
future use or sale.
Specify if materials would be sorted on-site or mixed for transportation to a diversion facility.
Identify the diversion facility where the material collected will be taken.
164 Santa Clara County Integrated Waste Management Plan, County of Santa Clara Environmental Resources Agency, 1996.
165 Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 16, Buildings and Construction, Chapter 16.72, Recycling and Diversion of Construction
and Demolition Waste, Section 16.72.040, Diversion Requirement.
166 City of Cupertino, Public Works, Garbage & Recycling, https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/environment-
sustainability/waste, accessed July 15, 2020.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-97
FINAL DRAFT
Identify construction methods employed to reduce the amount of waste generated.
Specify that the amount of materials diverted shall be calculated by weight or volume, but not by
both.
Compliance with CMC Chapter 16.72 and the City’s Zero Waste Policy would reduce solid waste and
construction-related impacts on landfill capacity.
Once the project is operational, there will be approximately 28 residents on the site. In 2019, the City of
Cupertino’s disposal rate for residents was 3.5 pounds per day (PPD), which is much lower than
CalRecycle’s target rate of 4.3 PPD for residents.167 The City of Cupertino’s disposal rates for residents have
been below target rates and steadily decreasing since 2007, with the exception of 2014, when the rate
(9.8 PPD) exceeded the target (8.10 PPD).168 Applying these disposal rates, the project would generate
approximately 98 PPD or 0.049 tons per day of new waste. The Newby Island Sanitary Landfill has a
maximum permitted daily disposal capacity of 4,000 tons per day and in 2019, the average daily disposal
rate was approximately 1,940 tons/day. Therefore, the residual daily landfill capacity of 2,060 tons/day is
more than sufficient to meet the solid waste generation rate for the project of 0.049 tons/day. The project
would also comply with the City’s current recycling ordinances and zero-waste policies, which would
further reduce solid waste disposed of in the landfill. Therefore, implementation of the project would not
generate solid waste that exceeds State or local standards, or exceeds the capacity of the landfill, or
otherwise impairs the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Impacts would be less than significant.
e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
The City’s per capita disposal rate for residents in 2019 was 3.5 PPD, which is below the 4.3 PPD target
rate established by CalRecycle.169 As part of the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan to
address waste management conditions within Santa Clara County, Cupertino adopted a Source Reduction
and Recycling Element (SRRE)170 and Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE)171 in compliance with
the California Integrated Waste Management Act.172 The City has gone beyond the SRRE by implementing
several programs, including the City’s and Recology’s organics or food waste collection program, and
Environmental Recycling Day events offered to residents three times per year by Recology.
167 CalRecycle. 2017. Jurisdiction Per Capita Disposal Trends.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/DisposalRateCalculator, accessed July 15, 2020.
168 CalRecycle. 2017. Jurisdiction Per Capita Disposal Trends.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/ReviewReports, accessed July 15, 2020.
169 CalRecycle. 2017. Disposal Rate Calculator.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/DisposalRateCalculator, accessed May 30, 2019.
170 City of Cupertino, Public Works. 1992. Source Reduction and Recycling Element, September 21, 1992.
171 City of Cupertino, Public Works. 1992. Household Hazardous Waste Element, September 21, 1992.
172 Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 9, Health and Sanitation, Chapter 9.6, Solid Waste, Non-Organic Recycling and Recycling
Areas, Section 9.16.010(a), Purpose.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-98 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
In December 2017, the City adopted a Zero Waste Policy.173 According to the Zero Waste Policy, the City
will require, through the City’s waste hauling franchise agreement, steadfast and ongoing efforts by the
City’s franchisee to maintain a minimum residential and commercial waste diversion rate of 75 percent
with a goal of reaching and maintaining 80 percent by 2025. In 2019, the City’s solid waste diversion rate
was 69 percent. These programs will be sufficient to ensure that future development in Cupertino,
including the proposed project, would not compromise the ability to meet or exceed the State mandated
target.
Construction and any demolition debris associated with the project would be subject to CMC Chapter
16.72, requiring that a minimum of 65 percent of C&D debris be diverted from landfill.174 In addition, the
City’s Zero Waste Policy requires that all private construction projects that come through the City’s
permitting process, and all City projects (through contract requirements), recover and divert at least 65
percent of the construction waste generated by the project. Compliance with applicable statutes and
regulations would ensure that the impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures
would be required.
XVIII. WILDFIRE
If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as
very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate
wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to,
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire
risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including
downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of
runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
GENERAL PLAN EIR
Chapter 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the General Plan EIR, addressed the impacts to wildfire
hazards associated with buildout of the General Plan including the redevelopment of the project site with
up to 19 dwelling units and a 30-foot height maximum at a program level. Impacts were found to be less
173 City of Cupertino, Public Works, Garbage & Recycling, https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/environment-
sustainability/waste, accessed May 30, 2019.
174 Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 16, Buildings and Construction, Chapter 16.72, Recycling and Diversion of Construction
and Demolition Waste, Section 16.72.040, Diversion Requirement.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-99
FINAL DRAFT
than significant, and no mitigation measures were required. This section of the Initial Study also addresses
additional questions regarding wildfire related impacts pursuant to the updated CEQA Guidelines that
were adopted by the California Natural Resource Agency in December 2018.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Wildland fire protection in California is the responsibility of either the State, local government, or the
federal government. State Responsibility Areas (SRA) are the areas where the State of California has the
primary financial responsibility for the prevention and suppression of wildland fires. The SRA includes a
31-million-acre area, in which the State Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) provides a
basic level of wildland fire prevention and protection services. Local Responsibility Areas (LRA) include
lands within incorporated cities, cultivated agriculture lands, and portions of the desert. LRA fire
protection is typically provided by city fire departments, fire protection districts, counties, or by CAL FIRE
under contract to local government.175 CAL FIRE determines fire hazard zones within the LRA using an
extension of the SRA Fire Hazard Severity Zone model as the basis. The LRA hazard rating reflects flame
and ember intrusion from adjacent wildlands and from flammable vegetation in the urban area.
CAL FIRE designates fire hazard severity zones (FHSZs) as authorized under California Government Code
Sections 51175 et seq. CAL FIRE considers many factors such as fire history, existing and potential fuel
(natural vegetation), flame length, blowing embers, terrain, and typical weather for the area. There are
three types of FHSZs: moderate, high, and very high.
According to the California Office of Emergency Services, a Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) is defined as
any area where structures and other human development meet or intermingle within wildland
vegetation.176 Developments in the wildland-urban interface exacerbate fire occurrence and fire spread in
several ways, including:
Increased numbers of human-caused wildfires.
Wildfires become harder to fight.
Firefighting resources are diverted from containing the wildfire to protecting lives and homes.
Letting natural fires burn becomes impossible; leading to buildup of fuel, increasing wildfire
hazard further.177
The project site is located within an LRA and the SCCFD currently provides fire protection and emergency
medical services to the city and project site. The nearest SRA is approximately 1 mile to the west and is
designated as a High FHSZ. The nearest Very High FHSZ within the Cupertino LRA is located approximately
2 miles to the southeast. The project site is not located within the Cupertino designated WUI.178 However,
it is located within the CalOES defined WUI, which is an area of transition between wildland (unoccupied
175 California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention (CAL FIRE). Frequently Asked Questions.
http://www.fire.ca.gov/firepreventionfee/sra_faqs, accessed June 19, 2020.
176 Cal OES. 2018. California State Hazard Mitigation Plan.
177 Radeloff, Volker; Helmers, David; Kramer, H., et al. 2018. Rapid Growth of the US Wildland-Urban Interface Raises
Wildfire Risk. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS): Volume 115 No. 13. Accessed June 18, 2020 at
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/115/13/3314.full.pdf.
178 Cupertino Municipal Code, Section 16.74, Wildland Urban Interface Fire Area.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-100 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
land) and land with human development (occupied land);179 therefore, impacts related to wildfire are
discussed below.
DISCUSSION
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The City of Cupertino Office of Emergency Services is responsible for coordinating agency response to
disasters or other large-scale emergencies in the City of Cupertino with assistance from the Santa Clara
County Office of Emergency Services and the SCCFD. The Cupertino EOP establishes emergency planning,
mitigation, response, and recovery policies within the city.
As described in Section VIII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, emergency vehicle access would be
provided at two points on the project site and the proposed project would not block roads or impede
emergency access to surrounding properties or neighborhoods during either construction or operation of
the project. The Emergency Circulation Plan includes a fire truck circulation route in addition to
designated fireman access routes to reach the rear of the structures. During demolition and construction,
vehicles, equipment, and materials would be staged and stored on a portion of the project site and no
staging would occur in the public right-of-way.
As stated in Section VIII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the proposed project would not interfere or
impair with an adopted emergency response plan, or emergency evacuation plan; therefore, impacts
would be less than significant.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
As stated in Section 3, Project Description, of this Initial Study, the project site is classified as “urban area”
under the CALVEG classification system and is surrounded by residential and other urban uses. The site is
characterized as generally flat and surrounding by low topographic relief. Prevailing winds in Cupertino
derive from the west from February to November, and from the north from November to February, with
the windier part of the year occurring from March to July with wind speeds averaging 7.6 miles per
hour.180 The project site is not located within an SRA or Very High FHSZ in an LRA. The project site also is
not located within the Cupertino Wildland Urban Interface Fire Area as defined in CMC Chapter 16.74,
Wildland Urban Interface Area Adopted.
The proposed landscaping includes a variety of low water use plants with shrubs and trees surrounding
the exterior of the site, as shown in Figure 3-10. The proposed buildings and landscaping would be
required to comply with CMC Chapter 9.22.020, Property Maintenance, which requires the upkeep of
vegetation and landscaping on the properties to prevent fire and health hazards. CMC Chapter 16.40, Fire
179 CAL FIRE. 2018. Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Threat.
http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=d45bf08448354073a26675776f2d09cb, accessed July 30, 2020.
180 Weather Spark. 2019. https://weatherspark.com/y/504/Average-Weather-in-Cupertino-California-United-States-Year-
Round, accessed June 19, 2020.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-101
FINAL DRAFT
Code, would also require the proposed project to comply with the 2019 California Fire Code and 2015
International Fire Code, which provide specific regulations governing conditions hazardous to life and
property from fire or explosion. Therefore, the proposed project would have fire prevention and
management measures and would not expose occupants and the surrounding neighborhoods to pollutant
concentrations or the uncontrolled spread of wildfire. Impacts would be less than significant, and no
mitigation would be required.
c) Require the installation of maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
As discussed in Section 3.1.3.1, Site Character, of the Project Description, the site is currently developed
with a single-story, approximately 2,400 square-foot commercial building with a convenience store and an
associated paved and unpaved surface parking adjacent to South Foothill Boulevard. The remainder of the
property is an undeveloped and unpaved (dirt and gravel) lot. Utility infrastructure already serves the
project site. The proposed project would not include new roads, fuel breaks, or sources of emergency
water. Overhead power lines are currently located above the northern and eastern edges of the project
site, and new power lines are not proposed as part of the project. Minor alterations such as water, natural
gas, and sewer line piping would be installed to connect existing utilities to the proposed residential units.
Therefore, installation and maintenance of infrastructure would not exacerbate wildfire risks and new
infrastructure would not cause temporary or ongoing impacts on the environment. Impacts would be less
than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required.
d) Expose people or structure to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire instability, or drainage changes?
As stated in criterion b), the project site is characterized as generally flat and is surrounded by low
topographic relief. The project site is not located within a floodplain or an area that has a high potential
for landslides. As discussed in Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project would result
in 18,052 square feet of impervious coverage, compared to approximately 2,757 square feet of
impervious coverage in existing conditions, this would be an increase of 15,295 square feet. The proposed
project would, however, include 9,454 square feet of pervious surfaces in the form of landscaping and one
on-site bioretention area that would hold and treat stormwater before it is released into the City’s off-site
storm drain infrastructure, which will reduce runoff on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project
would not expose people or structures to flooding or landslides that result from post-fire instability and
runoff, and impacts would be less than significant.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-102 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
XIX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less
Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
DISCUSSION
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
The project site is in an urbanized and developed area of Cupertino. The project site is currently
developed with a single-story, approximately 2,400 square-foot commercial building with a convenience
store and associated paved and unpaved surface parking adjacent to South Foothill Boulevard. The
remainder of the property is an undeveloped and unpaved (dirt and gravel) lot. The surrounding area is
entirely built out with residential and office uses to the north, residential uses and a gas service station
with an auto repair shop to the east, residential uses to the south, and residential uses and the Monta
Vista Fire Station to the west. There is no existing landscaping on-site. There are no identified sensitive
natural communities, no areas of sensitive habitat, and no areas of critical habitat on the project site. In
addition, there are no buildings currently listed or eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical
Resources, no recorded archaeological sites, and no known paleontological resources located on the
project site. The implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, AQ-3, BIO-1, CULT-1, GEO-1, and
TCR-1 would serve to protect the quality of the air, nesting birds, and unknown cultural and tribal
resources, as well as ensure adequate services are provided and that no additional physical impacts would
occur elsewhere. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in a less-than-
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-103
FINAL DRAFT
significant impact to the quality of the environment, wildlife, and major periods of California history or
prehistory.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 defines cumulative impacts as two or more individual effects which, when
considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.
Cumulative impacts may result from individually minor, but collectively significant projects taking place
over a period of time. CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b) advises that a discussion of cumulative impacts
should reflect both the severity of the impacts and the likelihood of their occurrence. To accomplish these
two objectives, CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 permits two different methods for completion of a
cumulative impact analysis and allows for a reasonable combination of the two approaches:
The ‘list’ approach permits the use of a list of past, present, and probable future projects
producing related or cumulative impacts, including projects both within and outside the city; and
The ‘projections’ approach allows the use of a summary of projections contained in an adopted
plan or related planning document, such as a regional transportation plan, or in an EIR prepared
for such a plan. The projections may be supplemented with additional information such as
regional modeling.
The General Plan EIR evaluated the cumulative effects of the General Plan Amendments, Housing Element
Update, and Associated Rezoning using the summary of projections approach provided for in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1)(B). The General Plan EIR took into account growth from the General Plan
within the Cupertino city boundary and Sphere of Influence (SOI), in combination with projected growth
in the rest of Santa Clara County and the surrounding region, as forecast by ABAG.
As provided for by CEQA Guidelines Section 15130, the cumulative context considered in the General Plan
EIR varies, depending on the nature of the issue being studied, to best assess each issue‘s geographic
extent. For example, the cumulative impacts on water and air quality can be best analyzed within the
boundaries of the affected resources, such as water bodies and air basins. For other cumulative impacts,
such as hazard risks, traffic, and the need for new public service facilities, the cumulative impact is best
analyzed within the context of the population growth and associated development that are expected to
occur in the region or the public service providers’ jurisdiction.
Table 4 -11 shows the other reasonably foreseeable projects in Cupertino and how they relate to the
maximum buildout potential evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-104 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
TABLE 4-11 REASONABLY FORESEEABLE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN CUPERTINO
Hotel Residential Commercial Office
General Plan EIR: Maximum
Development Potential 1,339 4,421 1,343,679 4,040,231
Reasonably Foreseeable Projects
Marina Plaza a 122 188 23,000
The Hamptons Redevelopment a 600
The Forum a 23
The Village Hotel a 185
De Anza Hotel a 155
Westport a 267 20,000
Public Storage a, d 209,485
Scandinavian Design a 2,235
Vallco a ,c 2,402 400,000 1,810,000
Loc-N-Stor b, d 96,432
Canyon Crossings 18 4,536
Total Foreseeable Development 462 3,498 755,688 1,810,000
General Plan EIR: Remaining
Development Potential 877 923 587,991 2,230,231
Notes:
a. The project has been approved or is under construction.
b. The project is under review.
c. The buildout numbers are for the Vallco SB 35 Application (0 hotel rooms, 2,402 units, 1,810,000 square feet commercial, and 400,000
square feet commercial).
d. The storage facility sites currently have existing storage facilities and the square footage shown in this table is the net new.
Source: City of Cupertino, 2021.
The General Plan EIR included an assessment of the redevelopment of the project site with commercial
and residential projects. The residential assumptions included a residential density of 35 dwelling units
per acres with a 30-foot height maximum, which would result in up to 19 residential units. Therefore, as
shown in Table 4-11, when combined with the other reasonably foreseeable projects in Cupertino the
project would not exceed the maximum buildout potential evaluated in the General Plan EIR. The impact
discussions in Section I through Section XVIII, above, describe the proposed project relationship to and
consistency with the scope of development, land use designations, population projections, and
cumulative impacts analyses contained in the General Plan EIR. As shown, the proposed project
cumulative impacts were determined to be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation in
the cumulative context.
Since the certification of the General Plan EIR, the City has considered new development at the Vallco
project site. While, as shown in Table 4-11, this development at the Vallco site is consistent with the
maximum buildout potential in the General Plan EIR for citywide cumulative discussions (e.g., population
and housing, water supply, etc.), the General Plan EIR did not evaluate the specific amount of buildout at
the Vallco site that is shown in Table 4-11, therefore, localized cumulative impacts such as traffic, traffic
related noise, and utilities infrastructure were not captured in the General Plan EIR. Due to the distance
between the proposed 22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard Project and the Vallco project site, the proposed
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PLACEWORKS 4-105
FINAL DRAFT
project impacts would result in no localized cumulative impacts related traffic, noise, or utilities in
combination with development of the Vallco site.
As described in the environmental checklist, the impacts of the proposed project would be mitigated to
less-than-significant levels. The proposed project would incrementally contribute to, but would not
exceed, the cumulative impacts analyses included in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the proposed
project would not be expected to contribute to significant cumulative impacts when considered along
with other impacts under the General Plan.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
As discussed previously, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact that could not be
mitigated to a less-than-significant level, thus the proposed project’s environmental effects would be less
than significant.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4-106 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
This page intentionally left blank.
PLACEWORKS 5-1
FINAL DRAFT
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared for the 22690 Stevens
Creek Boulevard Project. The purpose of the MMRP is to ensure the implementation of project-specific
mitigation measures identified as part of the environmental review for the proposed project. The MMRP
includes the following information:
The full text of the mitigation measures;
The party responsible for implementing the mitigation measures;
The timing for implementation of the mitigation measure;
The agency responsible for monitoring the implementation; and
The monitoring action and frequency.
The City of Cupertino must adopt this MMRP, or an equally effective program, if it approves the proposed
project with the mitigation measures that were adopted or made conditions of project approval.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
5-2 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
TABLE 5-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Frequency
AIR QUALITY
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: The project’s construction contractor shall
comply with the following best management practices for reducing
construction emissions of fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) as required by
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Revised California
Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines:
Water all active construction areas at least twice daily, or as often
as needed to control dust emissions. Watering should be sufficient
to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering
frequency may be necessary whenever wind speeds exceed 15
miles per hour. Reclaimed water should be used whenever
possible.
Pave, apply water twice daily or as often as necessary to control
dust, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access
roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites.
Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or
require all trucks to maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard (i.e., the
minimum required space between the top of the load and the top
of the trailer).
Sweep daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if
possible) or as often as needed all paved access roads, parking
areas and staging areas at the construction site to control dust.
Sweep public streets daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed
water if possible) in the vicinity of the project site, or as often as
needed, to keep streets free of visible soil material.
Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive
construction areas.
Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to
exposed stockpiles (dirt/sand).
Limit vehicle traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.
Vegetative ground cover shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon
as possible and watered appropriately until the vegetation is
established.
Applicant During construction City of Cupertino
Public Works
Department
And Building
Department
Plan Review and
Approval
During scheduled
construction site
inspections
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
PLACEWORKS 5-3
FINAL DRAFT
TABLE 5-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Frequency
Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt
runoff from public roadways.
All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to
maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content
can be verified by lab samples or moisture probe.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2: During construction, the construction
contractor(s) shall:
Use construction equipment that have engines that meet either
United State Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) or
California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 4 Interim emission
standards for off-road diesel-powered construction equipment
with more than 25 horsepower, unless it can be demonstrated to
the City of Cupertino Building Division that such equipment is not
available. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall
achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be
achieved by Tier 4 Interim emissions standards for a similarly sized
engine, as defined by the CARB’s regulations.
Prior to issuance of any construction permit, ensure that all
construction plans submitted to the City of Cupertino Planning
Department and/or Building Division clearly show the requirement
for Tier 4 Interim emission standards for construction equipment
over 25 horsepower.
Maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the project site
for verification by the City of Cupertino Building Division official or
his/her designee. The construction equipment list shall state the
makes, models, and number of construction equipment on-site.
Ensure that all equipment shall be properly serviced and
maintained in accordance with manufacturer recommendations.
Communicate with all sub-contractors in contracts and
construction documents that all nonessential idling of construction
equipment is restricted to 5 minutes or less in compliance with
CARB Rule 2449 and is responsible for ensuring that this
requirement is met.
Applicant During construction City of Cupertino
Public Works
Planning & Building
Department
Plan Review and
Approval
During scheduled
construction site
inspections
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
5-4 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
TABLE 5-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Frequency
Mitigation Measure AQ-3: The project applicant shall install a vapor
barrier beneath the concrete foundation slab of the proposed
residential buildings at the project site to mitigate potential odor risks
associated with concentration of non-hazardous soil vapor
contamination. This mitigation measure shall be identified on the permit
application drawing set and as part of the construction drawing set, and
shall be implemented by the on-site Construction Manager.
Applicant During construction City of Cupertino
Public Works
Planning & Building
Department
Site inspection Once to ensure
completion
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Nests of raptors and other birds shall be
protected when in active use, as required by the federal Migratory Bird
Treaty Act and the California Department of Fish and Game Code. The
construction contractor shall indicate the following on all construction
plans, if construction activities occur during the breeding season
(February 1 and August 31).
Preconstruction surveys shall:
Be coordinated with the owner’s and/or residents of the
residential properties directly south of the project site.
Be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to tree removal or
grading, demolition, or construction activities. Note that
preconstruction surveys are not required for tree removal or
construction, grading, or demolition activities outside the
nesting period.
Be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the start of
construction.
Be repeated at 14-day intervals until construction has been
initiated in the area after which surveys can be stopped.
Document locations of active nests containing viable eggs or
young birds.
Protective measures for active nests containing viable eggs or
young birds shall be implemented under the direction of the
qualified biologist until the nests no longer contain eggs or young
birds, and the young have left the nest and are foraging
Applicant Prior to construction
During construction
Qualifying biologist
in consultation with
California
Department of Fish
and Wildlife as
needed
Preconstruction
Survey
Once for survey;
ongoing if nesting
birds identified
and until they
have left the nest
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
PLACEWORKS 5-5
FINAL DRAFT
TABLE 5-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Frequency
independently or the nest is no longer active. Protective measures
shall include:
Establishment of clearly delineated exclusion zones (i.e.,
demarcated by identifiable fencing, such as orange
construction fencing or equivalent) around each nest location
as determined by the qualified biologist, taking into account
the species of birds nesting, their tolerance for disturbance
and proximity to existing development. In general, exclusion
zones shall be a minimum of 300 feet for raptors and 75 feet
for passerines and other birds.
Monitoring active nests within an exclusion zone on a weekly
basis throughout the nesting season to identify signs of
disturbance and confirm nesting status.
An increase in the radius of an exclusion zone by the qualified
biologist if project activities are determined to be adversely
affecting the nesting birds. Exclusion zones may be reduced by
the qualified biologist only in consultation with the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure CULT-1: A tribal representative shall be permitted
on-site at all times during ground disturbance (including grading,
demolition and/or construction) to monitor for potential prehistoric or
historic subsurface cultural resources. Notice shall be given to the Tribe
in a manner requested by the Tribe at least 48 hours before any ground
disturbing activity. Prior to ground disturbance activities, construction
workers conducting the ground disturbing activities shall undergo
cultural resource sensitivity training conducted by the on-site tribal
representative.
If any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered
during ground-disturbing (including grading, demolition and/or
construction) activities:
Applicant During construction Consulting
archeologist and
City of Cupertino
Public Works &
Building Department
Plan Review and
Approval
As needed if
resources are
unearthed
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
5-6 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
TABLE 5-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Frequency
All work within 50 feet of the resources shall be halted, the City
shall be notified, and a qualified archaeologist and tribal
representative shall be consulted. The contractor shall cooperate in
the recovery of the materials. Work may proceed on other parts of
the project site while mitigation for tribal cultural resources,
historical resources or unique archaeological resources is being
carried out.
The qualified archaeologist shall prepare a report for the evaluation
of the resource to the California Register of Historical Places and
the City Building Department. The report shall also include
appropriate recommendations in collaboration with a tribal
representative regarding the significance of the find and
appropriate mitigations as follows:
If the resource is a non-tribal resource, the archaeologist shall
assess the significance of the find according to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5.
If the resource is a tribal resource – whether historic or
prehistoric – the consulting archaeologist shall consult with
the appropriate tribe(s) to evaluate the significance of the
resource and to recommend appropriate and feasible
avoidance, testing, preservation or mitigation measures, in
light of factors such as the significance of the find, proposed
project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is
infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery)
may be implemented.
All significant non-tribal cultural materials recovered shall be, as
necessary, and at the discretion of the consulting archaeologist,
subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and
documentation according to current professional standards.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: The construction contractor shall
incorporate the following in all grading, demolition, and construction
plans:
Applicant During construction City of Cupertino
Public Works &
Building Department
Plan Review and
Approval
During scheduled
construction site
inspections
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
PLACEWORKS 5-7
FINAL DRAFT
TABLE 5-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Frequency
In the event that fossils or fossil-bearing deposits are discovered
during grading, demolition, or building, excavations within 50 feet
of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted.
The contractor shall notify the City of Cupertino Building
Department and a City-approved qualified paleontologist to
examine the discovery.
The paleontologist shall document the discovery as needed, in
accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards
(Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 1995), evaluate the potential
resource, and assess the significance of the finding under the
criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.
The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to
determine procedures that would be followed before construction
is allowed to resume at the location of the find.
If the project applicant determines that avoidance is not feasible,
the paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating
the effect of the proposed project based on the qualities that make
the resource important. The excavation plan shall be submitted to
the City for review and approval prior to implementation.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: The project applicant shall prepare an
Environmental Site Management Plan (ESMP) in consultation with
applicable agencies (e.g., the Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB), the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Santa
Clara County Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEH), or Santa
Clara County Fire Department), if any, or in the alternative to the
satisfaction of the City based on a third-party peer review, as
appropriate. The purpose of the ESMP is to protect construction
workers, the general public, the environment, and future site occupants
from subsurface hazardous materials previously identified at the site
and to address the possibility of encountering unknown contamination
or hazards during demolition, grading, excavation, and construction
activities. The ESMP shall summarize soil and groundwater analytical
Applicant Prior issuance of
building permit
City of Cupertino
Public Works &
Building Department
Plan Review and
Approval
During scheduled
construction site
inspections
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
5-8 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
TABLE 5-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Frequency
data collected on the project site during past investigations; identify
management options for grading, if contaminated media are
encountered during grading; and identify monitoring, irrigation, or other
wells requiring proper abandonment in compliance with local, State, and
federal laws, policies, and regulations.
The ESMP shall include measures for identifying, testing, and managing
soil and groundwater suspected of or known to contain hazardous
materials. The ESMP shall: 1) provide procedures for evaluating,
handling, storing, testing, and disposing of soil and groundwater during
project grading; 2) describe required worker health and safety
provisions for all workers potentially exposed to hazardous materials in
accordance with State and federal worker safety regulations; and 3)
designate personnel responsible for implementation of the ESMP.
NOISE
Mitigation Measure NOISE-1: The following shall be incorporated in all
activity phases and construction plans, as required by the Cupertino
Municipal Code (CMC). Construction activities shall take place only
during daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and due
to the close proximity of the adjacent residential land use to the south,
construction may occur on the weekends, holidays or nighttime only if a
special exception has been granted by the City. In addition, the
construction crew shall adhere to the following best management
practices:
At least 90 days prior to the start of any construction, demolition or
grading activities, all off-site businesses and residents within 300
feet of the project site will be notified of the planned activities. The
notification will include a brief description of the project, the
activities that would occur, the hours when activity would occur,
and the construction period’s overall duration. The notification
should include the telephone numbers of the contractor’s
authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the
event of a noise or vibration complaint.
The project applicant and contractors shall prepare and submit a
Construction Noise Control Plan to the City’s Building Department
Applicant Prior to issuance of
building permits
City of Cupertino
Public Works
Department
Plan review and
approval/site
inspections
Once for plan
review/ during
scheduled
construction site
inspections
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
PLACEWORKS 5-9
FINAL DRAFT
TABLE 5-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Frequency
and Code Enforcement for review and approval prior to issuance of
any grading, demolition, and/or building permits. The Construction
Noise Plan shall demonstrate compliance with the 80-dBA limit in
the CMC. The details of the Construction Noise Control Plan,
including those details listed herein, shall be included as part of the
permit application drawing set and as part of the construction
drawing set, shall be implemented by the on-site Construction
Manager, and shall include, but not be limited to, the following
available controls to comply with the 80 dBA performance
standard:
At least 10 days prior to the start of construction activities, a
sign will be posted at the entrance(s) to the job site, clearly
visible to the public, which includes permitted construction
days and hours, as well as the telephone numbers of the City’s
and contractor’s authorized representatives that are assigned
to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint. If
the authorized contractor’s representative receives a
complaint, he/she will investigate, take appropriate corrective
action, and report the action to the City.
During the entire active construction period, equipment and
trucks used for project construction will utilize the best
available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers,
equipment re-design, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine
enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds),
wherever feasible.
Include noise control requirements for equipment and tools,
including concrete saws, to the maximum extent feasible.
Such requirements could include, but are not limited to,
erecting temporary plywood noise barriers between
construction areas and nearby sensitive receptors; performing
work in a manner that minimizes noise; and undertaking the
noisiest activities during times of least disturbance to nearby
sensitive receptors.
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
5-10 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
TABLE 5-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Frequency
During the entire active construction period, stationary noise
sources will be located as far from sensitive receptors as
possible, and they will be muffled and enclosed within
temporary sheds, or insulation barriers or other measures will
be incorporated to the extent feasible.
Select haul routes that avoid the greatest amount of sensitive
use areas and submit to the City of Cupertino Public Works
Department for approval prior to the start of the construction
phase.
Signs will be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the on-
site construction zones, and along queueing lanes (if any) to
reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling. All
other equipment will be turned off if not in use for more than
5 minutes.
During the entire active construction period and to the extent
feasible, the use of noise producing signals, including horns,
whistles, alarms, and bells will be for safety warning purposes
only. The construction manager will use smart back-up alarms,
which automatically adjust the alarm level based on the
background noise level or switch off back-up alarms and
replace with human spotters in compliance with all safety
requirements and law.
Prior to start of construction, erect a temporary noise
barrier/curtain between the construction zone and adjacent
residences along the boundary (see Figure 4-1, Temporary
Noise Barrier Locations, of the Initial Study). The temporary
sound barrier shall have a minimum height of 12 feet and be
free of gaps and holes. The barrier can be (a) a ¾-inch-thick
plywood wall OR (b) a hanging blanket/curtain with a surface
density or at least 2 pounds per square foot.
Mitigation Measure NOISE-2: Mechanical equipment shall be selected
and designed to reduce impacts on surrounding uses to meet the
Cupertino Municipal Code noise limits of 60 dBA and 50 dBA at
residential uses during daytime and nighttime, respectively, and 65 dBA
and 55 dBA at non-residential sensitive uses during daytime and
Applicant Prior to and during
construction
Qualified acoustical
consultant and City
of Cupertino Public
Works & Building
Department
Plan review and
approval/site
inspections
Once for plan
review/ during
scheduled
construction site
inspections
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
PLACEWORKS 5-11
FINAL DRAFT
TABLE 5-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Frequency
nighttime, respectively. A qualified acoustical consultant shall be
retained to review mechanical noise as these systems are selected to
determine specific noise reduction measures necessary to reduce noise
to comply with the City’s noise level requirements. Mechanical
equipment shall be selected and designed to reduce impacts on
surrounding uses to meet the City’s noise level requirements. Noise
reduction measures could include, but are not limited to:
Selection of equipment that emits low noise levels;
Installation of noise dampening techniques, such as enclosures and
parapet walls, to block the line-of-sight between the noise source
and the nearest receptors;
Locating equipment in less noise-sensitive areas, where feasible.
Mitigation Measure NOISE-3: If paving activity during construction is
required within 25 feet of nearby residential structures, use of a static
roller in lieu of a vibratory roller shall be employed. Grading and
earthwork activities within 15 feet of adjacent residential structures
shall be conducted with off-road equipment that is limited to 100
horsepower or less. This mitigation measure shall be identified on the
permit application drawing set and as part of the construction drawing
set, and shall be implemented by the on-site Construction Manager.
Applicant During construction Qualified acoustical
consultant and City
of Cupertino Public
Works & Building
Department
Plan review and
approval/site
inspections
Once for plan
review/ during
scheduled
construction site
inspections
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Implement Mitigation Measure CULT-1. Applicant During construction Consulting
archeologist and
City of Cupertino
Public Works
Department
Plan Review and
Approval
As needed if
resources are
unearthed
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Mitigation Measure UTIL-1: No building permits shall be issued by the
City for the proposed 22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard Project that would
result in exceeding the permitted peak wet weather flow capacity of
13.8 mgd through the Santa Clara sanitary sewer system. The project
applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City of Cupertino
Applicant Prior to issuance of
building permits
Cupertino Sanitary
District, City of
Cupertino Public
Works and Building
Departments
Plan Review and
Approval
During scheduled
construction site
inspections
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
5-12 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
TABLE 5-1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency Responsible
for Monitoring
Monitoring
Action
Monitoring
Frequency
and Cupertino Sanitary District (CSD), that the proposed project would
not exceed the peak wet weather flow capacity of the Santa Clara
sanitary sewer system by implementing one or more of the following
methods:
Reduce inflow and infiltration in the CSD system to reduce peak wet
weather flows; or
Increase on-site water reuse, such as increased grey water use, or
reduce water consumption of the fixtures used within the proposed
project, or other methods that are measurable and reduce sewer
generation rates to acceptable levels, to the satisfaction of the CSD.
The proposed project’s estimated wastewater generation shall be
calculated using the generation rates used by the CSD in the Flow
Modeling Analysis for the Homestead Flume Outfall to the City of Santa
Clara, prepared by Mark Thomas & Co. Inc. dated December 6, 2019,
unless alternative (i.e., lower) generation rates achieved by the
proposed project are substantiated by the project applicant based on
evidence to the satisfaction of the CSD. To calculate the peak wet
weather flow for a 10-year storm event, the average daily flow rate shall
be multiplied by a factor of 2.95 as required by CSD pursuant to their
December 2019 flow modeling analysis.
PLACEWORKS 6-1
FINAL DRAFT
Organizations and Persons Consulted
This Initial Study was prepared by the following individuals:
LEAD AGENCY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Benjamin Fu ........................................................................................... Director of Community Development
Piu Ghosh .............................................................................................................................. Planning Manager
Erick Serrano .................................................................................................. Senior Planner, Project Manager
Chad Mosley ................................................................................................. Assistant Director of Public Works
David Stillman .............................................................................................................. Transportation Manager
Chris Carrao ........................................................................................ Senior Transit & Transportation Planner
Winnie Pagan ..................................................................................................................... Senior Civil Engineer
Jennifer Chu ...................................................................................................................... Senior Civil Engineer
REPORT PREPARERS
PlaceWorks
Terri McCracken ................................................................................. Associate Principal, Principal-in-Charge
Jacqueline Protsman .............................................................................................. Associate, Project Manager
Nicole Vermilion ................................................... Principal, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Practice Leader
Cathy Fitzgerald ..................................................................................................................... Principal Engineer
Steve Bush ................................................................................................................................. Senior Engineer
John Vang ............................................................. Senior Associate, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy
Josh Carman .................................................................................................. Senior Associate, Noise Specialist
Alejandro Garcia ....................................................................................................... Associate, Noise Specialist
Kristie Nguyen ................................................................... Scientist, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy
Torina Wilson ....................................................................................................................................... Associate
Grant Reddy .......................................................................................................................... Graphics Specialist
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO
ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED
6-2 OCTOBER 2021
FINAL DRAFT
This page intentionally left blank.
Berkeley, CA
510.848.3815
www.PlaceWorks.com
........................................................................................................................
A PPENDIX A :
A IR Q UALITY AND G REENHOUSE
G AS E MISSIONS D ATA
........................................................................................................................
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 1
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data
1. Air Quality
Ambient air quality standards (AAQS) have been adopted at State and federal levels for criteria air pollutants.
In addition, both the State and federal government regulate the release of toxic air contaminants (TACs). The
City of San Francisco is in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) and is subject to the rules and
regulations imposed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), as well as the California
AAQS adopted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and national AAQS adopted by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Federal, State, regional, and local laws, regulations, plans, or
guidelines that are potentially applicable to the proposed project are summarized below. The discussion also
identifies the natural factors in the air basin that affect air pollution.
1.1 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
1.1.1 Ambient Air Quality Standards
The Clean Air Act (CAA) was passed in 1963 by the US Congress and has been amended several times. The
1970 Clean Air Act amendments strengthened previous legislation and laid the foundation for the regulatory
scheme of the 1970s and 1980s. In 1977, Congress again added several provisions, including nonattainment
requirements for areas not meeting National AAQS and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program.
The 1990 amendments represent the latest in a series of federal efforts to regulate the protection of air
quality in the United States. The CAA allows states to adopt more stringent standards or to include other
pollution species. The California Clean Air Act (CCAA), signed into law in 1988, requires all areas of the state
to achieve and maintain the California AAQS by the earliest practical date. The California AAQS tend to be
more restrictive than the National AAQS, based on even greater health and welfare concerns.
These National AAQS and California AAQS are the levels of air quality considered to provide a margin of
safety in the protection of the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect “sensitive receptors”
most susceptible to further respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people
already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy
adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum
standards before adverse effects are observed.
Both California and the federal government have established health-based AAQS for seven air pollutants. As
shown in Table 1, these pollutants include ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur
dioxide (SO2), coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM10), fine inhalable particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead
(Pb). In addition, the state has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility-
reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a
reasonable margin of safety.
Page 2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data
Table 1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants
Pollutant Averaging Time
California
Standard1
Federal Primary
Standard2 Major Pollutant Sources
Ozone (O3)3 1 hour 0.09 ppm * Motor vehicles, paints, coatings, and solvents.
8 hours 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Internal combustion engines, primarily gasoline-powered
motor vehicles.
8 hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
Annual Arithmetic
Mean
0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm Motor vehicles, petroleum-refining operations, industrial
sources, aircraft, ships, and railroads.
1 hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
Annual Arithmetic
Mean
* 0.030 ppm Fuel combustion, chemical plants, sulfur recovery plants,
and metal processing.
1 hour 0.25 ppm 0.075 ppm
24 hours 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm
Respirable Coarse
Particulate Matter
(PM10)
Annual Arithmetic
Mean
20 µg/m3 * Dust and fume-producing construction, industrial, and
agricultural operations, combustion, atmospheric
photochemical reactions, and natural activities (e.g., wind-
raised dust and ocean sprays). 24 hours 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3
Respirable Fine
Particulate Matter
(PM2.5)4
Annual Arithmetic
Mean
12 µg/m3 12 µg/m3 Dust and fume-producing construction, industrial, and
agricultural operations, combustion, atmospheric
photochemical reactions, and natural activities (e.g., wind-
raised dust and ocean sprays). 24 hours * 35 µg/m3
Lead (Pb) 30-Day Average 1.5 µg/m3 * Present source: lead smelters, battery manufacturing &
recycling facilities. Past source: combustion of leaded
gasoline. Calendar Quarter * 1.5 µg/m3
Rolling 3-Month
Average
* 0.15 µg/m3
Sulfates (SO4)5 24 hours 25 µg/m3 * Industrial processes.
Visibility Reducing
Particles
8 hours ExCo
=0.23/km
visibility of
10≥ miles
No Federal
Standard
Visibility-reducing particles consist of suspended
particulate matter, which is a complex mixture of tiny
particles that consists of dry solid fragments, solid cores
with liquid coatings, and small droplets of liquid. These
particles vary greatly in shape, size and chemical
composition, and can be made up of many different
materials such as metals, soot, soil, dust, and salt.
Hydrogen Sulfide 1 hour 0.03 ppm No Federal
Standard
Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is a colorless gas with the odor of
rotten eggs. It is formed during bacterial decomposition of
sulfur-containing organic substances. Also, it can be
present in sewer gas and some natural gas and can be
emitted as the result of geothermal energy exploitation.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 3
Table 1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants
Pollutant Averaging Time
California
Standard1
Federal Primary
Standard2 Major Pollutant Sources
Vinyl Chloride 24 hours 0.01 ppm No Federal
Standard
Vinyl chloride (chloroethene), a chlorinated hydrocarbon,
is a colorless gas with a mild, sweet odor. Most vinyl
chloride is used to make polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic
and vinyl products. Vinyl chloride has been detected near
landfills, sewage plants, and hazardous waste sites, due
to microbial breakdown of chlorinated solvents.
Source: California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2016, October 1. Ambient Air Quality Standards. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf.
Notes: ppm: parts per million; μg/m3: micrograms per cubic meter
* Standard has not been established for this pollutant/duration by this entity.
1 California standards for O3, CO (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), SO2 (1 and 24 hour), NO2, and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles), are
values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in
Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations.
2 National standards (other than O3, PM, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The O3 standard is attained
when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour
standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 µg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For
PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard.
3 On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm.
4 On December 14, 2012, the national annual PM2.5 primary standard was lowered from 15 μg/m3 to 12.0 µg/m3. The existing national 24-hour PM2.5 standards
(primary and secondary) were retained at 35 µg/m3, as was the annual secondary standard of 15 µg/m3. The existing 24-hour PM10 standards (primary and
secondary) of 150 µg/m3 also were retained. The form of the annual primary and secondary standards is the annual mean, averaged over 3 years.
5 On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. The 1-hour national standard is
in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the 1-hour national standard to the California
standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm.
California has also adopted a host of other regulations that reduce criteria pollutant emissions, including:
AB 1493: Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards
Title 20 California Code of Regulations (CCR): Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards
Title 24, Part 6, CCR: Building and Energy Efficiency Standards
Title 24, Part 11, CCR: Green Building Standards Code
1.1.2 Air Pollutants of Concern
A substance in the air that can cause harm to humans and the environment is known as an air pollutant.
Pollutants can be in the form of solid particles, liquid droplets, or gases. In addition, they may be natural or
man-made.
1.1.2.1 CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS
The air pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are regulated by federal and
state law. Air pollutants are categorized as primary or secondary pollutants. Primary air pollutants are those
that are emitted directly from sources. Carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen
dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM10), fine inhalable particulate
matter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb) are primary air pollutants. Of these, CO, SO2, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 are
“criteria air pollutants,” which means that ambient air quality standards (AAQS) have been established for
them. VOC and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) are air pollutant precursors that form secondary criteria pollutants
through chemical and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. Ozone (O3) and NO2 are the principal
secondary pollutants. A description of each of the primary and secondary criteria air pollutants and their
known health effects is presented below.
Page 4 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data
Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas produced by incomplete combustion of carbon
substances, such as gasoline or diesel fuel. CO is a primary criteria air pollutant. CO concentrations tend to be
the highest during winter mornings with little to no wind, when surface-based inversions trap the pollutant at
ground levels. The highest ambient CO concentrations are generally found near traffic-congested corridors
and intersections. When inhaled at high concentrations, CO combines with hemoglobin in the blood and
reduces its oxygen-carrying capacity. This results in reduced oxygen reaching the brain, heart, and other body
tissues. This condition is especially critical for people with cardiovascular diseases, chronic lung disease, or
anemia, as well as for fetuses. Even healthy people exposed to high CO concentrations can experience
headaches, dizziness, fatigue, unconsciousness, and even death. 1
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) are compounds composed primarily of hydrogen and carbon atoms.
Internal combustion associated with motor vehicle usage is the major source of ROGs. Other sources of
ROGs include evaporative emissions from paints and solvents, the application of asphalt paving, and the use
of household consumer products such as aerosols. Adverse effects on human health are not caused directly
by ROGs, but rather by reactions of ROGs to form secondary pollutants such as O3. There are no AAQS
established for ROGs. However, because they contribute to the formation of O3, the Air District has
established a significance threshold for this pollutant.
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) are a by-product of fuel combustion and contribute to the formation of O3, PM10,
and PM2.5. The two major components of NOx are nitric oxide (NO) and NO2. The principal component of
NOx produced by combustion is NO, but NO reacts with oxygen to form NO2, creating the mixture of NO
and NO2 commonly called NOX. NO2 absorbs blue light; the result is a brownish-red cast to the atmosphere
and reduced visibility. NO is a colorless, odorless gas formed from atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen when
combustion takes place under high temperature and/or high pressure.2 NO2 acts as an acute irritant and in
equal concentrations is more injurious than NO. At atmospheric concentrations, however, NO2 is only
potentially irritating. There is some indication of a relationship between NO2 and chronic pulmonary fibrosis.
Some increase in bronchitis in children (2 and 3 years old) has also been observed at concentrations below 0.3
parts per million (ppm). 3
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, pungent, irritating gas formed by the combustion of sulfurous fossil
fuels. It enters the atmosphere as a result of burning high-sulfur-content fuel oils and coal and from chemical
processes at chemical plants and refineries. Gasoline and natural gas have very low sulfur content and do not
release significant quantities of SO2. When SO2 forms sulfates (SO4) in the atmosphere, together these
pollutants are referred to as sulfur oxides (SOx). Thus, SO2 is both a primary and secondary criteria air
pollutant. At sufficiently high concentrations, SO2 may irritate the upper respiratory tract. At lower
concentrations and when combined with particulates, SO2 may do greater harm by injuring lung tissue. 4
Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5) consists of finely divided solids or liquids such as soot,
dust, aerosols, fumes, and mists. In the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB or Air Basin), most
particulate matter is caused by combustion, factories, construction, grading, demolition, agricultural activities,
and motor vehicles. Two forms of fine particulates are now recognized and regulated. Inhalable coarse
1 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017, Revised California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.
2 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017, Revised California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.
3 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017, Revised California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.
4 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017, Revised California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 5
particles, or PM10, include the particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns (i.e., 10
millionths of a meter or 0.0004 inch) or less. Inhalable fine particles, or PM2.5, have an aerodynamic diameter
of 2.5 microns or less (i.e., 2.5 millionths of a meter or 0.0001 inch). Diesel particulate matter (DPM) is also
classified a carcinogen.
Extended exposure to particulate matter can increase the risk of chronic respiratory disease. PM10 bypasses
the body’s natural filtration system more easily than larger particles and can lodge deep in the lungs. The EPA
scientific review concluded that PM2.5 penetrates even more deeply into the lungs, and this is more likely to
contribute to health effects—at concentrations well below current PM10 standards. These health effects
include premature death in people with heart or lung disease, nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat,
aggravated asthma, decreased lung function, and increased respiratory symptoms (e.g., irritation of the
airways, coughing, or difficulty breathing). Motor vehicles are currently responsible for about half of
particulates in the SFBAAB. Wood burning in fireplaces and stoves is another large source of fine
particulates. 5
Ozone (O3) is commonly referred to as “smog” and is a gas that is formed when ROGs and NOx, both by-
products of internal combustion engine exhaust, undergo photochemical reactions in the presence of
sunlight. O3 is a secondary criteria air pollutant. O3 concentrations are generally highest during the summer
months when direct sunlight, light winds, and warm temperatures create favorable conditions to the
formation of this pollutant. O3 poses a health threat to those who already suffer from respiratory diseases as
well as to healthy people. O3 levels usually build up during the day and peak in the afternoon hours. Short-
term exposure can irritate the eyes and cause constriction of the airways. Besides causing shortness of breath,
it can aggravate existing respiratory diseases such as asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema. Chronic exposure to
high ozone levels can permanently damage lung tissue. O3 can also damage plants and trees and materials
such as rubber and fabrics.6
Lead (Pb) is a metal found naturally in the environment as well as in manufactured products. The major
sources of lead emissions have historically been mobile and industrial sources. As a result of the phasing out
of leaded gasoline, metal processing is currently the primary source of lead emissions. The highest levels of
lead in air are generally found near lead smelters. Other stationary sources are waste incinerators, utilities, and
lead-acid battery manufacturers. Because emissions of lead are found only in projects that are permitted by
the Air District, lead is not an air quality of concern for the proposed project.
1.1.2.2 TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS
The public’s exposure to air pollutants classified as toxic air contaminants (TACs) is a significant
environmental health issue in California. In 1983, the California Legislature enacted a program to identify the
health effects of TACs and to reduce exposure to these contaminants to protect the public health. The
California Health and Safety Code defines a TAC as “an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an
increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.”
A substance that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant (HAP) pursuant to Section 112(b) of the federal Clean
Air Act (42 United States Code §7412[b]) is a toxic air contaminant. Under state law, the California
Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), acting through CARB, is authorized to identify a substance as
5 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017, Revised California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.
6 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017. Revised California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.
Page 6 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data
a TAC if it determines that the substance is an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in
mortality or to an increase in serious illness, or may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.
California regulates TACs primarily through Assembly Bill (AB) 1807 (Tanner Air Toxics Act) and AB 2588
(Air Toxics “Hot Spot” Information and Assessment Act of 1987). The Tanner Air Toxics Act sets forth a
formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. Once a TAC is identified, CARB adopts an
“airborne toxics control measure” for sources that emit designated TACs. If there is a safe threshold for a
substance (i.e., a point below which there is no toxic effect), the control measure must reduce exposure to
below that threshold. If there is no safe threshold, the measure must incorporate toxics best available control
technology to minimize emissions. To date, CARB has established formal control measures for 11 TACs, all
of which are identified as having no safe threshold.
Air toxics from stationary sources are also regulated in California under the Air Toxics “Hot Spot”
Information and Assessment Act of 1987. Under AB 2588, toxic air contaminant emissions from individual
facilities are quantified and prioritized by the air quality management district or air pollution control district.
High priority facilities are required to perform a health risk assessment and, if specific thresholds are
exceeded, are required to communicate the results to the public in the form of notices and public meetings.
By the last update to the TAC list in December 1999, CARB had designated 244 compounds as TACs.7
Additionally, CARB has implemented control measures for a number of compounds that pose high risks and
show potential for effective control. The majority of the estimated health risks from TACs can be attributed
to relatively few compounds, the most important being particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines.
Diesel Particulate Matter
In 1998, CARB identified particulate emissions from diesel-fueled engines (diesel PM) as a TAC. Previously,
the individual chemical compounds in diesel exhaust were considered TACs. Almost all diesel exhaust particle
mass is 10 microns or less in diameter. Because of their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled
and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lung.
CARB has promulgated the following specific rules to limit TAC emissions:
13 CCR Chapter 10, Section 2485, Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial
Motor Vehicle Idling
13 CCR Chapter 10, Section 2480, Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit School Bus Idling and
Idling at Schools
13 CCR Section 2477 and Article 8, Airborne Toxic Control Measure for In-Use Diesel-Fueled Transport
Refrigeration Units (TRU) and TRU Generator Sets and Facilities Where TRUs Operate
Community Risk
In addition, to reduce exposure to TACs, CARB developed and approved the Air Quality and Land Use
Handbook: A Community Health Perspective8 to provide guidance regarding the siting of sensitive land uses in the
vicinity of freeways, distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, chrome-plating facilities, dry cleaners, and
7 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 1999. California Air Resources Board (CARB). Final Staff Report: Update to the Toxic
Air Contaminant List. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/toxics/id/finalstaffreport.htm.
8 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2005, April. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 7
gasoline-dispensing facilities. This guidance document was developed to assess compatibility and associated
health risks when placing sensitive receptors near existing pollution sources. CARB’s recommendations on
the siting of new sensitive land uses were based on a compilation of recent studies that evaluated data on the
adverse health effects from proximity to air pollution sources. The key observation in these studies is that
proximity to air pollution sources substantially increases exposure and the potential for adverse health effects.
There are three carcinogenic toxic air contaminants that constitute the majority of the known health risks
from motor vehicle traffic, DPM from trucks, and benzene and 1,3-butadiene from passenger vehicles. CARB
recommendations are based on data that show that localized air pollution exposures can be reduced by as
much as 80 percent by following CARB minimum distance separations.
1.1.3 Bay Area Air Quality Management District
The Air District is the agency responsible for assuring that the National and California AAQS are attained
and maintained in the Air Basin. Air quality conditions in the Air Basin have improved significantly since the
Air District was created in 1955. The Air District prepares air quality management plans (AQMP) to attain
ambient air quality standards in the Air Basin. The Air District prepares ozone attainment plans for the
National O3 standard and clean air plans for the California O3 standard. These air quality management plans
are prepared in coordination with Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC). The Air District adopted the 2017 Clean Air Plan, Spare the Air, Cool
the Climate (2017 Clean Air Plan) on April 19, 2017, making it the most recent adopted comprehensive plan.
The 2017 Clean Air Plan incorporates significant new scientific data, primarily in the form of updated
emissions inventories, ambient measurements, new meteorological episodes, and new air quality modeling
tools.
1.1.3.1 BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2017 CLEAN AIR PLAN
2017 Spare the Air, Cool the Climate: A Blueprint for Clean Air and Climate Protection in the Bay
Area
The 2017 Clean Air Plan serves as an update to the adopted Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan and continues in
providing the framework for SFBAAB to achieve attainment of the California and National AAQS. The 2017
Clean Air Plan updates the Bay Area’s ozone plan, which is based on the “all feasible measures” approach to
meet the requirements of the California Clean Air Act. Additionally, it sets a goal of reducing health risk
impacts to local communities by 20 percent by 2020. Furthermore, the 2017 Clean Air Plan also lays the
groundwork for reducing GHG emissions in the Bay Area to meet the state’s 2030 GHG reduction target and
2050 GHG reduction goal. It also includes a vision for the Bay Area in a post-carbon year 2050 that
encompasses the following 9:
Construct buildings that are energy efficient and powered by renewable energy.
Walk, bicycle, and use public transit for the majority of trips and use electric-powered autonomous public
transit fleets.
Incubate and produce clean energy technologies.
9 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017, April 19. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan, Spare the Air, Cool the Climate: A Blueprint
for Clean Air and Climate Protection in the Bay Area. http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/air-quality-plans/plans-under-
development.
Page 8 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data
Live a low-carbon lifestyle by purchasing low-carbon foods and goods in addition to recycling and
putting organic waste to productive use.
A comprehensive multipollutant control strategy has been developed to be implemented in the next three to
five years to address public health and climate change and to set a pathway to achieve the 2050 vision. The
control strategy includes 85 control measures to reduce emissions of ozone, particulate matter, TACs, and
GHG from a full range of emission sources. These control measures cover the following sectors: 1)
stationary (industrial) sources; 2) transportation; 3) energy; 4) agriculture; 5) natural and working lands; 6)
waste management; 7) water; and 8) super-GHG pollutants. Overall, the proposed control strategy is based
on the following key priorities:
Reduce emissions of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants from all key sources.
Reduce emissions of “super-GHGs” such as methane, black carbon, and fluorinated gases.
Decrease demand for fossil fuels (gasoline, diesel, and natural gas).
Increase efficiency of the energy and transportation systems.
Reduce demand for vehicle travel, and high-carbon goods and services.
Decarbonize the energy system.
Make the electricity supply carbon-free.
Electrify the transportation and building sectors.
1.1.3.2 BAAQMD’S COMMUNITY AIR RISK EVALUATION PROGRAM (CARE)
The BAAQMD’s Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) program was initiated in 2004 to evaluate and
reduce health risks associated with exposure to outdoor TACs in the Bay Area. Based on findings of the latest
report, DPM was found to account for approximately 85 percent of the cancer risk from airborne toxics.
Carcinogenic compounds from gasoline-powered cars and light duty trucks were also identified as significant
contributors: 1,3-butadiene contributed 4 percent of the cancer risk-weighted emissions, and benzene
contributed 3 percent. Collectively, five compounds—DPM, 1,3-butadiene, benzene, formaldehyde, and
acetaldehyde—were found to be responsible for more than 90 percent of the cancer risk attributed to
emissions. All of these compounds are associated with emissions from internal combustion engines. The
most important sources of cancer risk–weighted emissions were combustion-related sources of DPM,
including on-road mobile sources (31 percent), construction equipment (29 percent), and ships and harbor
craft (13 percent). A 75 percent reduction in DPM was predicted between 2005 and 2015 when the inventory
accounted for CARB’s diesel regulations. Overall, cancer risk from TACs dropped by more than 50 percent
between 2005 and 2015, when emissions inputs accounted for State diesel regulations and other reductions.10
Modeled cancer risks from TAC in 2005 were highest near sources of DPM: near core urban areas, along
major roadways and freeways, and near maritime shipping terminals. The highest modeled risks were found
east of San Francisco, near West Oakland, and the Maritime Port of Oakland. BAAQMD has identified seven
impacted communities in the Bay Area:
Western Contra Costa County and the cities of Richmond and San Pablo
10 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2014. Improving Air Quality & Health in Bay Area Communities, Community Air Risk
Program (CARE) Retrospective and Path Forward (2004–2013), April.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 9
Western Alameda County along the Interstate 880 (I-880) corridor and the cities of Berkeley, Alameda,
Oakland, and Hayward
San Jose
Eastern side of San Francisco
Concord
Vallejo
Pittsburgh and Antioch
The project site is not within a CARE-program impacted community.
1.1.3.3 AB 617 COMMUNITY ACTION PLANS
In July of 2017, Governor Brown signed Assembly Bill 617 to develop a new community focused program to
more effectively reduce exposure to air pollution and preserve public health in environmental justice
communities. The bill directs CARB and all local air districts to take measures to protect communities
disproportionally impacted by air pollution through monitoring and implementing air pollution control
strategies.
On September 27, 2018, CARB approved BAAQMD’s recommended communities for monitoring and
emission reduction planning. The state approved communities for year 1 of the program, as well as
communities that would move forward over the next five years. Bay Area recommendations included all the
Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) areas, as well as areas with large sources of air pollution (refineries,
seaports, airports, etc.), areas identified via statewide screening tools as having pollution and/or health burden
vulnerability, and areas with low life expectancy.11
Year 1 Communities:
West Oakland. The West Oakland community was selected for BAAQMD’s first Community Action
Plan. In 2017, cancer risk in from sources in West Oakland (local sources) was 204 in a million. The
primary sources of air pollution in West Oakland include heavy truck and cars, port and rail sources,
large industries, and to a lesser extent other sources such as residential sources (i.e., woodburning).
The majority (over 90 percent) of cancer risk is from diesel PM2.5.12
Richmond: Richmond was selected for a community monitoring plan in year 1 of the AB 617
program. The Richmond area is in western Contra Costa County and includes most of the City of
Richmond and portions of El Cerrito. It also includes communities just north and east of
Richmond, such as San Pablo and several unincorporated communities, including North Richmond.
The primary goals of the Richmond monitoring effort are to leverage historic and current
monitoring studies, to better characterize the area’s mix of sources, and to more fully understand the
associated air quality and pollution impact. 13
11 BAAQMD. 2019, April 16. San Francisco Bay Area Community Health Protection Program.
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/ab617-community-health/2019_0325_ab617onepager-pdf.pdf?la=en
12 BAAQMD. 2019, October 2. West Oakland Community Action Plan.. https://www.baaqmd.gov/community-health/community-
health-protection-program/west-oakland-community-action-plan
13 BAAQMD. 2019, April 16. San Francisco Bay Area Community Health Protection Program.
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/ab617-community-health/2019_0325_ab617onepager-pdf.pdf?la=en
Page 10 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data
Year 2-5 Communities:
East Oakland/San Leandro, Eastern San Francisco, the Pittsburg-Bay Point area, San Jose, Tri-Valley,
and Vallejo are slated for action in years 2-5 of the AB 617 program. 14
1.1.3.4 REGULATION 7, ODOROUS SUBSTANCES
Sources of objectionable odors may occur within the City. BAAQMD’s Regulation 7, Odorous Substances,
places general limitations on odorous substances and specific emission limitations on certain odorous
compounds. Odors are also regulated under BAAQMD Regulation 1, Rule 1-301, Public Nuisance, which
states that “no person shall discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or
other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons
or the public; or which endangers the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or
which causes, or has a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.” Under
BAAQMD’s Rule 1-301, a facility that receives three or more violation notices within a 30-day period can be
declared a public nuisance.
1.1.3.5 OTHER BAAQMD REGULATIONS
In addition to the plans and programs described above, BAAQMD administers a number of specific
regulations on various sources of pollutant emissions that would apply to individual development projects:
BAAQMD, Regulation 2, Rule 2, New Source Review
BAAQMD, Regulation 2, Rule 5, New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants
BAAQMD Regulation 6, Rule 1, General Requirements
BAAQMD Regulation 6, Rule 2, Commercial Cooking Equipment
BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3, Architectural Coatings
BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 4, General Solvent and Surface Coatings Operations
BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 7, Gasoline Dispensing Facilities
BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, Asbestos, Demolition, Renovation and Manufacturing)
BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 18, Reduction of Risk from Air Toxic Emissions at Existing Facilities
1.1.4 Plan Bay Area
Plan Bay Area is the Bay Area’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy. The 2040
update to Plan Bay Area was adopted jointly by the ABAG and MTC on July 26, 2017. The 2040 Plan Bay
Area update serves as a limited and focused update to the 2013 Plan Bay Area, with updated planning
assumptions that incorporate key economic, demographic, and financial trends from the last several years.15 It
lays out a development scenario for the region, which when integrated with the transportation network and
other transportation measures and policies, would reduce GHG emissions from transportation (excluding
goods movement) beyond the per capita reduction targets identified by the Air Resources Board.
14 BAAQMD. 2019, April 16. San Francisco Bay Area Community Health Protection Program.
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/ab617-community-health/2019_0325_ab617onepager-pdf.pdf?la=en
15 Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments, 2017. Plan Bay Area 2040 Plan.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 11
1.1.5 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is the congestion management agency for Santa Clara
County. VTA is tasked with developing a comprehensive transportation improvement program among local
jurisdictions that will reduce traffic congestion and improve land use decision-making and air quality. VTA’s
latest congestion management program (CMP) is the 2017 Congestion Management Program Document.
VTA’s countywide transportation model must be consistent with the regional transportation model developed
by the MTC with ABAG data. The countywide transpor tation model is used to help evaluate cumulative
transportation impacts of local land use decisions on the CMP system. In addition, VTA’s updated CMP
includes multi-modal performance standards and trip reduction and transportation demand management
strategies consistent with the goal of reducing regional vehicle miles traveled in accordance with Senate Bill
375. The 2017 CMP also includes a discussion of Senate Bill 743 implementation and relationship to the
CMP auto level of service standard. Elements discussed in the 2017 CMP for Santa Clara County, include
the following:
Transportation Analysis Standards Element:
Monitor and submit report on the level of service on CMP roadway network intersections using
CMP software and procedures
Monitor performance of CMP rural highways and freeways.
Multimodal Performance Measures Element:
Collect available transportation performance measurement data for use in land use analysis,
deficiency plans and the CIP.
Transportation Model and Database Element:
Certify that the CMP model us consistent with the regional model.
Certify that member agency models are consistent with the CMP model.
Land Use Impact Analysis Element:
Prepare a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) for projects that generate 100 or more peak hour
trips and submit to the CMP according to TIA Guidelines schedule.
Submit relevant conditions of approval to VTA for projects generating TIAs.
Prepare quarterly report on VTA comments and local agency adopted conditions for VTA Board,
Congestion Management Program and Planning Committee, Policy Advisory Committee, Technical
Advisory Committee, Citizens Advisory Committee, and Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory
Committee.
Prepare and submit land use monitoring data to the CMP on all land use projects approved from July
1 to June 30 of the previous year.
Capital Improvement Program Element:
Develop a list of projects intended to maintain or improve the level of service on the designated
system and to maintain transit performance standards.
Monitoring and Conformance Element:
Page 12 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data
Outline the requirements and procedures established for conducting annual traffic LOS and land use
monitoring efforts. Support the Traffic Level of Service and Community Form and Impact Analysis
Elements.
Multimodal Improvement Plan Element:
Prepare deficiency plans for facilities that violate CMP traffic LOS standards or that are projected to
violate LOS standards using the adopted deficiency plan requirements.
Submit Deficiency Plan Implementation Status Report as part of annual monitoring.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
1.1.6 San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
The BAAQMD is the regional air quality agency for the SFBAAB, which comprises all of Alameda, Contra
Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties; the southern portion of Sonoma
County; and the southwestern portion of Solano County. Air quality in this area is determined by such natural
factors as topography, meteorology, and climate, in addition to the presence of existing air pollution sources
and ambient conditions.16
1.1.6.1 METEOROLOGY
The SFBAAB is characterized by complex terrain, consisting of coastal mountain ranges, inland valleys, and
bays, which distort normal wind flow patterns. The Coast Range splits, resulting in a western coast gap,
Golden Gate, and an eastern coast gap, Carquinez Strait, which allow air to flow in and out of the SFBAAB
and the Central Valley.
The climate is dominated by the strength and location of a semi-permanent, subtropical high-pressure cell.
During the summer, the Pacific high-pressure cell is centered over the northeastern Pacific Ocean, resulting in
stable meteorological conditions and a steady northwesterly wind flow. Upwelling of cold ocean water from
below the surface because of the northwesterly flow produces a band of cold water off the California coast.
The cool and moisture-laden air approaching the coast from the Pacific Ocean is further cooled by the
presence of the cold water band, resulting in condensation and the presence of fog and stratus clouds along
the Northern California coast. In the winter, the Pacific high-pressure cell weakens and shifts southward,
resulting in wind flow offshore, the absence of upwelling, and the occurrence of storms. Weak inversions
coupled with moderate winds result in a low air pollution potential.
1.1.6.2 WIND PATTERNS
During the summer, winds flowing from the northwest are drawn inland through the Golden Gate and over
the lower portions of the San Francisco Peninsula. Immediately south of Mount Tamalpais, the northwesterly
winds accelerate considerably and come more directly from the west as they stream through the Golden Gate.
16 This section describing the air basin is from Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017, May, Appendix C: Sample Air
Quality Setting, in California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 13
This channeling of wind through the Golden Gate produces a jet that sweeps eastward and splits off to the
northwest toward Richmond and to the southwest toward San Jose when it meets the East Bay hills.
Wind speeds may be strong locally in areas where air is channeled through a narrow opening, such as the
Carquinez Strait, the Golden Gate, or the San Bruno gap. For example, the average wind speed at San
Francisco International Airport in July is about 17 knots (from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.), compared with only 7
knots at San Jose and less than 6 knots at the Farallon Islands.
The air flowing in from the coast to the Central Valley, called the sea breeze, begins developing at or near
ground level along the coast in late morning or early afternoon. As the day progresses, the sea breeze layer
deepens and increases in velocity while spreading inland. The depth of the sea breeze depends in large part
upon the height and strength of the inversion. If the inversion is low and strong, and hence stable, the flow
of the sea breeze will be inhibited and stagnant conditions are likely to result.
In the winter, the SFBAAB frequently experiences stormy conditions with moderate to strong winds, as well
as periods of stagnation with very light winds. Winter stagnation episodes are characterized by nighttime
drainage flows in coastal valleys. Drainage is a reversal of the usual daytime air-flow patterns; air moves from
the Central Valley toward the coast and back down toward the Bay from the smaller valleys within the
SFBAAB.
1.1.6.3 TEMPERATURE
Summertime temperatures in the SFBAAB are determined in large part by the effect of differential heating
between land and water surfaces. Because land tends to heat up and cool off more quickly than water, a large-
scale gradient (differential) in temperature is often created between the coast and the Central Valley, and
small-scale local gradients are often produced along the shorelines of the ocean and bays. The temperature
gradient near the ocean is also exaggerated, especially in summer, because of the upwelling of cold water
from the ocean bottom along the coast. On summer afternoons the temperatures at the coast can be 35
degrees Fahrenheit (ºF) cooler than temperatures 15 to 20 miles inland. At night this contrast usually
decreases to less than 10ºF.
In the winter, the relationship of minimum and maximum temperatures is reversed. During the daytime the
temperature contrast between the coast and inland areas is small, whereas at night the variation in
temperature is large. The climatological station nearest to the project site with temperature data is the Santa
Clara University Monitoring Station (ID No. 043861). The lowest average temperature is reported at 38.2°F in
January, and the highest average temperature is 81.7°F in August.17
1.1.6.4 PRECIPITATION
The SFBAAB is characterized by moderately wet winters and dry summers. Winter rains (November through
March) account for about 75 percent of the average annual rainfall. The amount of annual precipitation can
vary greatly from one part of the SFBAAB to another, even within short distances. In general, total annual
rainfall can reach 40 inches in the mountains, but it is often less than 16 inches in sheltered valleys.
17 Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2020, July 13 (accessed). Hayward Air Terminal, California ([Station ID] 043861):
Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary, 09/19/1998 to 06/09/2016. Western U.S. Climate Summaries.
https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca3861.
Page 14 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data
During rainy periods, ventilation (rapid horizontal movement of air and injection of cleaner air) and vertical
mixing (an upward and downward movement of air) are usually high, and thus pollution levels tend to be low
(i.e. air pollutants are dispersed more readily into the atmosphere rather than accumulate under stagnant
conditions). However, during the winter, frequent dry periods do occur, when mixing and ventilation are low
and pollutant levels build up. Rainfall historically averages 14.50 inches per year in the project area. 18
1.1.6.5 WIND CIRCULATION
Low wind speed contributes to the buildup of air pollution because it allows more pollutants to be emitted
into the air mass per unit of time. Light winds occur most frequently during periods of low sun (fall and
winter, and early morning) and at night. These are also periods when air pollutant emissions from some
sources are at their peak, namely, commuter traffic (early morning) and wood-burning appliances (nighttime).
The problem can be compounded in valleys, when weak flows carry the pollutants up-valley during the day,
and cold air drainage flows move the air mass down-valley at night. Such restricted movement of trapped air
provides little opportunity for ventilation and leads to buildup of pollutants to potentially unhealthful levels.
1.1.6.6 INVERSIONS
An inversion is a layer of warmer air over a layer of cooler air. Inversions affect air quality conditions
significantly because they influence the mixing depth, i.e. the vertical depth in the atmosphere available for
diluting air contaminants near the ground. There are two types of inversions that occur regularly in the
SFBAAB. Elevation inversions are more common in the summer and fall, and radiation inversions are more
common during the winter. The highest air pollutant concentrations in the SFBAAB generally occur during
inversions.
1.1.7 Existing Ambient Air Quality
1.1.7.1 ATTAINMENT STATUS OF THE SFBAAB
Areas that meet AAQS are classified attainment areas, and areas that do not meet these standards are
classified nonattainment areas. Severity classifications for O3 range from marginal, moderate, and serious to
severe and extreme. The attainment status for the air basin is shown in Table 2. The air basin is currently
designated a nonattainment area for California and National O3, California and National PM2.5, and California
PM10 AAQS.
Table 2 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
Pollutant State Federal1
Ozone – 1-hour Nonattainment Classification revoked (2005)
Ozone – 8-hour Nonattainment (serious) Nonattainment
PM10 Nonattainment Unclassified/Attainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment Unclassified/Attainment
CO Attainment Attainment
NO2 Attainment Unclassified
18 Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2020, July 13 (accessed). Hayward Air Terminal, California ([Station ID] 043861):
Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary, 09/19/1998 to 06/09/2016. Western U.S. Climate Summaries.
https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca3861.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 15
Table 2 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
Pollutant State Federal1
SO2 Attainment Attainment
Lead Attainment Attainment
Sulfates Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
All others Unclassified/Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
Source: California Air Resources Board, 2019, August, October. Area Designations Maps: State and National. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps-
state-and-federal-area-designations.
1 Federal designations current as of June 30, 2020
1.1.7.2 EXISTING AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
Existing levels of ambient air quality and historical trends and projections in the vicinity of the project site
are best documented by measurements made by the BAAQMD. The BAAQMD monitoring station closest to
the project site is the San Jose – Jackson Street Avenue Monitoring Station. Data from this station is
summarized in Table 3. The data show occasional violations of the State and federal O3 standards, as well as
state PM10 and federal PM2.5 standards. The State and federal CO and NO2 standards have not been exceeded
in the last five years in the vicinity of the project site.
Table 3 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary
Pollutant/Standard
Number of Days Threshold Were
Exceeded and Maximum Levels during Such Violations
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Ozone (O3)
State 1-Hour 0.09 ppm
State 8-hour 0.07 ppm
Federal 8-Hour > 0.075 ppm
Maximum 1-Hour Conc. (ppm)
Maximum 8-Hour Conc. (ppm)
0
0
0
0.089
0.066
0
2
2
0.094
0.065
0
0
0
0.087
0.066
0
4
3
0.121
0.098
0
0
0
0.078
0.061
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
State 1-Hour 0.18 (ppm)
Maximum 1-Hour Conc. (ppb)
0
58.4
0
49.3
0
51.1
0
67.5
0
86.1
Coarse Particulates (PM10)
State 24-Hour > 50 µg/m3
Federal 24-Hour > 150 µg/m3
Maximum 24-Hour Conc. (µg/m3)
1
0
56.4
1
0
58.8
0
0
40.0
6
0
69.4
4
1
155.8
Fine Particulates (PM2.5)
Federal 24-Hour > 35 µg/m3
Maximum 24-Hour Conc. (µg/m3)
2
60.4
2
49.4
0
22.6
6
49.7
15
133.9
Source: California Air Resources Board, 2019, Air Pollution Data Monitoring Cards (2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018), Accessed July 20, 2020,
https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php. Data from the San Jose Jackson Street Monitoring Station for 03, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5.
Notes: ppm: parts per million; ppb: parts per billion; µg/m3: or micrograms per cubic meter
1.1.7.3 EXISTING EMISSIONS
The project site is currently developed with one commercial building, which currently generates criteria air
pollutants emissions from energy use, transportation, and area sources.
Page 16 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data
1.1.8 Sensitive Receptors
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population
groups or activities involved. Sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the
chronically ill, especially those with cardiorespiratory diseases. Residential areas are also considered sensitive
receptors to air pollution because residents (including children and the elderly) tend to be at home for
extended periods of time, resulting in sustained exposure to any pollutants present. Other sensitive receptors
include retirement facilities, hospitals, and schools. Recreational land uses are considered moderately sensitive
to air pollution. Although exposure periods are generally short, exercise places a high demand on respiratory
functions, which can be impaired by air pollution. In addition, noticeable air pollution can detract from the
enjoyment of recreation. Industrial, commercial, retail, and office areas are considered the least sensitive to air
pollution. Exposure periods are relatively short and intermittent, since the majority of the workers tend to
stay indoors most of the time. In addition, the working population is generally the healthiest segment of the
population. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are the residents along South Foothill Boulevard
to the south and east, along Camino Vista Drive to the west, and along Stevens Creek Boulevard to the north.
1.2 METHODOLOGY
The BAAQMD “CEQA Air Quality Guidelines” were prepared to assist in the evaluation of air quality
impacts of projects and plans proposed in the Bay Area. The guidelines provide recommended procedures
for evaluating potential air impacts during the environmental review process, consistent with CEQA
requirements, and include recommended thresholds of significance, mitigation measures, and background air
quality information. They also include recommended assessment methodologies for air toxics, odors, and
greenhouse gas emissions. In June 2010, the BAAQMD's Board of Directors adopted CEQA thresholds of
significance and an update of the CEQA Guidelines. In May 2011, the updated BAAQMD CEQA Air
Quality Guidelines were amended to include a risk and hazards threshold for new receptors and modified
procedures for assessing impacts related to risk and hazard impacts; however, this later amendment regarding
risk and hazards was the subject of the December 17, 2015 Supreme Court decision (California Building
Industry Association v BAAQMD), which clarified that CEQA does not require an evaluation of impacts of the
environment on a project.19
1.2.1 Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
The proposed project qualifies as a project-level project under BAAQMD’s criteria. For project-level analyses,
BAAQMD has adopted screening criteria and significance criteria that would be applicable to the proposed
19 On March 5, 2012, the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the BAAQMD had failed to comply with
CEQA when it adopted the thresholds of significance in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. The court did not
determine whether the thresholds of significance were valid on their merits, but found that the adoption of the thresholds was a
project under CEQA. The court issued a writ of mandate ordering the BAAQMD to set aside the thresholds and cease
dissemination of them until the BAAQMD complied with CEQA. Following the court’s order, the BAAQMD released revised
CEQA Air Quality Guidelines in May of 2012 that include guidance on calculating air pollution emissions, obtaining information
regarding the health impacts of air pollutants, and identifying potential mitigation measures, and which set aside the significance
thresholds. The Alameda County Superior Court, in ordering BAAQMD to set aside the thresholds, did not address the merits of
the science or evidence supporting the thresholds, and in light of the subsequent case history discussed below, the science and
reasoning contained in the BAAQMD 2011 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines provide the latest state-of-the-art guidance available.
On August 13, 2013, the First District Court of Appeal ordered the trial court to reverse the judgment and upheld the BAAQMD’s
CEQA Guidelines. (California Building Industry Association versus BAAQMD, Case No. A135335 and A136212 (Court of Appeal, First
District, August 13, 2013).)
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 17
project. If a project exceeds the screening level, it would be required to conduct a full analysis using
BAAQMD’s significance criteria.20
Regional Significance Criteria
BAAQMD’s criteria for regional significance for projects that exceed the screening thresholds are shown in
Table 4. Criteria for both construction and operational phases of the project are shown.
Table 4 BAAQMD Regional (Mass Emissions) Criteria Air Pollutant Significance Thresholds
Pollutant
Construction Phase Operational Phase
Average Daily Emissions
(lbs/day)
Average Daily Emissions
(lbs/day)
Maximum Annual Emissions
(Tons/year)
ROG 54 54 10
NOx 54 54 10
PM10 82 (Exhaust) 82 15
PM2.5 54 (Exhaust) 54 10
PM10 and PM2.5 Fugitive Dust Best Management Practices None None
Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017, May. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, Appendix D: Threshold of Significance
Justification.
BAAQMD is the primary agency responsible for ensuring the health and welfare of sensitive individuals
exposed to elevated concentrations of air pollutants in the Air Basin and has established thresholds that
would be protective of these individuals. To achieve the health-based standards established by the EPA,
BAAQMD prepares the Clean Air Plan that details regional programs to attain the AAQS. Mass emissions in
Table 4.3-7 are not correlated with concentrations of air pollutants but contribute to the cumulative air
quality impacts in the Air Basin. The thresholds are based on the trigger levels for the federal New Source
Review (NSR) Program. The NSR Program was created to ensure projects are consistent with attainment of
health-based federal AAQS. Regional emissions from a single project do not single-handedly trigger a regional
health impact, and it is speculative to identify how many more individuals in the air basin would be affected
by the health effects listed above. Projects that do not exceed the BAAQMD regional significance thresholds
in Table 4 would not violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation.
If projects exceed the emissions in Table 4 emissions would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment
status and would contribute in elevating health effects associated to these criteria air pollutants. Known health
effects related to ozone include worsening of bronchitis, asthma, and emphysema and a decrease in lung
function. Health effects associated with particulate matter include premature death of people with heart or
lung disease, nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, decreased lung function, and increased respiratory
symptoms. Reducing emissions would further contribute to reducing possible health effects related to criteria
air pollutants. However, for projects that exceed the emissions in Table 4 it is speculative to determine how
exceeding the regional thresholds would affect the number of days the region is in nonattainment since mass
20 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017, May. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.
Page 18 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data
emissions are not correlated with concentrations of emissions or how many additional individuals in the air
basin would be affected by the health effects cited above.
BAAQMD has not provided methodology to assess the specific correlation between mass emissions
generated and the effect on health in order to address the issue raised in Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (Friant
Ranch, L.P.) (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, Case No. S21978. Ozone concentrations are dependent upon a variety of
complex factors, including the presence of sunlight and precursor pollutants, natural topography, nearby
structures that cause building downwash, atmospheric stability, and wind patterns. Because of the
complexities of predicting ground-level ozone concentrations in relation to the National AAQS and
California AAQS, it is not possible to link health risks to the magnitude of emissions exceeding the
significance thresholds. However, if a project in the Bay Area exceeds the regional significance thresholds, the
project could contribute to an increase in health effects in the basin until such time the attainment standard
are met in the Air Basin.
Local CO Hotspots
Congested intersections have the potential to create elevated concentrations of CO, referred to as CO
hotspots. The significance criteria for CO hotspots are based on the California AAQS for CO, which is 9.0
ppm (8-hour average) and 20.0 ppm (1-hour average). However, with the turnover of older vehicles,
introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology, the SFBAAB is in attainment of the
California and National AAQS, and CO concentrations in the SFBAAB have steadily declined. Because CO
concentrations have improved, BAAQMD does not require a CO hotspot analysis if the following criteria are
met:
Project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the County
Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways, the regional transportation plan, and
local congestion management agency plans.
The project would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per
hour.
The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersection to more than 24,000
vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g. tunnel, parking
garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway).21
Odors
BAAQMD’s thresholds for odors are qualitative based on BAAQMD’s Regulation 7, Odorous Substances.
This rule places general limitations on odorous substances and specific emission limitations on certain
odorous compounds. In addition, odors are also regulated under BAAQMD Regulation 1, Rule 1-301, Public
Nuisance, which states that no person shall discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air
contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable
number of persons or the public; or which endangers the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such
persons or the public, or which causes, or has a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or
property. Under BAAQMD’s Rule 1-301, a facility that receives three or more violation notices within a 30-
21 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017, May. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, Appendix D:
Threshold of Significance Justification.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 19
day period can be declared a public nuisance. BAAQMD has established odor screening thresholds for land
uses that have the potential to generate substantial odor complaints, including wastewater treatment plants,
landfills or transfer stations, composting facilities, confined animal facilities, food manufacturing, and
chemical plants.22
1.2.2 Toxic Air Contaminants
The BAAQMD’s significance thresholds for local community risk and hazard impacts apply to the siting of a
new source. Local community risk and hazard impacts are associated with TACs and PM2.5 because emissions
of these pollutants can have significant health impacts at the local level. The purpose of this environmental
evaluation is to identify the significant effects of the proposed project on the environment, not the significant
effects of the environment on the proposed project (California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air
Quality Management District [2015] 62 Cal.4th 369 [Case No. S213478]). CEQA does not require an
environmental evaluation to analyze the environmental effects of attracting development and people to an
area. However, the environmental evaluation must analyze the impacts of environmental hazards on future
users when the proposed project exacerbates an existing environmental hazard or condition or if there is an
exception to this exemption identified in the Public Resources Code. Schools, residential, commercial, and
office uses do not use substantial quantities of TACs and typically do not exacerbate existing hazards, so
these thresholds are typically applied to new industrial projects.
For assessing community risk and hazards, sources within a 1,000-foot radius are considered. Sources are
defined as freeways, high volume roadways (with volume of 10,000 vehicles or more per day or 1,000 trucks
per day), and permitted sources.23,24
The proposed project would generate TACs and PM2.5 during construction activities that could elevate
concentrations of air pollutants at the surrounding residential receptors. The BAAQMD has adopted
screening tables for air toxics evaluation during construction.25 Construction-related TAC and PM2.5 impacts
should be addressed on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the specific construction-related
characteristics of each project and proximity to off-site receptors, as applicable.26
The project threshold identified below is applied to the proposed project’s construction phase emissions:
Community Risk and Hazards – Project
Project-level construction emissions of TACs or PM2.5 from the proposed project to individual sensitive
receptors within 1,000 feet of the project site that exceed any of the thresholds listed below are considered a
potentially significant community health risk:
Non-compliance with a qualified Community Risk Reduction Plan;
22 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017, May. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.
23 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017, May. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, Appendix D:
Threshold of Significance Justification.
24 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2012. Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards.
25 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2010. Screening Tables for Air Toxics Evaluations during Construction.
26 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017, May. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, Appendix D:
Threshold of Significance Justification.
Page 20 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data
An excess cancer risk level of more than 10 in one million, or a non-cancer (i.e. chronic or acute) hazard
index greater than 1.0 would be a significant cumulatively considerable contribution;
An incremental increase of greater than 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) annual average PM2.5
from a single source would be a significant, cumulatively considerable contribution.27
Community Risk and Hazards – Cumulative
Cumulative sources represent the combined total risk values of each of the individual sources within the
1,000-foot evaluation zone.
A project would have a cumulative considerable impact if the aggregate total of all past, present, and
foreseeable future sources within a 1,000-foot radius from the fence line of a source or location of a
receptor, plus the contribution from the project, exceeds the following:
Non-compliance with a qualified Community Risk Reduction Plan; or
An excess cancer risk levels of more than 100 in one million or a chronic non-cancer hazard index (from
all local sources) greater than 10.0; or
0.8 µg/m3 annual average PM2.5.28
Current BAAQMD guidance recommends the determination of cancer risks using the Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s (OEHHA) methodology, which was originally adopted in
2003.29,30 In February 2015, OEHHA adopted new health risk assessment guidance which includes several
efforts to be more protective of children’s health. These updated procedures include the use of age sensitivity
factors to account for the higher sensitivity of infants and young children to cancer causing chemicals, and
age-specific breathing rates.31 However, BAAQMD has not formally adopted the new OEHHA methodology
into their CEQA guidance. To be conservative, the cancer risks associated with project implementation and
significance conclusions were determined using the new 2015 OEHHA guidance for risk assessments.
27 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017, May. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, Appendix D:
Threshold of Significance Justification.
28 Ibid.
29 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2012, Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards.
30 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2003. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of
Health Risk Assessments.
31 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of
Health Risk Assessments.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 21
2. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Scientists have concluded that human activities are contributing to global climate change by adding large
amounts of heat-trapping gases, known as GHG, to the atmosphere. Climate change is the variation of
Earth’s climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activities. The primary
source of these GHG is fossil fuel use. The Interg overnmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has
identified four major GHG—water vapor,32 carbon (CO2), methane (CH4), and ozone (O3)—that are the
likely cause of an increase in global average temperatures observed within the 20th and 21st centuries. Other
GHG identified by the IPCC that contribute to global warming to a lesser extent include nitrous oxide (N2O),
sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and chlorofluorocarbons.33, 34 The major
GHG are briefly described below.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and
coal), solid waste, trees and wood products, and respiration, and also as a result of other chemical
reactions (e.g. manufacture of cement). Carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere (sequestered)
when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle.
Methane (CH4) is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane
emissions also result from livestock and other agricultural practices and from the decay of organic waste
in municipal landfills and water treatment facilities.
Nitrous oxide (N2O) is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities as well as during combustion
of fossil fuels and solid waste.
Fluorinated gases are synthetic, strong GHGs that are emitted from a variety of industrial processes.
Fluorinated gases are sometimes used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances. These gases are
typically emitted in smaller quantities, but because they are potent GHGs, they are sometimes referred to
as high global-warming-potential (GWP) gases.
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are GHGs covered under the 1987 Montreal Protocol and used for
refrigeration, air conditioning, packaging, insulation, solvents, or aerosol propellants. Since they are
not destroyed in the lower atmosphere (troposphere, stratosphere), CFCs drift into the upper
atmosphere where, given suitable conditions, they break down ozone. These gases are also ozone-
depleting gases and are therefore being replaced by other compounds that are GHGs covered under
the Kyoto Protocol.
32 Water vapor (H2O) is the strongest GHG and the most variable in its phases (vapor, cloud droplets, ice crystals). However, water
vapor is not considered a pollutant, but part of the feedback loop rather than a primary cause of change.
33 Black carbon contributes to climate change both directly, by absorbing sunlight, and indirectly, by depositing on snow (making it
melt faster) and by interacting with clouds and affecting cloud formation. Black carbon is the most strongly light-absorbing
component of particulate matter (PM) emitted from burning fuels such as coal, diesel, and biomass. Reducing black carbon
emissions globally can have immediate economic, climate, and public health benefits. California has been an international leader in
reducing emissions of black carbon, with close to 95 percent control expected by 2020 due to existing programs that target
reducing PM from diesel engines and burning activities (California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017, March 14. Final Proposed
Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/shortlived/shortlived.htm). However, state and
national GHG inventories do not yet include black carbon due to ongoing work resolving the precise global warming potential of
black carbon. Guidance for CEQA documents does not yet include black carbon.
34 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2001. Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001. New York:
Cambridge University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/WGI_TAR_full_report.pdf.
Page 22 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data
Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are a group of human-made chemicals composed of carbon and fluorine
only. These chemicals (predominantly perfluoromethane [CF4] and perfluoroethane [C2F6]) were
introduced as alternatives, along with HFCs, to the ozone-depleting substances. In addition, PFCs are
emitted as by-products of industrial processes and are used in manufacturing. PFCs do not harm the
stratospheric ozone layer, but they have a high global warming potential.
Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) is a colorless gas soluble in alcohol and ether, slightly soluble in water.
SF6 is a strong GHG used primarily in electrical transmission and distribution systems as an insulator.
Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) contain hydrogen, fluorine, chlorine, and carbon atoms.
Although ozone-depleting substances, they are less potent at destroying stratospheric ozone than
CFCs. They have been introduced as temporary replacements for CFCs and are also GHGs.
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) contain only hydrogen, fluorine, and carbon atoms. They were
introduced as alternatives to ozone-depleting substances to serve many industrial, commercial, and
personal needs. HFCs are emitted as by-products of industrial processes and are also used in
manufacturing. They do not significantly deplete the stratospheric ozone layer, but they are strong
GHGs.35,36
GHGs are dependent on the lifetime or persistence of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. Some GHGs
have stronger greenhouse effects than others. These are referred to as high GWP gases. The GWP of GHG
emissions are shown in Table 5. The GWP is used to convert GHGs to CO2-equivalence (CO2e) to show the
relative potential that different GHGs have to retain infrared radiation in the atmosphere and contribute to
the greenhouse effect. For example, under IPCC’s Fouth Assessment Report (AR5) GWP values for CH4, a
project that generates 10 MT of CH4 would be equivalent to 250 MT of CO2.37,38
35 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2001. Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001. New York:
Cambridge University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/WGI_TAR_full_report.pdf.
36 US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2019. Overview of Greenhouse Gases.
http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases.html.
37 CO2-equivalence is used to show the relative potential that different GHGs have to retain infrared radiation in the atmosphere and
contribute to the greenhouse effect. The global warming potential of a GHG is also dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of
the gas molecule in the atmosphere.
38 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2013. Fifth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2013. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 23
Table 5 GHG Emissions and Their Relative Global Warming Potential Compared to CO2
GHGs Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Methane1 (CH4) Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
Second Assessment
Atmospheric Lifetime (Years) 50 to 200 12 (±3) 120
Global Warming Potential Relative to CO22 1 21 310
Fourth Assessment
Atmospheric Lifetime (Years) 50 to 200 12 114
Global Warming Potential Relative to CO22 1 25 298
Fifth Assessment3
Atmospheric Lifetime (Years) 50 to 200 12 121
Global Warming Potential Relative to CO22 1 28 265
Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 1995. Second Assessment Report: Climate Change 1995
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_sar_wg_I_full_report.pdf; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Fourth Assessment Report:
Climate Change 2007. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4_syr_full_report.pdf; Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC). 2013. Fifth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2013. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Notes:
1 The methane GWP includes direct effects and indirect effects due to the production of tropospheric ozone and stratospheric water vapor. The indirect effect due to the
production of CO2 is not included.
2 Based on 100-year time horizon of the GWP of the air pollutant compared to CO2.
3 The GWP values in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (2013)39 reflect new information on atmospheric lifetimes of GHGs and an improved calculation of the
radiative forcing of CO2.
2.1 CALIFORNIA’S GREENHOUSE GAS SOURCES AND RELATIVE
CONTRIBUTION
In 2019, the statewide GHG emissions inventory was updated for 2000 to 2017 emissions using the GWPs in
IPCC’s AR4.40 Based on these GWPs, California produced 424.10 MMTCO2e GHG emissions in 2017. The
California Air Resources Board (CARB) categorizes GHG generation into the following seven sectors.41
Transportation. Consists of direct tailpipe emissions from on-road vehicle and direct emissions from
off-road transportation mobile sources, intrastate aviation, rail, and watercraft. Emissions are generated
from the combustion of fuels in on- and off-road vehicles in addition to aviation, rail, and ships.
Electric. Includes emissions from instate power generation (including the portion of cogeneration
emissions attributed to electricity generation) and emissions from imported electricity.
Industrial. Includes emissions primarily driven by fuel combustion from sources that include refineries,
oil and gas extraction, cement plants, and the portion of cogeneration emissions attribute to thermal
energy output.
Commercial and Residential. Accounts for emissions generated from combustion of natural gas and
other fuels for household and commercial business use, such as space heating, cooking, and hot water or
steam generation. Emissions associated with electricity usage are accounted for in the Electric Sector.
Recycling and Waste. Consists of emissions generated at landfills and from commercial-scale
composting.
39 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2013. Fifth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2013. New York: Cambridge
University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_final.pdf.
40 Methodology for determining the statewide GHG inventory is not the same as the methodology used to determine statewide
GHG emissions under Assembly Bill 32 (2006).
41 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2019, August 26. California Greenhouse Emissions for 2000 to 2017: Trends of
Emissions and Other Indicators. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm.
Page 24 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data
Agriculture. Primarily includes methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions generated from
enteric fermentation and manure management from livestock. Also accounts for emissions associated
with crop production (fertilizer use, soil preparation and disturbance, and crop residue burning) and fuel
combustion associated with stationary agricultural activities (e.g., water pumping, cooling or heating
buildings).
High Global Warming Potential Gases. Associated with substitutes for ozone-depleting substances,
emissions from electricity transmission and distribution system, and gases emitted in the semiconductor
manufacturing process. Substitutes for ozone-depleting substances are used in refrigeration and air
conditioning equipment, solvent cleaning, foam production, fire retardants, and aerosols.
California’s transportation sector was the single largest generator of GHG emissions, producing 40.1 percent
of the state’s total emissions. Industrial sector emissions made up 21.1 percent, and electric power generation
made up 14.7 percent of the state’s emissions inventory. Other major sectors of GHG emissions include
commercial and residential (9.7 percent), agriculture and forestry (7.6 percent), high GWP (4.7 percent), and
recycling and waste (2.1 percent).42
California’s GHG emissions have followed a declining trend since 2007. In 2017, emissions from routine
GHG-emitting activities statewide were 424 MMTCO2e, 5 MMTCO2e lower than 2016 levels. This represents
an overall decrease of 14 percent since peak levels in 2004 and 7 MMTCO2e below the 1990 level and the
state’s 2020 GHG target. During the 2000 to 2017 period, per capita GHG emissions in California have
continued to drop from a peak in 2001 of 14.0 MTCO2e per capita to 10.7 MTCO2e per capita in 2017, a 24
percent decrease. Overall trends in the inventory also demonstrate that the carbon intensity of California’s
economy (the amount of carbon pollution per million dollars of gross domestic product) has declined 41
percent since the 2001 peak, while the state’s gross domestic product has grown 52 percent during the same
period. For the first time since California started to track GHG emissions, California uses more electricity
from zero-GHG sources (hydro, solar, wind, and nuclear energy).43
2.2 HUMAN INFLUENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE
For approximately 1,000 years before the Industrial Revolution, the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere
remained relatively constant. During the 20th century, however, scientists observed a rapid change in the
climate and the quantity of climate change pollutants in the Earth’s atmosphere that is attributable to human
activities. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by more than 35 percent since preindustrial
times and has increased at an average rate of 1.4 parts per million per year since 1960, mainly due to
combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation.44 These recent changes in the quantity and concentration of
climate change pollutants far exceed the extremes of the ice ages, and the global mean temperature is
warming at a rate that cannot be explained by natural causes alone. Human activities are directly altering the
chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of climate change pollutants.45 In the past,
42 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2019, August 26. 2019 Edition California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2017: By
Category as Defined in the 2008 Scoping Plan. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm.
43 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2019, August 26. 2019 Edition California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2017: By
Category as Defined in the 2008 Scoping Plan. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm.
44 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
45 California Climate Action Team (CAT). 2006, March. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the
Legislature.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 25
gradual changes in the earth’s temperature changed the distribution of species, availability of water, etc.
However, human activities are accelerating this process so that environmental impacts associated with climate
change no longer occur in a geologic time frame but within a human lifetime.46
Like the variability in the projections of the expected increase in global surface temperatures, the
environmental consequences of gradual changes in the Earth’s temperature are hard to predict. Projections
of climate change depend heavily upon future human activity. Therefore, climate models are based on
different emission scenarios that account for historical trends in emissions and on observations of the climate
record that assess the human influence of the trend and projections for extreme weather events. Climate-
change scenarios are affected by varying degrees of uncertainty. For example, there are varying degrees of
certainty on the magnitude of the trends for:
Warmer and fewer cold days and nights over most land areas.
Warmer and more frequent hot days and nights over most land areas.
An increase in frequency of warm spells/heat waves over most land areas.
An increase in frequency of heavy precipitation events (or proportion of total rainfall from heavy falls)
over most areas.
Larger areas affected by drought.
Intense tropical cyclone activity increases.
Increased incidence of extreme high sea level (excluding tsunamis).
2.3 POTENTIAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS FOR CALIFORNIA
Observed changes over the last several decades across the western United States reveal clear signs of climate
change. Statewide, average temperatures increased by about 1.7°F from 1895 to 2011, and warming has been
greatest in the Sierra Nevada.47 The years from 2014 through 2016 have shown unprecedented temperatures
with 2014 being the warmest.48 By 2050, California is projected to warm by approximately 2.7°F above 2000
averages, a threefold increase in the rate of warming over the last century. By 2100, average temperatures
could increase by 4.1 to 8.6°F, depending on emissions levels. 49
In California and western North America, observations of the climate have shown: 1) a trend toward warmer
winter and spring temperatures; 2) a smaller fraction of precipitation falling as snow; 3) a decrease in the
amount of spring snow accumulation in the lower and middle elevation mountain zones; 4) advanced shift in
the timing of snowmelt of 5 to 30 days earlier in the spring; and 5) a similar shift (5 to 30 days earlier) in the
timing of spring flower blooms.50 Overall, California has become drier over time, with five of the eight years
of severe to extreme drought occurring between 2007 and 2016, with unprecedented dry years occurring in
46 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
47 California Climate Change Center (CCCC). 2012, July. Our Changing Climate 2012: Vulnerability and Adaptation to the Increasing
Risks from Climate Change in California.
48 Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment (OEHHA). 2018, May. Indicators of Climate Change in California.
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/climate-change/report/2018caindicatorsreportmay2018.pdf.
49 California Climate Change Center (CCCC). 2012, July. Our Changing Climate 2012: Vulnerability and Adaptation to the Increasing
Risks from Climate Change in California.
50 California Climate Action Team (CAT). 2006, March. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the
Legislature.
Page 26 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data
2014 and 2015. 51 Statewide precipitation has become increasingly variable from year to year, with the driest
consecutive four years occurring from 2012 to 2015.52 According to the California Climate Action Team—a
committee of state agency secretaries and the heads of agencies, boards, and departments, led by the
Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency—even if actions could be taken to immediately
curtail climate change emissions, the potency of emissions that have already built up, their long atmospheric
lifetimes (see Table 5), and the inertia of the Earth’s climate system could produce as much as 0.6°C (1.1°F)
of additional warming. Consequently, some impacts from climate change are now considered unavoidable.
Global climate change risks to California are shown in Table 6 and include impacts to public health, water
resources, agriculture, coastal sea level, forest and biological resources, and energy.
Table 6 Summary of GHG Emissions Risks to California
Impact Category Potential Risk
Public Health Impacts
Heat waves will be more frequent, hotter, and longer
Fewer extremely cold nights
Poor air quality made worse
Higher temperatures increase ground-level ozone levels
Water Resources Impacts
Decreasing Sierra Nevada snow pack
Challenges in securing adequate water supply
Potential reduction in hydropower
Loss of winter recreation
Agricultural Impacts
Increasing temperature
Increasing threats from pests and pathogens
Expanded ranges of agricultural weeds
Declining productivity
Irregular blooms and harvests
Coastal Sea Level Impacts
Accelerated sea level rise
Increasing coastal floods
Shrinking beaches
Worsened impacts on infrastructure
Forest and Biological Resource Impacts
Increased risk and severity of wildfires
Lengthening of the wildfire season
Movement of forest areas
Conversion of forest to grassland
Declining forest productivity
Increasing threats from pest and pathogens
Shifting vegetation and species distribution
Altered timing of migration and mating habits
Loss of sensitive or slow-moving species
Energy Demand Impacts Potential reduction in hydropower
Increased energy demand
Sources: California Energy Commission (CEC). 2006. Our Changing Climate: Assessing the Risks to California. 2006 Biennial Report. CEC-500-2006-077. California
Climate Change Center; California Energy Commission (CEC). 2009, May. The Future Is Now: An Update on Climate Change Science, Impacts, and Response
Options for California. CEC-500-2008-0077; California Climate Change Center (CCCC). 2012, July. Our Changing Climate 2012: Vulnerability and Adaptation to the
Increasing Risks from Climate Change in California; and California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA). 2014, July. Safeguarding California: Reducing Climate Risk:
An Update to the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy.
https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/docs/climate/Final_Safeguarding_CA_Plan_July_31_2014.pdf.
51 Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment (OEHHA). 2018, May. Indicators of Climate Change in California.
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/climate-change/report/2018caindicatorsreportmay2018.pdf.
52 Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment (OEHHA). 2018, May. Indicators of Climate Change in California.
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/climate-change/report/2018caindicatorsreportmay2018.pdf.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 27
2.1 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
2.1.1 Federal Regulations
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on December 7, 2009, that GHG emissions
threaten the public health and welfare of the American people and that GHG emissions from on-road
vehicles contribute to that threat. The EPA’s final findings respond to the 2007 US Supreme Court decision
that GHG emissions fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants. The findings did not themselves
impose any emission reduction requirements but allowed the EPA to finalize the GHG standards proposed in
2009 for new light-duty vehicles as part of the joint rulemaking with the Department of Transportation.53
To regulate GHGs from passenger vehicles, EPA was required to issue an endangerment finding. The finding
identifies emissions of six key GHGs—CO2, CH4, N2O, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and SF6—
that have been the subject of scrutiny and intense analysis for decades by scientists in the United States and
around the world. The first three are applicable to the proposed project’s GHG emissions inventory because
they constitute the majority of GHG emissions; they are the GHG emissions that should be evaluated as part
of a project’s GHG emissions inventory.
2.1.1.1 US MANDATORY REPORTING RULE FOR GREENHOUSE GASES (2009)
In response to the endangerment finding, the EPA issued the Mandatory Reporting of GHG Rule that
requires substantial emitters of GHG emissions (large stationary sources, etc.) to report GHG emissions data.
Facilities that emit 25,000 MTCO2e or more per year are required to submit an annual report.
2.1.1.2 UPDATE TO CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS (2021 TO 2026)
The federal government issued new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards in 2012 for model
years 2017 to 2025, which required a fleet average of 54.5 miles per gallon in 2025. However, on March 30,
2020, the EPA finalized an updated CAFE and GHG emissions standards for passenger cars and light trucks
and established new standards, covering model years 2021 through 2026, known as the Safer Affordable Fuel
Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Final Rule for Model Years 2021-2026. Under SAFE, the fuel economy standards
will increase 1.5 percent per year compared to the 5 percent per year under the CAFE standards established
in 2012. However, consortium of automakers and California have agreed on a voluntary framework to reduce
emissions that can serve as an alternative path forward for clean vehicle standards nationwide. Automakers
who agreed to the framework are Ford, Honda, BMW of North America, and Volkswagen Group of
America. The framework supports continued annual reductions of vehicle greenhouse gas emissions through
the 2026 model year, encourages innovation to accelerate the transition to electric vehicles, and provides
industry the certainty needed to make investments and create jobs. This commitment means that the auto
companies party to the voluntary agreement will only sell cars in the United States that meet the CAFE
standards established in 2021 for model years 2017 to 2025.54
53 US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009, December. EPA: Greenhouse Gases Threaten Public Health and the
Environment. Science overwhelmingly shows greenhouse gas concentrations at unprecedented levels due to human activity.
https://archive.epa.gov/epapages/newsroom_archive/newsreleases/08d11a451131bca585257685005bf252.html.
54 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2019, September 5 (accessed). California and major automakers reach groundbreaking
framework agreement on clean emission standards. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/california-and-major-automakers-reach-
groundbreaking-framework-agreement-clean-emission.
Page 28 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data
2.1.1.3 EPA REGULATION OF STATIONARY SOURCES UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT (ONGOING)
Pursuant to its authority under the Clean Air Act, the EPA has been developing regulations for new, large
stationary sources of emissions such as power plants and refineries. Under former President Obama’s 2013
Climate Action Plan, the EPA was directed to develop regulations for existing stationary sources as well. On
June 19, 2019, the EPA issued the final Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule which became effective on
August 19, 2019. The ACE rule was crafted under the direction of President Trump’s Energy Independence
Executive Order. It officially rescinds the Clean Power Plan rule issued during the Obama Administration and
sets emissions guidelines for states in developing plans to limit CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants.
2.1.2 State Regulations
Current State of California guidance and goals for reductions in GHG emissions are generally embodied in
Executive Orders S-03-05 and B-30-15, Assembly Bill (AB) 32, Senate Bill (SB) 32, and SB 375.
2.1.2.1 EXECUTIVE ORDER S-03-05
Executive Order S-03-05, signed June 1, 2005. Executive Order S-03-05 set the following GHG reduction
targets for the State:
2000 levels by 2010
1990 levels by 2020
80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050
2.1.2.2 ASSEMBLY BILL 32, THE GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT
State of California guidance and targets for reductions in GHG emissions are generally embodied in the
Global Warming Solutions Act, adopted with passage of AB 32. AB 32 was passed by the California state
legislature on August 31, 2006, to place the state on a course toward reducing its contribution of GHG
emissions. AB 32 follows the 2020 emissions reduction goal established in Executive Order S-03-05.
CARB 2008 Scoping Plan
The first Scoping Plan was adopted by CARB on December 11, 2008. The 2008 Scoping Plan identified that
GHG emissions in California are anticipated to be 596 MMTCO2e in 2020. In December 2007, CARB
approved a 2020 emissions limit of 427 MMTCO2e (471 million tons) for the state (CARB 2008). To
effectively implement the emissions cap, AB 32 directed CARB to establish a mandatory reporting system to
track and monitor GHG emissions levels for large stationary sources that generate more than 25,000
MTCO2e per year, prepare a plan demonstrating how the 2020 deadline can be met, and develop appropriate
regulations and programs to implement the plan by 2012.
First Update to the Scoping Plan
CARB completed a five-year update to the 2008 Scoping Plan, as required by AB 32. The First Update to the
Scoping Plan, adopted May 22, 2014, highlights California’s progress toward meeting the near-term 2020
GHG emission reduction goals defined in the 2008 Scoping Plan. As part of the update, CARB recalculated
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 29
the 1990 GHG emission levels with the updated AR4 GWPs, and the 427 MMTCO2e 1990 emissions level
and 2020 GHG emissions limit, established in response to AB 32, are slightly higher at 431 MMTCO2e. 55
As identified in the Update to the Scoping Plan, California is on track to meet the goals of AB 32. The
update also addresses the state’s longer-term GHG goals in a post-2020 element. The post-2020 element
provides a high-level view of a long-term strategy for meeting the 2050 GHG goal, including a
recommendation for the state to adopt a midterm target. According to the Update to the Scoping Plan, local
government reduction targets should chart a reduction trajectory that is consistent with or exceeds the
trajectory created by statewide goals.56 CARB identified that reducing emissions to 80 percent below 1990
levels will require a fundamental shift to efficient, clean energy in every sector of the economy. Progressing
toward California’s 2050 climate targets will require significant acceleration of GHG reduction rates.
Emissions from 2020 to 2050 will have to decline several times faster than the rate needed to reach the 2020
emissions limit. 57
2.1.2.3 EXECUTIVE ORDER B-30-15
Executive Order B-30-15, signed April 29, 2015, sets a goal of reducing GHG emissions in the state to 40
percent below 1990 levels by year 2030. Executive Order B-30-15 also directs CARB to update the Scoping
Plan to quantify the 2030 GHG reduction goal for the state and requires state agencies to implement
measures to meet the interim 2030 goal as well as the long-term goal for 2050 in Executive Order S-03-05. It
also requires the Natural Resources Agency to conduct triennial updates of the California adaption strategy,
Safeguarding California, in order to ensure climate change is accounted for in state planning and investment
decisions.
2.1.2.4 SENATE BILL 32 AND ASSEMBLY BILL 197
In September 2016, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 197, making the Executive
Order goal for year 2030 into a statewide, mandated legislative target. AB 197 established a joint legislative
committee on climate change policies and requires the CARB to prioritize direction emissions reductions
rather than the market-based cap-and-trade program for large stationary, mobile, and other sources.
2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update
Executive Order B-30-15 and SB 32 required CARB to prepare another update to the Scoping Plan to
address the 2030 target for the state. On December 24, 2017, CARB approved the 2017 Climate Change
Scoping Plan Update, which outlines potential regulations and programs, including strategies consistent with
55 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2014, May 15. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the
Framework, Pursuant to AB 32, The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/updatedscopingplan2013.htm.
56 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2014, May 15. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the
Framework, Pursuant to AB 32, The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm.
57 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2014, May 15. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the
Framework, Pursuant to AB 32, The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/updatedscopingplan2013.htm.
Page 30 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data
AB 197 requirements, to achieve the 2030 target. The 2017 Scoping Plan establishes a new emissions limit of
260 MMTCO2e for the year 2030, which corresponds to a 40 percent decrease in 1990 levels by 2030.58
California’s climate strategy will require contributions from all sectors of the economy, including enhanced
focus on zero- and near-zero emission vehicle technologies; continued investment in renewables such as solar
roofs, wind, and other types of distributed generation; greater use of low carbon fuels; integrated land
conservation and development strategies; coordinated efforts to reduce emissions of short-lived climate
pollutants (methane, black carbon, and fluorinated gases); and an increased focus on integrated land use
planning to support livable, transit-connected communities and conserve agricultural and other lands.
Requirements for GHG reductions at stationary sources complement local air pollution control efforts by the
local air districts to tighten emissions limits for criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants on a broad
spectrum of industrial sources. Major elements of the 2017 Scoping Plan framework include:
Implementing and/or increasing the standards of the Mobile Source Strategy, which include increasing
zero-emission (ZE) buses and trucks.
Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), with an increased stringency (18 percent by 2030).
Implementation of SB 350, which expands the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) to 50 percent RPS
and doubles energy efficiency savings by 2030.
California Sustainable Freight Action Plan, which improves freight system efficiency by 25 percent by
2030 and utilizes near-zero emissions technology and deployment of ZE trucks.
Implementing the proposed Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy, which focuses on reducing methane
and hydrofluorocarbon emissions by 40 percent and anthropogenic black carbon emissions by 50 percent
by year 2030.
Post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program that includes declining caps.
Continued implementation of SB 375.
Development of a Natural and Working Lands Action Plan to secure California’s land base as a net
carbon sink.
In addition to these statewide strategies, the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan also identified local
governments as essential partners in achieving the state’s long-term GHG reduction goals and recommended
local actions to reduce GHG emissions—for example, statewide targets of no more than 6 MTCO2e or less
per capita by 2030 and 2 MTCO2e or less per capita by 2050. CARB recommends that local governments
evaluate and adopt quantitative, locally appropriate goals that align with the statewide per capita targets and
sustainable development objectives and develop plans to achieve the local goals. The statewide per capita
goals were developed by applying the percent reductions necessary to reach the 2030 and 2050 climate goals
(i.e., 40 percent and 80 percent, respectively) to the state’s 1990 emissions limit established under AB 32. For
CEQA projects, CARB states that lead agencies have discretion to develop evidenced-based numeric
thresholds (mass emissions, per capita, or per service population) consistent with the Scoping Plan and the
state’s long-term GHG goals. To the degree a project relies on GHG mitigation measures, CARB
recommends that lead agencies prioritize on-site design features that reduce emissions, especially from vehicle
miles traveled (VMT), and direct investments in GHG reductions within the project’s region that contribute
potential air quality, health, and economic co-benefits. Where further project design or regional investments
58 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017, November. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for
Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 31
are infeasible or not proven to be effective, CARB recommends mitigating potential GHG impacts through
purchasing and retiring carbon credits.
The Scoping Plan scenario is set against what is called the “business as usual” yardstick—that is, what would
the GHG emissions look like if the state did nothing at all beyond the policies that are already required and in
place to achieve the 2020 limit, as shown in Table 7. It includes the existing renewables requirements,
advanced clean cars, the “10 percent” LCFS, and the SB 375 program for more vibrant communities, among
others. However, it does not include a range of new policies or measures that have been developed or put
into statute over the past two years. Also shown in the table, the known commitments are expected to result
in emissions that are 60 MMTCO2e above the target in 2030. If the estimated GHG reductions from the
known commitments are not realized due to delays in implementation or technology deployment, the post-
2020 Cap-and-Trade Program would deliver the additional GHG reductions in the sectors it covers to ensure
the 2030 target is achieved.
Table 7 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Emissions Reductions Gap
Modeling Scenario
2030 GHG Emissions
MMTCO2e
Reference Scenario
(Business-as-Usual) 389
With Known Commitments 320
2030 GHG Target 260
Gap to 2030 Target with Known Commitments 60
Source: California Air Resources Board. 2017, November. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas
Target. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf.
Table 8 provides estimated GHG emissions by sector compared to 1990 levels, and the range of GHG
emissions for each sector estimated for 2030.
Table 8 2017 Scoping Plan Emissions Changes by Sector to Achieve the 2030 Target
Scoping Plan Sector
1990
MMTCO2e
2030 Proposed Plan Ranges
MMTCO2e % Change from 1990
Agricultural 26 24-25 -8% to -4%
Residential and Commercial 44 38-40 -14% to -9%
Electric Power 108 30-53 -72% to -51%
High GWP 3 8-11 267% to 367%
Industrial 98 83-90 -15% to -8%
Recycling and Waste 7 8-9 14% to 29%
Transportation (including TCU) 152 103-111 -32% to -27%
Net Sinka -7 TBD TBD
Sub Total 431 294-339 -32% to -21%
Cap-and-Trade Program NA 24-79 NA
Total 431 260 -40%
Source: California Air Resources Board. 2017, November. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas
Target. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf.
Notes: TCU = Transportation, Communications, and Utilities; TBD: To Be Determined.
a Work is underway through 2017 to estimate the range of potential sequestration benefits from the natural and working lands sector.
Page 32 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data
2.1.2.5 SENATE BILL 375 – SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY
In 2008, SB 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, was adopted to connect the GHG
emissions reductions targets established in the 2008 Scoping Plan for the transportation sector to local land
use decisions that affect travel behavior. Its intent is to reduce GHG emissions from light-duty trucks and
automobiles (excludes emissions associated with goods movement) by aligning regional long-range
transportation plans, investments, and housing allocations to local land use planning to reduce VMT and
vehicle trips. Specifically, SB 375 required CARB to establish GHG emissions reduction targets for each of
the 18 metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is
the MPO for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area region. MTC’s targets are a 7 percent per capita
reduction in GHG emissions from 2005 by 2020, and 15 percent per capita reduction from 2005 levels by
2035.59
2017 Update to the SB 375 Targets
CARB is required to update the targets for the MPOs every eight years. In June 2017, CARB released updated
targets and technical methodology and recently released another update in February 2018. The updated
targets consider the need to further reduce VMT, as identified in the 2017 Scoping Plan Update, while
balancing the need for additional and more flexible revenue sources to incentivize positive planning and
action toward sustainable communities. Like the 2010 targets, the updated SB 375 targets are in units of
percent per capita reduction in GHG emissions from automobiles and light trucks relative to 2005. This
excludes reductions anticipated from implementation of state technology and fuels strategies and any
potential future state strategies such as statewide road user pricing. The proposed targets call for greater per
capita GHG emission reductions from SB 375 than are currently in place, which for 2035, translate into
proposed targets that either match or exceed the emission reduction levels in the MPOs’ currently adopted
sustainable communities strategies (SCS). As proposed, CARB staff’s proposed targets would result in an
additional reduction of over 8 MMTCO2e in 2035 compared to the current targets. For the next round of
SCS updates, CARB’s updated targets for the SCAG region are an 8 percent per capita GHG reduction in
2020 from 2005 levels (unchanged from the 2010 target) and a 19 percent per capita GHG reduction in 2035
from 2005 levels (compared to the 2010 target of 13 percent).60 CARB adopted the updated targets and
methodology on March 22, 2018. All SCSs adopted after October 1, 2018, are subject to these new targets.
2.1.2.6 OTHER APPLICABLE MEASURES
Transportation
Assembly Bill 1493
California vehicle GHG emission standards were enacted under AB 1493 (Pavley I). Pavley I is a clean-car
standard that reduces GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles (light-duty auto to medium-duty vehicles)
from 2009 through 2016 and is anticipated to reduce GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles by
30 percent in 2016. California implements the Pavley I standards through a waiver granted to California by
59 California Air Resources Board. 2010. Staff Report, Proposed Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets for
Automobiles and Light Trucks Pursuant to Senate Bill 375, August.
60 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2018, February. Proposed Update to the SB 375 Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction
Targets. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 33
the EPA. In 2012, the EPA issued a Final Rulemaking that sets even more stringent fuel economy and GHG
emissions standards for model years 2017 through 2025 light-duty vehicles (see also the discussion on the
update to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards under Federal Laws, above). In January 2012, CARB
approved the Advanced Clean Cars program (formerly known as Pavley II) for model years 2017 through
2025. The program combines the control of smog, soot, and global warming gases with requirements for
greater numbers of ZE vehicles into a single package of standards. Under California’s Advanced Clean Car
program, by 2025 new automobiles will emit 34 percent less global warming gases and 75 percent less smog-
forming emissions.
Executive Order S-1-07
On January 18, 2007, the state set a new LCFS for transportation fuels sold in the state. Executive
Order S-01-07 sets a declining standard for GHG emissions measured in CO2e gram per unit of fuel energy
sold in California. The LCFS requires a reduction of 2.5 percent in the carbon intensity of California’s
transportation fuels by 2015 and a reduction of at least 10 percent by 2020. The standard applies to refiners,
blenders, producers, and importers of transportation fuels, and would use market-based mechanisms to allow
these providers to choose how they reduce emissions during the “fuel cycle” using the most economically
feasible methods.
Executive Order B-16-2012
On March 23, 2012, the state identified that CARB, the California Energy Commission (CEC), the Public
Utilities Commission, and other relevant agencies worked with the Plug-in Electric Vehicle Collaborative and
the California Fuel Cell Partnership to establish benchmarks to accommodate ZE vehicles in major
metropolitan areas, including infrastructure to support them (e.g., electric vehicle charging stations). The
executive order also directed the number of ZE vehicles in California’s state vehicle fleet to increase through
the normal course of fleet replacement so that at least 10 percent of fleet purchases of light-duty vehicles are
ZE by 2015 and at least 25 percent by 2020. The executive order also establishes a target for the
transportation sector of reducing GHG emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels.
Renewables Portfolio Standard
Senate Bills 1078, 107, X1-2, and Executive Order S-14-08
A major component of California’s Renewable Energy Program is the renewables portfolio standard
established under Senate Bills 1078 (Sher) and 107 (Simitian). Under the RPS, certain retail sellers of
electricity were required to increase the amount of renewable energy each year by at least 1 percent in order
to reach at least 20 percent by December 30, 2010. Executive Order S-14-08, signed in November 2008,
expanded the state’s renewable energy standard to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. This standard was
adopted by the legislature in 2011 (SB X1-2). Renewable sources of electricity include wind, small
hydropower, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biogas. The increase in renewable sources for electricity
production will decrease indirect GHG emissions from development projects because electricity production
from renewable sources is generally considered carbon neutral.
Page 34 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data
Senate Bill 350
Senate Bill 350 (de Leon), was signed into law September 2015. SB 350 establishes tiered increases to the RPS
of 40 percent by 2024, 45 percent by 2027, and 50 percent by 2030. SB 350 also set a new goal to double the
energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas through energy efficiency and conservation measures.
Senate Bill 100
On September 10, 2018, Governor Brown signed SB 100. Under SB 100, the RPS for public-owned facilities
and retail sellers consist of 44 percent renewable energy by 2024, 52 percent by 2027, and 60 percent by 2030.
Additionally, SB 100 also established a new RPS requirement of 50 percent by 2026. Furthermore, the bill
establishes an overall state policy that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply
100 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 100 percent of electricity
procured to serve all state agencies by December 31, 2045. Under the bill, the state cannot increase carbon
emissions elsewhere in the western grid or allow resource shuffling to achieve the 100 percent carbon-free
electricity target.
Executive Order B-55-18
Executive Order B-55-18, signed September 10, 2018, sets a goal “to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as
possible, and no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter.” Executive
Order B-55-18 directs CARB to work with relevant state agencies to ensure future Scoping Plans identify and
recommend measures to achieve the carbon neutrality goal. The goal of carbon neutrality by 2045 is in
addition to other statewide goals, meaning not only should emissions be reduced to 80 percent below 1990
levels by 2050, but that, by no later than 2045, the remaining emissions be offset by equivalent net removals
of CO2e from the atmosphere, including through sequestration in forests, soils, and other natural landscapes.
Energy Efficiency
California Building Standards Code – Building Energy Efficiency Standards
Energy conservation standards for new residential and non-residential buildings were adopted by the
California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (now the CEC) in June 1977 and
most recently revised in 2019 (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Title 24
requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy. The standards are
updated periodically to allow for consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency
technologies and methods. The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which were adopted on May 9,
2018, went into effect on January 1, 2020.
The 2019 standards move towards cutting energy use in new homes by more than 50 percent and will require
installation of solar photovoltaic systems for single-family homes and multi-family buildings of 3 stories and
less. Four key areas the 2019 standards will focus on include 1) smart residential photovoltaic systems; 2)
updated thermal envelope standards (preventing heat transfer from the interior to exterior and vice versa); 3)
residential and nonresidential ventilation requirements; 4) and nonresidential lighting requirements.61 Under
61 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2018. News Release: Energy Commission Adopts Standards Requiring Solar Systems for
New Homes, First in Nation. http://www.energy.ca.gov/releases/2018_releases/2018-05-
09_building_standards_adopted_nr.html.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 35
the 2019 standards, nonresidential buildings and multi-family residential buildings of four stories or more will
be 30 percent more energy efficient compared to the 2016 standards while single-family homes will be 7
percent more energy efficient.62 When accounting for the electricity generated by the solar photovoltaic
system, single-family homes would use 53 percent less energy compared to homes built to the 2016
standards.63
California Green Building Standards Code – CALGreen
On July 17, 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building
standards. The California Green Building Standards Code (24 CCR, Part 11, known as “CALGreen”) was
adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code. CALGreen established planning and design
standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code
requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants.64 The mandatory
provisions of CALGreen became effective January 1, 2011. The CEC adopted the voluntary standards of the
2019 CALGreen on October 3, 2018. The 2019 CALGreen standards became effective January 1, 2020.
2006 Appliance Energy Efficiency Regulations
The 2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations (20 CCR §§ 1601–1608) were adopted by the CEC on
October 11, 2006 and approved by the California Office of Administrative Law on December 14, 2006. The
regulations include standards for both federally regulated appliances and non–federally regulated appliances.
Though these regulations are now often viewed as “business as usual,” they exceed the standards imposed by
all other states, and they reduce GHG emissions by reducing energy demand.
Solid Waste
AB 939
California’s Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939, Public Resources Code §§ 40050 et seq.) set
a requirement for cities and counties throughout the state to divert 50 percent of all solid waste from landfills
by January 1, 2000, through source reduction, recycling, and composting. In 2008, the requirements were
modified to reflect a per capita requirement rather than tonnage. To help achieve this, the act requires that
each city and county prepare and submit a source reduction and recycling element. AB 939 also established
the goal for all California counties to provide at least 15 years of ongoing landfill capacity.
AB 341
AB 341 (Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011) increased the statewide goal for waste diversion to 75 percent by
2020 and requires recycling of waste from commercial and multifamily residential land uses. Section 5.208 of
CALGreen also requires that at least 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste
from nonresidential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse.
62 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2018. 2019 Building Energy and Efficiency Standards Frequently Asked Questions.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/documents/2018_Title_24_2019_Building_Standards_FAQ.pdf.
63 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2018. 2019 Building Energy and Efficiency Standards Frequently Asked Questions.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/documents/2018_Title_24_2019_Building_Standards_FAQ.pdf.
64 The green building standards became mandatory in the 2010 edition of the code.
Page 36 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data
AB 1327
The California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act (AB 1327, Public Resources Code §§ 42900 et
seq.) requires areas to be set aside for collecting and loading recyclable materials in development projects. The
act required the California Integrated Waste Management Board to develop a model ordinance for adoption
by any local agency requiring adequate areas for collection and loading of recyclable materials as part of
development projects. Local agencies are required to adopt the model or an ordinance of their own.
AB 1826
In October of 2014, Governor Brown signed AB 1826 requiring businesses to recycle their organic waste on
and after April 1, 2016, depending on the amount of waste they generate per week. This law also requires that
on and after January 1, 2016, local jurisdictions across the state implement an organic waste recycling
program to divert organic waste generated by businesses and multifamily residential dwellings with five or
more units. Organic waste means food waste, green waste, landscape and pruning waste, nonhazardous wood
waste, and food-soiled paper waste that is mixed with food waste.
Water Efficiency
SBX7-7
The 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan was issued by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) in 2010
pursuant to Senate Bill 7, which was adopted during the 7th Extraordinary Session of 2009–2010 and
therefore dubbed “SBX7-7.” SBX7-7 mandated urban water conservation and authorized the DWR to
prepare a plan implementing urban water conservation requirements (20x2020 Water Conservation Plan). In
addition, it required agricultural water providers to prepare agricultural water management plans, measure
water deliveries to customers, and implement other efficiency measures. SBX7-7 requires urban water
providers to adopt a water conservation target of 20 percent reduction in urban per capita water use by 2020
compared to 2005 baseline use.
AB 1881
The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881) requires local agencies to adopt the updated
DWR model ordinance or equivalent. AB 1881 also requires the Energy Commission, in consultation with
the department, to adopt, by regulation, performance standards and labeling requirements for landscape
irrigation equipment, including irrigation controllers, moisture sensors, emission devices, and valves to reduce
the wasteful, uneconomic, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy or water.
Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy
Senate Bill 1383
On September 19, 2016, the Governor signed SB 1383 to supplement the GHG reduction strategies in the
Scoping Plan to consider short-lived climate pollutants, including black carbon and CH4. Black carbon is the
light-absorbing component of fine particulate matter produced during incomplete combustion of fuels. SB
1383 required the state board, no later than Januar y 1, 2018, to approve and begin implementing a
comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants to achieve a reduction in
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 37
methane by 40 percent, hydrofluorocarbon gases by 40 percent, and anthropogenic black carbon by 50
percent below 2013 levels by 2030. The bill also established targets for reducing organic waste in landfills. On
March 14, 2017, CARB adopted the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, which identifies the
state’s approach to reducing anthropogenic and biogenic sources of short-lived climate pollutants.
Anthropogenic sources of black carbon include on- and off-road transportation, residential wood burning,
fuel combustion (charbroiling), and industrial processes. According to CARB, ambient levels of black carbon
in California are 90 percent lower than in the early 1960s, despite the tripling of diesel fuel use.65 In-use on-
road rules are expected to reduce black carbon emissions from on-road sources by 80 percent between 2000
and 2020.
2.1.3 Regional Regulations
Plan Bay Area, Strategy for a Sustainable Region
Plan Bay Area 2040 is the Bay Area’s RTP/SCS and was adopted jointly by ABAG and MTC on July 26, 2017.
It lays out a development scenario for the region, which, when integrated with the transportation network and
other transportation measures and policies, would reduce GHG emissions from transportation (excluding
goods movement) beyond the per capita reduction targets identified by CARB. Plan Bay Area 2040 is a
limited and focused update to the 2013 Plan Bay Area, with updated planning assumptions that incorporate
key economic, demographic, and financial trends from the last several years.
As part of the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area, local governments have identified Priority
Development Areas (PDAs) to focus growth. PDAs are transit-oriented, infill development opportunity areas
in existing communities. Overall, well over two-thirds of all regional growth in the Bay Area by 2040 is
allocated in PDAs. Per the Final Plan Bay Area 2040, while the projected number of new housing units and
new jobs within PDAs would increase to 629,000 units and 707,000 jobs compared to the adopted Plan Bay
Area 2013, its overall share would be reduced to 77 percent and 55 percent.66 However, Plan Bay Area 2040
remains on track to meet a 16 percent per capita reduction of GHG emissions by 2035 and a 10 percent per
capita reduction by 2020 from 2005 conditions.67 The proposed project site is not within a PDA.68
Bay Area Clean Air Plan
BAAQMD adopted the 2017 Clean Air Plan, Spare the Air, Cool the Climate on April 19, 2017. The 2017
Clean Air Plan also lays the groundwork for reducing GHG emissions in the Bay Area to meet the state’s
2030 GHG reduction target and 2050 GHG reduction goal. It also includes a vision for the Bay Area in a
post-carbon year 2050 that encompasses the following:
Construct buildings that are energy efficient and powered by renewable energy.
65 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017, March 14. Final Proposed Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/shortlived/shortlived.htm.
66 Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2017, March. Plan Bay
Area 2040 Plan.
67 Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2017, March. Plan Bay
Area 2040 Plan.
68 Associated Bay Area Governments (ABAG). July 2015. Priority Development Area Showcase,
http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/PDAShowcase/.
Page 38 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data
Walk, bicycle, and use public transit for the majority of trips and use electric-powered autonomous public
transit fleets.
Incubate and produce clean energy technologies.
Live a low-carbon lifestyle by purchasing low-carbon foods and goods in addition to recycling and
putting organic waste to productive use.69
A comprehensive multipollutant control strategy has been developed to be implemented in the next 3 to 5
years to address public health and climate change and to set a pathway to achieve the 2050 vision. The control
strategy includes 85 control measures to reduce emissions of ozone, particulate matter, toxic air
contaminants, and GHG from a full range of emission sources. These control measures cover the following
sectors: 1) stationary (industrial) sources; 2) transportation; 3) energy; 4) agriculture; 5) natural and working
lands; 6) waste management; 7) water; and 8) super-GHG pollutants. Overall, the proposed control strategy is
based on the following key priorities:
Reduce emissions of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants from all key sources.
Reduce emissions of “super-GHGs” such as methane, black carbon, and fluorinated gases.
Decrease demand for fossil fuels (gasoline, diesel, and natural gas).
Increase efficiency of the energy and transportation systems.
Reduce demand for vehicle travel, and high-carbon goods and services.
Decarbonize the energy system.
Make the electricity supply carbon-free.
Electrify the transportation and building sectors.
Bay Area Commuter Benefits Program
Under Air District Regulation 14, Model Source Emissions Reduction Measures, Rule 1, Bay Area Commuter
Benefits Program, employers with 50 or more full-time employees within the BAAQMD are required to
register and offer commuter benefits to employees. In partnership with the BAAQMD and the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC), the rule’s purpose is to improve air quality, reduce GHG emissions, and
decrease the Bay Area’s traffic congestion by encouraging employees to use alternative commute modes, such
as transit, vanpool, carpool, bicycling, and walking. The benefits program allows employees to choose from
one of four commuter benefit options including a pre-tax benefit, employer-provided subsidy, employer-
provided transit, and alternative commute benefit.
2.1.4 Local Regulations
2.1.4.1 CITY OF CUPERTINO CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
The City of Cupertino published the public draft Climate Action Plan (CAP) in December 2014 to achieve
the GHG reduction target of AB 32 for target year 2020. The CAP serves to support California’s statewide
climate change efforts through identification of actions that can be taken locally, by residents, businesses, and
69 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan, Spare the Air, Cool the Climate: A Blueprint for Clean
Air and Climate Protection in the Bay Area. http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/air-quality-plans/current-plans, accessed
November 21, 2019.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Page 39
the City itself, to ensure the State’s ambitious reduction goals can be achieved. The strategies outlined in the
CAP seek to not only reduce GHG emissions, but also provide energy, water, fuel, and cost savings for the
City.70 The goals established by the City’s CAP are the following:
Goal 1 – Reduce Energy Use: Increase energy efficiency in existing homes and buildings and increase
use of renewable energy community-wide.
Goal 2 – Encourage Alternative Transportation: Support transit, carpooling, walking, and bicycling as
viable transportation modes to decrease the number of single-occupancy vehicle trips within the
community.
Goal 3 – Conserve Water: Promote the efficient use and conservation of water in buildings and
landscapes.
Goal 4 – Reduce Solid Waste: Strengthen waste reduction efforts through recycling and organics
collection and reduced consumption of materials that otherwise end up in landfills.
Goal 5 – Expand Green Infrastructure: Enhance the City’s existing urban forest on public and
private lands.
2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.2.1 Existing Emissions
The project site is currently developed with one commercial building. The building operations currently
generate greenhouse emissions from transportation, area sources, energy use, water use/wastewater
generation, and solid waste disposal.
2.3 METHODOLOGY
The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines were prepared to assist in the evaluation of air quality impacts
of projects and plans proposed within the Bay Area. The guidelines provide recommended procedures for
evaluating potential GHG emissions impacts during the environmental review process, consistent with
CEQA requirements, and include recommended thresholds of significance, mitigation measures, and
background information.
2.3.1 BAAQMD Standards of Significance
BAAQMD has adopted CEQA Guidelines to evaluate GHG emissions impacts from development projects.71
Land use development projects include residential, commercial, industrial, and public land use facilities.
Direct sources of emissions may include on-site combustion of energy, such as natural gas used for heating
and cooking, emissions from industrial processes (not applicable for most land use development projects),
and fuel combustion from mobile sources. Indirect emissions are emissions produced off-site from energy
70 City of Cupertino, 2015. Climate Action Plan. January, 2015. http://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=13531
71 Bay Area Air Quality Management Agency, 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en, accessed April 9,
2020.
Page 40 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data
production, water conveyance due to a project’s energy use and water consumption, and nonbiogenic
emissions from waste disposal. Biogenic CO2 emissions are not included in the quantification of a project’s
GHG emissions, because biogenic CO2 is derived from living biomass (e.g., organic matter present in wood,
paper, vegetable oils, animal fat, food, animal, and yard waste) as opposed to fossil fuels. BAAQMD is
currently updating their CEQA Guidelines. Under the 2017 CEQA Guidelines, BAAQMD identified a tiered
approach for assessing GHG emissions impacts of a project:
Consistency with a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy. If a project is within the
jurisdiction of an agency that has a “qualified” GHG reduction strategy, the project can assess
consistency of its GHG emissions impacts with the reduction strategy.
BAAQMD Screening Level Sizes. BAAQMD has adopted screening criteria for development projects
that would be applicable for the proposed project based on the square footage, units, acreage, students,
and/or employees generated by a project. Typical projects that meet the screening criteria do not generate
emissions greater than 1,100 MTCO2e and would not generate significant GHG emissions.
Brightline Screening Threshold. BAAQMD adopted screening criteria for development projects of
1,100 MTCO2e per year that would be applicable for the proposed project. If a project exceeds the
BAAQMD Guidelines’ GHG screening-level sizes or screening criteria of 1,100 MTCO2e.
Efficiency Threshold. AB 32 requires the statewide GHG emission to be reduced to 1990 levels by
2020. On a per-capita basis, that means reducing the annual emissions of 14 tons of carbon dioxide for
every person in California down to about 10 tons per person by 2020.72 Hence, BAAQMD’s per capita
significance threshold is calculated based on the State’s land use sector emissions inventory prepared by
CARB and the demographic forecasts for the 2008 Scoping Plan. The land use sector GHG emissions
for 1990 were estimated by BAAQMD, as identified in Appendix D of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines,
to be 295.53 MMTCO2e and the 2020 California service population (SP) to be 64.3 million. Therefore,
the threshold that would ensure consistency with the GHG reduction goals of AB 32 is estimated at 4.6
MTCO2e per service population per year (MTCO2e/SP/yr) for year 2020.73
Because the proposed project would have a post-year 2020 opening year (year 2021), an interpolated
brightline threshold between the 2020 brightline threshold and the GHG target of SB 32 is utilized. Based on
the adopted 1,100 MTCO2e per year brightline screening threshold, and the GHG reduction target for year
2030 established under SB 32 (i.e., 40 percent 1990 levels by 2030), the interpolated brightline screening
threshold of 660 MTCO2e per year is utilized for the proposed project. If project emissions are below this
brightline screening threshold, GHG emissions impacts would be considered less than significant.
72 California Air Resources Board, 2008. Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan, a Framework for Change.
73 Bay Area Air Quality Management Agency, 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en, accessed April 9,
2020.
Emissions Worksheet
Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Summary - Construction
tons/yr ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Total Unmitigated 0.18 0.91 0.98 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.01 0.04 0.05
Total Mitigated 0.11 0.65 1.06 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.01
UNMITIGATED
tons/yr ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Total Onsite 0.17 0.87 0.94 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.06 0.00 0.04 0.05
Total Offsite 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
check 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FOR CONSTRUCTION RISK ASSESSMENT - Unmitigated Run
tons/yr ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
2022 Onsite 0.17 0.87 0.94 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.06 0.00 0.04 0.05
2022 Offsite 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
FOR CONSTRUCTION REGIONAL EMISSIONS - Unmitigated Run
tons/yr ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Total 2022 0.18 0.91 0.98 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.01 0.04 0.05
Construction Total 0.18 0.91 0.98 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.01 0.04 0.05
Check 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
MITIGATED
tons/yr ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Total Onsite 0.11 0.61 1.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01
Total Offsite 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
check 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FOR CONSTRUCTION RISK ASSESSMENT - Mitigated Run
tons/yr ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
2022 Onsite 0.11 0.61 1.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01
2022 Offsite 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
FOR CONSTRUCTION REGIONAL EMISSIONS - Mitigated Run
tons/yr ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Total 2022 0.11 0.65 1.06 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.01
Construction Total 0.11 0.65 1.06 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.01
Check 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.2 Demolition- 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Off-Road 0.02 0.15 0.13 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Total 0.02 0.15 0.13 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Off-Road 0.00 0.08 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.08 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.3 Demolition Haul- 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Off-Road 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Off-Road 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.4 Site Preparation - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Off-Road 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Off-Road 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.5 Grading - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
Off-Road 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
Off-Road 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.6 Grading Soil Haul - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Off-Road 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Hauling 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Off-Road 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Hauling 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.7 Building Construction - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Off-Road 0.07 0.63 0.73 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
Total 0.07 0.63 0.73 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Vendor 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Off-Road 0.02 0.47 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.02 0.47 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Vendor 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.8 Paving - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Off-Road 0.00 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Off-Road 0.00 0.04 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.04 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.8 Architectural Coating- 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Architectural Coating 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Off Road 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.08 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Architectural Coating 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Off Road 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.08 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Category tons/yr
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Summary - Construction Unmitigated
Total Construction
Days 2022
Calendar
Days
218 218 306
Unmigated Run - with Best Control Measures for Fugitive Dust
average
lbs/day ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Total 28900.22 0.42 1 0.07 0.40 0
BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 NA NA BMP 82 54 BMP 54 NA
Exceeds Threshold No No NA NA NA No No NA No NA
avg lbs/day ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
TOTAL 2022 2 8 900.22 0.42 1 0.07 0.40 0
0
avg lbs/day ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Total Onsite 1.57 8.01 8.63 0.01 0.10 0.42 0.52 0.03 0.40 0.43
Total Offsite 0.05 0.37 0.37 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.03 0.00 0.03
00 00 00
FOR CONSTRUCTION RISK ASSESSMENT
Onsite Details
avg lbs/day ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
2022 Onsite 1.57 8.01 8.63 0.01 0.10 0.42 0.52 0.03 0.40 0.43
0000000000
Offsite Details
avg lbs/day ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
2022 Offsite 0.05 0.37 0.37 0.00 0.12 0.0014 0.12 0.03 0.0014 0.03
0000000000
Annual emissions divided by total construction duration to obtain average daily emissions. Average construction emissions accounts for the duration of each
construction phase and the time each piece of construction equipment is onsite.
Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Summary - Construction Mitigated
Total Construction
Days 2022
Calendar
Days
218 218 306
Mitigated- Tier 4 Emission Standards for Equipment >25 HP
average
lbs/day ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Total 1610 0 000 000
BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 NA NA BMP 82 54 BMP 54 NA
Exceeds Threshold No No NA NA NA No No NA No NA
avg lbs/day ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
TOTAL 2022 1 6 10 0 0.22 0.04 0 0.07 0.04 0
check 16100000000
avg lbs/day ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Total Onsite 0.97 5.58 9.34 0.01 0.10 0.03 0.14 0.03 0.03 0.07
Total Offsite 0.05 0.37 0.37 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.03 0.00 0.03
check 0 0 00000 000
FOR CONSTRUCTION RISK ASSESSMENT
Onsite Details
avg lbs/day ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
2022 Onsite 0.97 5.58 9.34 0.01 0.10 0.0349 0.14 0.03 0.0349 0.07
check 0.00 9.34 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.92
Offsite Details
avg lbs/day ROG NOx CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
2022 Offsite 0.05 0.37 0.37 0.00 0.12 0.0014 0.12 0.03 0.0014 0.03
Check 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual emissions divided by total construction duration to obtain average daily emissions. Average construction emissions accounts for the duration of each
construction phase and the time each piece of construction equipment is onsite.
GHG Emissions Inventory
Construction
MTCO2e Total Project*
2022 172
Total Construction 172
30-Yr Amortized Construction Emissions 6
BAAQMD Bright-Line Screening Threshold 660 MTCO2e/Year
Exceed Threshold? No
*CalEEMod, Version 2016.3.2.25
*CalEEMod, Version 2016.3.2.25
** MTCO2e=metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.
*** Total construction emissions are amortized over 30 years per BAAQMD methodology; International Energy Agency, 2008, Energy Efficiency Requirements in Building Codes, Energy Efficiency Policies
for New Buildings, March.
Assumptions Worksheet
CalEEMod Inputs - 22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard Residential Project, Construction
Name:22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard Residential Project
Project Number: COCU-18
Project Location:22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard, northern and eastern perimeter of Stevens Creek Boulevard and South Foothill Boulevard
County:Santa Clara
Climate Zone:4
Land Use Setting:Urban
Operational Year:2022
Utility Company:PGE
Air Basin:San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB)
Air District:Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
Proiect Site Acreage 0.68
Disturbed Site Acreage 0.68
Project Components Tons
Demolition
Existing Building 111
Asphalt Demo 234
New Construction
Number of Units Total SQFT Acres Stories Building Footprint
Attached Townhomes 9 26,172 0.00 3 8,724
TOTAL BUILDING 26,172 0.000
Parking Lot 1,279 0.03
Total Other Asphalt Surfaces 6,215 0.14
Total Hardscape 2,024 0.05
Total Landscape 10,608 0.24
Open Space 3,840 0.09
Additional Area- Landscaping 5,655 0.13
0.68
CalEEMod Land Use Inputs
Land Use Type Land Use Subtype Unit Amount Size Metric Lot Acreage Land Use Square Feet
Residential Housing Condo/Townhouse 9 DU 0.00 26,172
Parking Parking Lot 1.279 1000 sqft 0.03 1,279
Parking Other Asphalt Surfaces 6.215 1000 sqft 0.14 6,215
Parking Other Non-asphalt Surfaces 22.127 1000. sqft 0.51 22,127
0.68
Demolition
Component
Amount to be Demolished
(Tons)
Haul Truck Capacity
(tons) Haul Distance (miles) Total Trip Ends Trip Ends/ day Total Days
Building 111 20 20 12 1 20
Asphalt 234 20 20 24 1 20
Total 344.4 36
Export Haul Travel Distance (1-Way):20
Soil Haul 1
Construction Activities Volume (CY) Haul Truck Capacity (cy) Haul Distance (miles)
No. of total one-way import
haul (trip ends) Duration (days)
No. of total one-way
haul (trip ends/day)*
Rough Grading (Export) 875 16 20 109 30 4
Architectural Coating
Percentage of Proposed Buildings' Interior
Painted:100%
Percentage of Proposed Buildings' Exterior
Painted:60%
Interior Paint VOC content:50 grams per liter
Exterior Paing VOC content:50 grams per liter
Residential Structures Land Use Square Feet CalEEMod Factor
2
Total Paintable Surface
Area Paintable Interior Area
1 Paintable Exterior Area1
Residential Housing 26,172 2.7 70,664 52,998 10,600
70,664 52,998 10,600
Parking Lot 7,494 6% 450 - 450
450 450
BAAQMD Construction BMPs
Replace Ground Cover PM10: 5 % Reduction
Replace Ground Cover PM2.5: 5 % Reduction
Water Exposed Area Frequency: 2 per day
PM10: 55 % Reduction
PM25: 55 % Reduction
Unpaved Roads Vehicle Speed: 15 mph
Clean Paved Road 9 % PM Reduction
SQFT
2,409.00
4,959.00
1CalEEMod methodology calculates the paintable interior and exterior areas by multiplying the total paintable surface area by 75 and 25 percent, respectively.
2 The program assumes the total surface for painting equals 2.7 times the floor square footage for residential and 2 times that for nonresidential square footage defined by the user. Architectural coatings for the parking lot is based on CalEEMod
methodology applied to a surface parking lot (i.e., striping), in which 6% of surface area is painted.
3 100% of the interior and exterior of buildings to be modernized will be painted
Construction Activities and Schedule Assumptions: 22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard Residential Project
Construction Activities Phase Type Start Date End Date
CalEEMod
Duration
(Workday)
Demolition Demolition 1/1/2022 1/14/2022 10
Demolition Debris Haul Demolition 1/1/2022 1/14/2022 10
Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/15/2022 1/17/2022 1
Grading Grading 1/17/2022 1/18/2022 2
Grading Soil Haul Grading 1/17/2022 1/18/2022 2
Building Construction Building Construction 1/19/2022 6/7/2022 100
Paving Paving 6/8/2022 6/14/2022 5
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 6/15/2022 6/21/2022 5
1/1/2022 6/21/2022 1/1/2022 11/1/2022
days of construction 171 days of construction 304
years of construction 0.47 years of construction 0.83
months of construction 5.62 months of construction 9.99
Normalization Factor: 1.78
Construction Activities Phase Type Start Date End Date
Normalized
Duration
(Workday)
Demolition Demolition 1/1/2022 1/26/2022 18
Demolition Debris Haul Demolition 1/1/2022 1/26/2022 18
Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/27/2022 1/30/2022 2
Grading Grading 1/31/2022 2/3/2022 4
Grading Grading 1/31/2022 2/3/2022 4
Building Construction Building Construction 2/4/2022 10/7/2022 176
Paving Paving 10/8/2022 10/20/2022 9
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 10/21/2022 11/2/2022 9
* based on info provided by applicant
Construction Schedule (model default)
CalEEMod Defaults
Normalized CalEEMod Defaults
Construction Schedule
CalEEMod Default Duration Construction Duration
Normalization Calculations
CalEEMod Construction Off-Road Equipment Inputs
*Based on data provided by applicant, CalEEMod default used for construction equipment
General Construction Hours: 8 hours btwn 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM (with 1 hr break), Mon-Fri
Construction Equipment Details
Equipment model # of Equipment hr/day hp load factor* total trips
Demolition
Concrete/Industrial Saw 1 8 81 0.73
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 247 0.4
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 3 8 97 0.37
Worker Trips 13
Vendor Trips 0
Hauling Trips 0
Water Trucks 2
Demolition Haul
Worker Trips 0
Vendor Trips 0
Hauling Trips 36
Site Preparation
Graders 1 8 187 0.41
Scrapers 1 8 367 0.4824
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1 7 97 0.37
Worker Trips 8
Vendor Trips 0
Hauling Trips 0
Water Trucks 2
Grading
Grader 1 8 187 0.4087
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 247 0.4
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2 7 97 0.37
Worker Trips 10
Vendor Trips 0
Hauling Trips 0
Water Trucks 2
Grading Soil Haul
Worker Trips 0
Vendor Trips 0
Hauling Trips 109
Building Construction
Crane*1 1 231 0.29
Forklifts 2 7 89 0.2
Generator Set 1 8 84 0.74
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1 6 97 0.37
Welders**3 1 46 0.45
Worker Trips 14
Vendor Trips 2
Hauling Trips 0
Paving
Cement/Mortar Mixers 1 8 9 0.56
Pavers 1 8 130 0.42
Paving Equipment 1 8 132 0.3551
Roller 2 8 80 0.38
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1 8 97 0.37
Worker Trips 15
Vendor Trips 0
Hauling Trips 0
Architectural Coating
Air Compressors 1 6 78 0.48
Worker Trips 3
Vendor Trips 0
Hauling Trips 0
no additional equipment needed for Demo Haul
no additional equipment needed for Demo Haul
* assumes that crane will only be used onsite for 4 weeks total. For the most conservative results, crane is assumed to operate 8 hours per day, 5 days per week for entire 4
weeks. Averaged hours of use over duration of building construction phase and rounded up to the nearest hour.
** Use of welders would be predominately used during the initial framing; and therefore, the hours of operation of the duration were reduced to 1 hour per day per welder to
reflect the average duration for the entire 10 month construction building phase
Demo Haul Trip Calculation
Conversion factors*
0.046 ton/SF
1.2641662 tons/cy
20 tons
15.82070459 CY
0.791035229 CY/ton
Building BSF Demo Tons/SF Tons Haul Truck (CY) Haul Truck (Ton) Round Trips Total Trip Ends
Combined Building Demo 2,409 0.046 110.814 16 20.00 6 11
*CalEEMod User's Guide Version 2016.3.2, Appendix A
CalEEMod Construction Model
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - building SF provided by applicant
Construction Phase - construction durations from applicant
Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment - based on info from applicant, see assumptions file for additional notes
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
641.35 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.029 N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006
58
Climate Zone 4 Operational Year 2022
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s)2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days)
Condo/Townhouse 9.00 Dwelling Unit 0.00 26,172.00 26
Parking Lot 1.28 1000sqft 0.03 1,279.00 0
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 22.13 1000sqft 0.51 22,127.00 0
Floor Surface Area Population
Other Asphalt Surfaces 6.21 1000sqft 0.14 6,215.00 0
1.0 Project Characteristics
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Page 1 of 1 Date: 3/5/2021 11:56 AM
22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard Residential Project - Santa Clara County, Annual
22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard Residential Project
Santa Clara County, Annual
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 2.00 15.00
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 3.00 4.50
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 5.00 9.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 1.00 2.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 2.00 4.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 2.00 4.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 18.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 18.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 5.00 9.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 100.00 176.00
tblConstDustMitigation CleanPavedRoadPercentReduction 0 9
tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Exterior 150.00 50.00
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Interior 100.00 50.00
tblArchitecturalCoating ConstArea_Parking 1,777.00 450.00
tblArchitecturalCoating ConstArea_Residential_Exterior 17,666.00 10,600.00
Trips and VMT - based on trips from applicant, assuming 2 vt/day/water truck
Demolition -
Grading -
Architectural Coating - based on applicant data: <50 g/L paints, 60% exterior coating, assuming striping of parking lot and internal circulation
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - BAAQMD BMPs
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
Off-road Equipment - based on info from applicant
Off-road Equipment - no additional equipment needed for Demo Haul
Off-road Equipment - based on info from applicant
Off-road Equipment - no additional equipment for soil haul
Off-road Equipment - based on info from applicant
Off-road Equipment - based on info from applicant
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 7.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 7.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 6.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 1.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 1.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 4.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 7.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 3.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 4.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 9,000.00 26,172.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.56 0.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 22,130.00 22,127.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 1,280.00 1,279.00
tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 875.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 6,210.00 6,215.00
0.0000 152.8585 152.8585 0.0271 0.0000 153.53530.0242 0.0460 0.0702 7.0800e-
003
0.0437 0.0508Maximum 0.1763 0.9126 0.9805 1.7500e-
003
0.0000 152.8585 152.8585 0.0271 0.0000 153.53530.0242 0.0460 0.0702 7.0800e-
003
0.0437 0.05082022 0.1763 0.9126 0.9805 1.7500e-
003
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 152.8587 152.8587 0.0271 0.0000 153.53550.0402 0.0460 0.0862 0.0121 0.0437 0.0558Maximum 0.1763 0.9126 0.9805 1.7500e-
003
0.0000 152.8587 152.8587 0.0271 0.0000 153.53550.0402 0.0460 0.0862 0.0121 0.0437 0.05582022 0.1763 0.9126 0.9805 1.7500e-
003
NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
2.0 Emissions Summary
2.1 Overall Construction
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 19.00 14.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 4.00 3.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 2.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 6.00 2.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 2.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 2.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 34.00 36.00
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 4.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 15
Acres of Paving: 0.68
Residential Indoor: 52,998; Residential Outdoor: 10,600; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area:
OffRoad Equipment
9g
8 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 10/21/2022 11/2/2022 5 9 h
7 Paving Paving 10/8/2022 10/20/2022 5
4e
6 Building Construction Building Construction 2/4/2022 10/7/2022 5 176 f
5 Grading Soil Haul Grading 1/31/2022 2/3/2022 5
2c
4 Grading Grading 1/31/2022 2/3/2022 5 4 d
3 Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/27/2022 1/30/2022 5
18 a
2 Demolition Haul Demolition 1/1/2022 1/26/2022 5 18 b
End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 1/1/2022 1/26/2022 5
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date
Highest 0.4168 0.4168
6 4-1-2022 6-30-2022 0.2655 0.2655
7 7-1-2022 9-30-2022 0.2684 0.2684
Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
5 1-1-2022 3-31-2022 0.4168 0.4168
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0039.82 0.00 18.58 41.49 0.00 9.00
NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8.00 9 0.56
Building Construction Welders 3 1.00 46 0.45
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Cranes 1 1.00 231 0.29
Grading Soil Haul Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 6.00 97 0.37
Grading Soil Haul Rubber Tired Dozers 0 1.00 247 0.40
Grading Soil Haul Concrete/Industrial Saws 0 8.00 81 0.73
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Concrete/Industrial Saws 0 8.00 81 0.73
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Scrapers 1 8.00 367 0.48
Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Demolition Haul Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 6.00 97 0.37
Demolition Haul Rubber Tired Dozers 0 1.00 247 0.40
Demolition Haul Concrete/Industrial Saws 0 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power
0.0000 18.9699 18.9699 4.8300e-
003
0.0000 19.09087.5400e-
003
7.5400e-
003
7.0500e-
003
7.0500e-
003
Total 0.0152 0.1496 0.1256 2.2000e-
004
0.0000 18.9699 18.9699 4.8300e-
003
0.0000 19.09087.5400e-
003
7.5400e-
003
7.0500e-
003
7.0500e-
003
Off-Road 0.0152 0.1496 0.1256 2.2000e-
004
CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Replace Ground Cover
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
Clean Paved Roads
3.2 Demolition - 2022
10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 3.00 0.00 0.00
Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80
10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 8 14.00 2.00 0.00
Grading Soil Haul 0 0.00 0.00 109.00 10.80
10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 4 10.00 2.00 0.00
Site Preparation 3 8.00 2.00 0.00 10.80
10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Demolition Haul 0 0.00 0.00 36.00
Demolition 5 13.00 2.00 0.00 10.80
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle
Class
Hauling
Vehicle
Class
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
0.0000 18.9699 18.9699 4.8300e-
003
0.0000 19.09087.5400e-
003
7.5400e-
003
7.0500e-
003
7.0500e-
003
Total 0.0152 0.1496 0.1256 2.2000e-
004
0.0000 18.9699 18.9699 4.8300e-
003
0.0000 19.09087.5400e-
003
7.5400e-
003
7.0500e-
003
7.0500e-
003
Off-Road 0.0152 0.1496 0.1256 2.2000e-
004
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 1.2020 1.2020 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.20291.0500e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0500e-
003
2.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.9000e-
004
Total 3.9000e-
004
1.9700e-
003
2.9200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.7403 0.7403 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.74069.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
9.3000e-
004
2.5000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.5000e-
004
Worker 3.4000e-
004
2.2000e-
004
2.4600e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.4618 0.4618 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.46231.2000e-
004
0.0000 1.2000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.0000e-
005
Vendor 5.0000e-
005
1.7500e-
003
4.6000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2ePM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00003.6800e-
003
0.0000 3.6800e-
003
5.6000e-
004
0.0000 5.6000e-
004
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00003.6800e-
003
0.0000 3.6800e-
003
5.6000e-
004
0.0000 5.6000e-
004
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
3.3 Demolition Haul - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 1.2020 1.2020 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.20299.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
9.7000e-
004
2.6000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.7000e-
004
Total 3.9000e-
004
1.9700e-
003
2.9200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.7403 0.7403 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.74068.6000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
8.6000e-
004
2.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.3000e-
004
Worker 3.4000e-
004
2.2000e-
004
2.4600e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.4618 0.4618 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.46231.1000e-
004
0.0000 1.1000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.0000e-
005
Vendor 5.0000e-
005
1.7500e-
003
4.6000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 1.3372 1.3372 6.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.33872.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
004
8.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
Hauling 1.3000e-
004
4.4200e-
003
1.0300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00001.5800e-
003
0.0000 1.5800e-
003
2.4000e-
004
0.0000 2.4000e-
004
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00001.5800e-
003
0.0000 1.5800e-
003
2.4000e-
004
0.0000 2.4000e-
004
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 1.3372 1.3372 6.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.33873.1000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.2000e-
004
8.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
004
Total 1.3000e-
004
4.4200e-
003
1.0300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 1.3372 1.3372 6.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.33873.1000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.2000e-
004
8.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
004
Hauling 1.3000e-
004
4.4200e-
003
1.0300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
Category tons/yr MT/yr
0.0000 0.0506 0.0506 0.0000 0.0000 0.05066.0000e-
005
0.0000 6.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
Worker 2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
1.7000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0513 0.0513 0.0000 0.0000 0.05141.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 1.0000e-
005
1.9000e-
004
5.0000e-
005
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 2.1547 2.1547 7.0000e-
004
0.0000 2.17212.3900e-
003
6.0000e-
004
2.9900e-
003
2.6000e-
004
5.5000e-
004
8.1000e-
004
Total 1.3800e-
003
0.0157 0.0101 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.1547 2.1547 7.0000e-
004
0.0000 2.17216.0000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
5.5000e-
004
5.5000e-
004
Off-Road 1.3800e-
003
0.0157 0.0101 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00002.3900e-
003
0.0000 2.3900e-
003
2.6000e-
004
0.0000 2.6000e-
004
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
3.4 Site Preparation - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 1.3372 1.3372 6.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.33872.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
004
8.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
Total 1.3000e-
004
4.4200e-
003
1.0300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
3.5 Grading - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
0.0000 0.1019 0.1019 0.0000 0.0000 0.10207.0000e-
005
0.0000 7.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
Total 3.0000e-
005
2.1000e-
004
2.2000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0506 0.0506 0.0000 0.0000 0.05066.0000e-
005
0.0000 6.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
Worker 2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
1.7000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0513 0.0513 0.0000 0.0000 0.05141.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 1.0000e-
005
1.9000e-
004
5.0000e-
005
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 2.1547 2.1547 7.0000e-
004
0.0000 2.17211.0200e-
003
6.0000e-
004
1.6200e-
003
1.1000e-
004
5.5000e-
004
6.6000e-
004
Total 1.3800e-
003
0.0157 0.0101 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.1547 2.1547 7.0000e-
004
0.0000 2.17216.0000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
5.5000e-
004
5.5000e-
004
Off-Road 1.3800e-
003
0.0157 0.0101 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00001.0200e-
003
0.0000 1.0200e-
003
1.1000e-
004
0.0000 1.1000e-
004
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.1019 0.1019 0.0000 0.0000 0.10207.0000e-
005
0.0000 7.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
Total 3.0000e-
005
2.1000e-
004
2.2000e-
004
0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2ePM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.2292 0.2292 0.0000 0.0000 0.22931.9000e-
004
0.0000 1.9000e-
004
5.0000e-
005
0.0000 5.0000e-
005
Total 7.0000e-
005
4.3000e-
004
5.2000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.1265 0.1265 0.0000 0.0000 0.12661.6000e-
004
0.0000 1.6000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.0000e-
005
Worker 6.0000e-
005
4.0000e-
005
4.2000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.1026 0.1026 0.0000 0.0000 0.10273.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Vendor 1.0000e-
005
3.9000e-
004
1.0000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 3.6205 3.6205 1.1700e-
003
0.0000 3.64980.0200 1.4800e-
003
0.0215 7.4800e-
003
1.3700e-
003
8.8500e-
003
Total 3.0800e-
003
0.0340 0.0184 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.6205 3.6205 1.1700e-
003
0.0000 3.64981.4800e-
003
1.4800e-
003
1.3700e-
003
1.3700e-
003
Off-Road 3.0800e-
003
0.0340 0.0184 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0200 0.0000 0.0200 7.4800e-
003
0.0000 7.4800e-
003
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00005.0000e-
005
0.0000 5.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
3.6 Grading Soil Haul - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.2292 0.2292 0.0000 0.0000 0.22931.7000e-
004
0.0000 1.8000e-
004
5.0000e-
005
0.0000 5.0000e-
005
Total 7.0000e-
005
4.3000e-
004
5.2000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.1265 0.1265 0.0000 0.0000 0.12661.5000e-
004
0.0000 1.5000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.0000e-
005
Worker 6.0000e-
005
4.0000e-
005
4.2000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.1026 0.1026 0.0000 0.0000 0.10272.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Vendor 1.0000e-
005
3.9000e-
004
1.0000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 3.6205 3.6205 1.1700e-
003
0.0000 3.64988.5500e-
003
1.4800e-
003
0.0100 3.2000e-
003
1.3700e-
003
4.5700e-
003
Total 3.0800e-
003
0.0340 0.0184 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.6205 3.6205 1.1700e-
003
0.0000 3.64981.4800e-
003
1.4800e-
003
1.3700e-
003
1.3700e-
003
Off-Road 3.0800e-
003
0.0340 0.0184 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00008.5500e-
003
0.0000 8.5500e-
003
3.2000e-
003
0.0000 3.2000e-
003
Fugitive Dust
Category tons/yr MT/yr
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00002.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00002.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 4.0487 4.0487 1.8000e-
004
0.0000 4.05339.2000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
9.6000e-
004
2.5000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
2.9000e-
004
Total 4.0000e-
004
0.0134 3.1200e-
003
4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 4.0487 4.0487 1.8000e-
004
0.0000 4.05339.2000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
9.6000e-
004
2.5000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
2.9000e-
004
Hauling 4.0000e-
004
0.0134 3.1200e-
003
4.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00005.0000e-
005
0.0000 5.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
0.0000 100.2434 100.2434 0.0174 0.0000 100.67920.0337 0.0337 0.0322 0.0322Total 0.0706 0.6250 0.7256 1.1700e-
003
0.0000 100.2434 100.2434 0.0174 0.0000 100.67920.0337 0.0337 0.0322 0.0322Off-Road 0.0706 0.6250 0.7256 1.1700e-
003
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
3.7 Building Construction - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 4.0487 4.0487 1.8000e-
004
0.0000 4.05338.6000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
2.8000e-
004
Total 4.0000e-
004
0.0134 3.1200e-
003
4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 4.0487 4.0487 1.8000e-
004
0.0000 4.05338.6000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
2.8000e-
004
Hauling 4.0000e-
004
0.0134 3.1200e-
003
4.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 100.2433 100.2433 0.0174 0.0000 100.67910.0337 0.0337 0.0322 0.0322Total 0.0706 0.6250 0.7256 1.1700e-
003
0.0000 100.2433 100.2433 0.0174 0.0000 100.67910.0337 0.0337 0.0322 0.0322Off-Road 0.0706 0.6250 0.7256 1.1700e-
003
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 12.3101 12.3101 3.5000e-
004
0.0000 12.31900.0109 9.0000e-
005
0.0110 2.9300e-
003
9.0000e-
005
3.0200e-
003
Total 4.0800e-
003
0.0195 0.0304 1.4000e-
004
0.0000 7.7948 7.7948 1.6000e-
004
0.0000 7.79899.7700e-
003
6.0000e-
005
9.8300e-
003
2.6000e-
003
6.0000e-
005
2.6500e-
003
Worker 3.5400e-
003
2.3600e-
003
0.0259 9.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.5153 4.5153 1.9000e-
004
0.0000 4.52001.1600e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.1900e-
003
3.3000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
3.7000e-
004
Vendor 5.4000e-
004
0.0171 4.5300e-
003
5.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.4271 0.4271 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.42735.4000e-
004
0.0000 5.4000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.5000e-
004
Worker 1.9000e-
004
1.3000e-
004
1.4200e-
003
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 6.9795 6.9795 2.2100e-
003
0.0000 7.03482.2000e-
003
2.2000e-
003
2.0200e-
003
2.0200e-
003
Total 4.4600e-
003
0.0420 0.0526 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Paving 2.2000e-
004
0.0000 6.9795 6.9795 2.2100e-
003
0.0000 7.03482.2000e-
003
2.2000e-
003
2.0200e-
003
2.0200e-
003
Off-Road 4.2400e-
003
0.0420 0.0526 8.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
3.8 Paving - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 12.3101 12.3101 3.5000e-
004
0.0000 12.31900.0101 9.0000e-
005
0.0102 2.7300e-
003
9.0000e-
005
2.8200e-
003
Total 4.0800e-
003
0.0195 0.0304 1.4000e-
004
0.0000 7.7948 7.7948 1.6000e-
004
0.0000 7.79899.0100e-
003
6.0000e-
005
9.0700e-
003
2.4100e-
003
6.0000e-
005
2.4700e-
003
Worker 3.5400e-
003
2.3600e-
003
0.0259 9.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.5153 4.5153 1.9000e-
004
0.0000 4.52001.0800e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.1200e-
003
3.2000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
3.5000e-
004
Vendor 5.4000e-
004
0.0171 4.5300e-
003
5.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
3.9 Architectural Coating - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
0.0000 0.4271 0.4271 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.42734.9000e-
004
0.0000 5.0000e-
004
1.3000e-
004
0.0000 1.4000e-
004
Total 1.9000e-
004
1.3000e-
004
1.4200e-
003
0.0000
0.0000 0.4271 0.4271 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.42734.9000e-
004
0.0000 5.0000e-
004
1.3000e-
004
0.0000 1.4000e-
004
Worker 1.9000e-
004
1.3000e-
004
1.4200e-
003
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 6.9795 6.9795 2.2100e-
003
0.0000 7.03482.2000e-
003
2.2000e-
003
2.0200e-
003
2.0200e-
003
Total 4.4600e-
003
0.0420 0.0526 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Paving 2.2000e-
004
0.0000 6.9795 6.9795 2.2100e-
003
0.0000 7.03482.2000e-
003
2.2000e-
003
2.0200e-
003
2.0200e-
003
Off-Road 4.2400e-
003
0.0420 0.0526 8.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.4271 0.4271 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.42735.4000e-
004
0.0000 5.4000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.5000e-
004
Total 1.9000e-
004
1.3000e-
004
1.4200e-
003
0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2ePM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.0854 0.0854 0.0000 0.0000 0.08551.1000e-
004
0.0000 1.1000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
Total 4.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
2.8000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0854 0.0854 0.0000 0.0000 0.08551.1000e-
004
0.0000 1.1000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
Worker 4.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
2.8000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 1.1490 1.1490 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.15083.7000e-
004
3.7000e-
004
3.7000e-
004
3.7000e-
004
Total 0.0762 6.3400e-
003
8.1600e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.1490 1.1490 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.15083.7000e-
004
3.7000e-
004
3.7000e-
004
3.7000e-
004
Off-Road 9.2000e-
004
6.3400e-
003
8.1600e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 0.0753
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.0854 0.0854 0.0000 0.0000 0.08551.0000e-
004
0.0000 1.0000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
Total 4.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
2.8000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0854 0.0854 0.0000 0.0000 0.08551.0000e-
004
0.0000 1.0000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
Worker 4.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
2.8000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 1.1490 1.1490 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.15083.7000e-
004
3.7000e-
004
3.7000e-
004
3.7000e-
004
Total 0.0762 6.3400e-
003
8.1600e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.1490 1.1490 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.15083.7000e-
004
3.7000e-
004
3.7000e-
004
3.7000e-
004
Off-Road 9.2000e-
004
6.3400e-
003
8.1600e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 0.0753
Category tons/yr MT/yr
CalEEMod Mitigated Construction Model
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - building SF provided by applicant
Construction Phase - construction durations from applicant
Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment - based on info from applicant, see assumptions file for additional notes
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
641.35 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.029 N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006
58
Climate Zone 4 Operational Year 2022
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s)2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days)
Condo/Townhouse 9.00 Dwelling Unit 0.00 26,172.00 26
Parking Lot 1.28 1000sqft 0.03 1,279.00 0
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 22.13 1000sqft 0.51 22,127.00 0
Floor Surface Area Population
Other Asphalt Surfaces 6.21 1000sqft 0.14 6,215.00 0
1.0 Project Characteristics
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Page 1 of 1 Date: 3/5/2021 11:58 AM
22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard Residential Project Mitigated Construction - Santa Clara County, Annual
22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard Residential Project Mitigated Construction
Santa Clara County, Annual
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00
tblConstDustMitigation CleanPavedRoadPercentReduction 0 9
tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Exterior 150.00 50.00
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Interior 100.00 50.00
tblArchitecturalCoating ConstArea_Parking 1,777.00 450.00
tblArchitecturalCoating ConstArea_Residential_Exterior 17,666.00 10,600.00
Trips and VMT - based on trips from applicant, assuming 2 vt/day/water truck
Demolition -
Grading -
Architectural Coating - based on applicant data: <50 g/L paints, 60% exterior coating, assuming striping of parking lot and internal circulation
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - BAAQMD BMPs, MM: Tier 4 Interim equipment for >25 HP
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
Off-road Equipment - based on info from applicant
Off-road Equipment - no additional equipment needed for Demo Haul
Off-road Equipment - based on info from applicant
Off-road Equipment - no additional equipment for soil haul
Off-road Equipment - based on info from applicant
Off-road Equipment - based on info from applicant
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 6,210.00 6,215.00
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 3.00 4.50
tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 875.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 5.00 9.00
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 2.00 15.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 100.00 176.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 5.00 9.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 2.00 4.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 2.00 4.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 18.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 1.00 2.00
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 18.00
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 8.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 34.00 36.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 2.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 7.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 7.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 1.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 6.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 1.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 7.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 8.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 4.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 4.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.56 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 3.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 1,280.00 1,279.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 9,000.00 26,172.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 22,130.00 22,127.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0039.82 91.41 67.34 41.49 90.98 80.22
NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
37.03 29.02 -7.93 0.00
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
0.0000 152.8585 152.8585 0.0271 0.0000 153.53530.0242 3.9500e-
003
0.0282 7.0800e-
003
3.9400e-
003
0.0110Maximum 0.1110 0.6478 1.0583 1.7500e-
003
0.0000 152.8585 152.8585 0.0271 0.0000 153.53530.0242 3.9500e-
003
0.0282 7.0800e-
003
3.9400e-
003
0.01102022 0.1110 0.6478 1.0583 1.7500e-
003
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 152.8587 152.8587 0.0271 0.0000 153.53550.0402 0.0460 0.0862 0.0121 0.0437 0.0558Maximum 0.1763 0.9126 0.9805 1.7500e-
003
0.0000 152.8587 152.8587 0.0271 0.0000 153.53550.0402 0.0460 0.0862 0.0121 0.0437 0.05582022 0.1763 0.9126 0.9805 1.7500e-
003
CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 4.00 3.00
2.0 Emissions Summary
2.1 Overall Construction
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 6.00 2.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 19.00 14.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 2.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 2.00
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 4.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 15
Acres of Paving: 0.68
Residential Indoor: 52,998; Residential Outdoor: 10,600; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area:
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power
9g
8 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 10/21/2022 11/2/2022 5 9 h
7 Paving Paving 10/8/2022 10/20/2022 5
4e
6 Building Construction Building Construction 2/4/2022 10/7/2022 5 176 f
5 Grading Soil Haul Grading 1/31/2022 2/3/2022 5
2c
4 Grading Grading 1/31/2022 2/3/2022 5 4 d
3 Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/27/2022 1/30/2022 5
18 a
2 Demolition Haul Demolition 1/1/2022 1/26/2022 5 18 b
End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 1/1/2022 1/26/2022 5
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date
Highest 0.4168 0.2539
6 4-1-2022 6-30-2022 0.2655 0.1910
7 7-1-2022 9-30-2022 0.2684 0.1931
Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
5 1-1-2022 3-31-2022 0.4168 0.2539
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle
Class
Hauling
Vehicle
Class
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8.00 9 0.56
Building Construction Welders 3 1.00 46 0.45
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Cranes 1 1.00 231 0.29
Grading Soil Haul Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 6.00 97 0.37
Grading Soil Haul Rubber Tired Dozers 0 1.00 247 0.40
Grading Soil Haul Concrete/Industrial Saws 0 8.00 81 0.73
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Concrete/Industrial Saws 0 8.00 81 0.73
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Scrapers 1 8.00 367 0.48
Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Demolition Haul Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 6.00 97 0.37
Demolition Haul Rubber Tired Dozers 0 1.00 247 0.40
Demolition Haul Concrete/Industrial Saws 0 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37
0.0000 18.9699 18.9699 4.8300e-
003
0.0000 19.09087.5400e-
003
7.5400e-
003
7.0500e-
003
7.0500e-
003
Total 0.0152 0.1496 0.1256 2.2000e-
004
0.0000 18.9699 18.9699 4.8300e-
003
0.0000 19.09087.5400e-
003
7.5400e-
003
7.0500e-
003
7.0500e-
003
Off-Road 0.0152 0.1496 0.1256 2.2000e-
004
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
3.2 Demolition - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment
Replace Ground Cover
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
Clean Paved Roads
10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 3.00 0.00 0.00
Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80
10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 8 14.00 2.00 0.00
Grading Soil Haul 0 0.00 0.00 109.00 10.80
10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 4 10.00 2.00 0.00
Site Preparation 3 8.00 2.00 0.00 10.80
10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Demolition Haul 0 0.00 0.00 36.00
Demolition 5 13.00 2.00 0.00 10.80
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
0.0000 18.9699 18.9699 4.8300e-
003
0.0000 19.09083.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
Total 4.1700e-
003
0.0769 0.1387 2.2000e-
004
0.0000 18.9699 18.9699 4.8300e-
003
0.0000 19.09083.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
3.4000e-
004
Off-Road 4.1700e-
003
0.0769 0.1387 2.2000e-
004
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 1.2020 1.2020 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.20291.0500e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0500e-
003
2.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.9000e-
004
Total 3.9000e-
004
1.9700e-
003
2.9200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.7403 0.7403 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.74069.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
9.3000e-
004
2.5000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.5000e-
004
Worker 3.4000e-
004
2.2000e-
004
2.4600e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.4618 0.4618 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.46231.2000e-
004
0.0000 1.2000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.0000e-
005
Vendor 5.0000e-
005
1.7500e-
003
4.6000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00003.6800e-
003
0.0000 3.6800e-
003
5.6000e-
004
0.0000 5.6000e-
004
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00003.6800e-
003
0.0000 3.6800e-
003
5.6000e-
004
0.0000 5.6000e-
004
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
3.3 Demolition Haul - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 1.2020 1.2020 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.20299.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
9.7000e-
004
2.6000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.7000e-
004
Total 3.9000e-
004
1.9700e-
003
2.9200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.7403 0.7403 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.74068.6000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
8.6000e-
004
2.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.3000e-
004
Worker 3.4000e-
004
2.2000e-
004
2.4600e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.4618 0.4618 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.46231.1000e-
004
0.0000 1.1000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.0000e-
005
Vendor 5.0000e-
005
1.7500e-
003
4.6000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 1.3372 1.3372 6.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.33872.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
004
8.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
Hauling 1.3000e-
004
4.4200e-
003
1.0300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00001.5800e-
003
0.0000 1.5800e-
003
2.4000e-
004
0.0000 2.4000e-
004
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00001.5800e-
003
0.0000 1.5800e-
003
2.4000e-
004
0.0000 2.4000e-
004
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 1.3372 1.3372 6.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.33873.1000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.2000e-
004
8.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
004
Total 1.3000e-
004
4.4200e-
003
1.0300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 1.3372 1.3372 6.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.33873.1000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.2000e-
004
8.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
004
Hauling 1.3000e-
004
4.4200e-
003
1.0300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
Mitigated Construction On-Site
0.0000 0.1019 0.1019 0.0000 0.0000 0.10207.0000e-
005
0.0000 7.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
Total 3.0000e-
005
2.1000e-
004
2.2000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0506 0.0506 0.0000 0.0000 0.05066.0000e-
005
0.0000 6.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
Worker 2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
1.7000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0513 0.0513 0.0000 0.0000 0.05141.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 1.0000e-
005
1.9000e-
004
5.0000e-
005
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 2.1547 2.1547 7.0000e-
004
0.0000 2.17212.3900e-
003
6.0000e-
004
2.9900e-
003
2.6000e-
004
5.5000e-
004
8.1000e-
004
Total 1.3800e-
003
0.0157 0.0101 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.1547 2.1547 7.0000e-
004
0.0000 2.17216.0000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
5.5000e-
004
5.5000e-
004
Off-Road 1.3800e-
003
0.0157 0.0101 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00002.3900e-
003
0.0000 2.3900e-
003
2.6000e-
004
0.0000 2.6000e-
004
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
3.4 Site Preparation - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 1.3372 1.3372 6.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.33872.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
004
8.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
Total 1.3000e-
004
4.4200e-
003
1.0300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2ePM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
3.5 Grading - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.1019 0.1019 0.0000 0.0000 0.10207.0000e-
005
0.0000 7.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
Total 3.0000e-
005
2.1000e-
004
2.2000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0506 0.0506 0.0000 0.0000 0.05066.0000e-
005
0.0000 6.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
Worker 2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
1.7000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0513 0.0513 0.0000 0.0000 0.05141.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 1.0000e-
005
1.9000e-
004
5.0000e-
005
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 2.1547 2.1547 7.0000e-
004
0.0000 2.17211.0200e-
003
4.0000e-
005
1.0600e-
003
1.1000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
1.5000e-
004
Total 4.2000e-
004
6.9400e-
003
0.0136 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.1547 2.1547 7.0000e-
004
0.0000 2.17214.0000e-
005
4.0000e-
005
4.0000e-
005
4.0000e-
005
Off-Road 4.2000e-
004
6.9400e-
003
0.0136 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00001.0200e-
003
0.0000 1.0200e-
003
1.1000e-
004
0.0000 1.1000e-
004
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00008.5500e-
003
0.0000 8.5500e-
003
3.2000e-
003
0.0000 3.2000e-
003
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.2292 0.2292 0.0000 0.0000 0.22931.9000e-
004
0.0000 1.9000e-
004
5.0000e-
005
0.0000 5.0000e-
005
Total 7.0000e-
005
4.3000e-
004
5.2000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.1265 0.1265 0.0000 0.0000 0.12661.6000e-
004
0.0000 1.6000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.0000e-
005
Worker 6.0000e-
005
4.0000e-
005
4.2000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.1026 0.1026 0.0000 0.0000 0.10273.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Vendor 1.0000e-
005
3.9000e-
004
1.0000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 3.6205 3.6205 1.1700e-
003
0.0000 3.64980.0200 1.4800e-
003
0.0215 7.4800e-
003
1.3700e-
003
8.8500e-
003
Total 3.0800e-
003
0.0340 0.0184 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.6205 3.6205 1.1700e-
003
0.0000 3.64981.4800e-
003
1.4800e-
003
1.3700e-
003
1.3700e-
003
Off-Road 3.0800e-
003
0.0340 0.0184 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0200 0.0000 0.0200 7.4800e-
003
0.0000 7.4800e-
003
Fugitive Dust
Category tons/yr MT/yr
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00005.0000e-
005
0.0000 5.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00005.0000e-
005
0.0000 5.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
3.6 Grading Soil Haul - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.2292 0.2292 0.0000 0.0000 0.22931.7000e-
004
0.0000 1.8000e-
004
5.0000e-
005
0.0000 5.0000e-
005
Total 7.0000e-
005
4.3000e-
004
5.2000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.1265 0.1265 0.0000 0.0000 0.12661.5000e-
004
0.0000 1.5000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.0000e-
005
Worker 6.0000e-
005
4.0000e-
005
4.2000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.1026 0.1026 0.0000 0.0000 0.10272.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
Vendor 1.0000e-
005
3.9000e-
004
1.0000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 3.6205 3.6205 1.1700e-
003
0.0000 3.64988.5500e-
003
7.0000e-
005
8.6200e-
003
3.2000e-
003
7.0000e-
005
3.2700e-
003
Total 7.4000e-
004
0.0127 0.0243 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.6205 3.6205 1.1700e-
003
0.0000 3.64987.0000e-
005
7.0000e-
005
7.0000e-
005
7.0000e-
005
Off-Road 7.4000e-
004
0.0127 0.0243 4.0000e-
005
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00002.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00002.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Fugitive Dust
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 4.0487 4.0487 1.8000e-
004
0.0000 4.05339.2000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
9.6000e-
004
2.5000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
2.9000e-
004
Total 4.0000e-
004
0.0134 3.1200e-
003
4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 4.0487 4.0487 1.8000e-
004
0.0000 4.05339.2000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
9.6000e-
004
2.5000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
2.9000e-
004
Hauling 4.0000e-
004
0.0134 3.1200e-
003
4.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 100.2434 100.2434 0.0174 0.0000 100.67920.0337 0.0337 0.0322 0.0322Total 0.0706 0.6250 0.7256 1.1700e-
003
0.0000 100.2434 100.2434 0.0174 0.0000 100.67920.0337 0.0337 0.0322 0.0322Off-Road 0.0706 0.6250 0.7256 1.1700e-
003
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
3.7 Building Construction - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 4.0487 4.0487 1.8000e-
004
0.0000 4.05338.6000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
2.8000e-
004
Total 4.0000e-
004
0.0134 3.1200e-
003
4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 4.0487 4.0487 1.8000e-
004
0.0000 4.05338.6000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
2.8000e-
004
Hauling 4.0000e-
004
0.0134 3.1200e-
003
4.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 7.7948 7.7948 1.6000e-
004
0.0000 7.79899.0100e-
003
6.0000e-
005
9.0700e-
003
2.4100e-
003
6.0000e-
005
2.4700e-
003
Worker 3.5400e-
003
2.3600e-
003
0.0259 9.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.5153 4.5153 1.9000e-
004
0.0000 4.52001.0800e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.1200e-
003
3.2000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
3.5000e-
004
Vendor 5.4000e-
004
0.0171 4.5300e-
003
5.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 100.2433 100.2433 0.0174 0.0000 100.67913.1400e-
003
3.1400e-
003
3.1400e-
003
3.1400e-
003
Total 0.0230 0.4709 0.7736 1.1700e-
003
0.0000 100.2433 100.2433 0.0174 0.0000 100.67913.1400e-
003
3.1400e-
003
3.1400e-
003
3.1400e-
003
Off-Road 0.0230 0.4709 0.7736 1.1700e-
003
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 12.3101 12.3101 3.5000e-
004
0.0000 12.31900.0109 9.0000e-
005
0.0110 2.9300e-
003
9.0000e-
005
3.0200e-
003
Total 4.0800e-
003
0.0195 0.0304 1.4000e-
004
0.0000 7.7948 7.7948 1.6000e-
004
0.0000 7.79899.7700e-
003
6.0000e-
005
9.8300e-
003
2.6000e-
003
6.0000e-
005
2.6500e-
003
Worker 3.5400e-
003
2.3600e-
003
0.0259 9.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.5153 4.5153 1.9000e-
004
0.0000 4.52001.1600e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.1900e-
003
3.3000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
3.7000e-
004
Vendor 5.4000e-
004
0.0171 4.5300e-
003
5.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated Construction On-Site
0.0000 0.4271 0.4271 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.42735.4000e-
004
0.0000 5.4000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.5000e-
004
Total 1.9000e-
004
1.3000e-
004
1.4200e-
003
0.0000
0.0000 0.4271 0.4271 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.42735.4000e-
004
0.0000 5.4000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
0.0000 1.5000e-
004
Worker 1.9000e-
004
1.3000e-
004
1.4200e-
003
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 6.9795 6.9795 2.2100e-
003
0.0000 7.03482.2000e-
003
2.2000e-
003
2.0200e-
003
2.0200e-
003
Total 4.4600e-
003
0.0420 0.0526 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Paving 2.2000e-
004
0.0000 6.9795 6.9795 2.2100e-
003
0.0000 7.03482.2000e-
003
2.2000e-
003
2.0200e-
003
2.0200e-
003
Off-Road 4.2400e-
003
0.0420 0.0526 8.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
3.8 Paving - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 12.3101 12.3101 3.5000e-
004
0.0000 12.31900.0101 9.0000e-
005
0.0102 2.7300e-
003
9.0000e-
005
2.8200e-
003
Total 4.0800e-
003
0.0195 0.0304 1.4000e-
004
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2ePM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
3.9 Architectural Coating - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.4271 0.4271 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.42734.9000e-
004
0.0000 5.0000e-
004
1.3000e-
004
0.0000 1.4000e-
004
Total 1.9000e-
004
1.3000e-
004
1.4200e-
003
0.0000
0.0000 0.4271 0.4271 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.42734.9000e-
004
0.0000 5.0000e-
004
1.3000e-
004
0.0000 1.4000e-
004
Worker 1.9000e-
004
1.3000e-
004
1.4200e-
003
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 6.9795 6.9795 2.2100e-
003
0.0000 7.03481.9000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
Total 1.8100e-
003
0.0355 0.0598 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Paving 2.2000e-
004
0.0000 6.9795 6.9795 2.2100e-
003
0.0000 7.03481.9000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
Off-Road 1.5900e-
003
0.0355 0.0598 8.0000e-
005
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 0.0753
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 0.0854 0.0854 0.0000 0.0000 0.08551.1000e-
004
0.0000 1.1000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
Total 4.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
2.8000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0854 0.0854 0.0000 0.0000 0.08551.1000e-
004
0.0000 1.1000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
Worker 4.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
2.8000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 1.1490 1.1490 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.15083.7000e-
004
3.7000e-
004
3.7000e-
004
3.7000e-
004
Total 0.0762 6.3400e-
003
8.1600e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.1490 1.1490 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.15083.7000e-
004
3.7000e-
004
3.7000e-
004
3.7000e-
004
Off-Road 9.2000e-
004
6.3400e-
003
8.1600e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 0.0753
Category tons/yr MT/yr
0.0000 0.0854 0.0854 0.0000 0.0000 0.08551.0000e-
004
0.0000 1.0000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
Total 4.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
2.8000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0854 0.0854 0.0000 0.0000 0.08551.0000e-
004
0.0000 1.0000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
Worker 4.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
2.8000e-
004
0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
0.0000 1.1490 1.1490 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.15082.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
Total 0.0755 4.7700e-
003
8.2500e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.1490 1.1490 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.15082.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
Off-Road 2.5000e-
004
4.7700e-
003
8.2500e-
003
1.0000e-
005
........................................................................................................................
A PPENDIX B :
H EALTH R ISK A SSESSMENT
........................................................................................................................
Health Risk Assessment Background and Modeling Data
Health Risk Assessment Background and Modeling Data
1. Health Risk Assessment
1.1 CONSTRUCTION HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
The City of Cupertino (City) proposes to redevelop the project site with a residential development located at
22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino, California. The proposed project would involve demolishing
the existing commercial building on an approximately 0.68-acre site and construction of a nine-unit, single-
family attached residential, with one accessory dwelling unit. The site is currently developed with a
convenience store and associated paved surface parking. A portion of the site is an undeveloped and unpaved
lot. The following provides the background methodology used for the construction health risk assessment for
the proposed project.
The latest version of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Air Quality
Guidelines requires projects to evaluate the impacts of construction activities on sensitive receptors
(BAAQMD, 2017). Project construction is anticipated to take place starting at the beginning of January 2022
and be completed by November 2022 (approximately 218 workdays). The nearest sensitive receptors to the
project site include the adjacent single-family residences to the south. Additional sensitive receptors within
1,000 feet of the site are senior living residents at Sunny View Bay Area Retirement Community,
approximately 525 feet to the northeast. The BAAQMD has developed Screening Tables for Air Toxics Evaluation
During Construction (2017) that evaluate construction-related health risks associated with residential,
commercial, and industrial projects. According to the screening tables, the receptors are closer than the
distance of 100 meters (328 feet) that would screen out potential health risks and, therefore, could be
potentially impacted from the proposed construction activities. As a result, a site-specific construction health
risk assessment (HRA) has been prepared for the proposed project. This HRA considers the health impact to
off-site sensitive receptors (i.e., children at the nearby residences and senior living residents) from
construction emissions at the project site, including diesel equipment exhaust (diesel particulate matter or
DPM) and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5).
It should be noted that these health impacts are based on conservative (i.e., health protective) assumptions.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA, 2005) and the Office of Environmental
Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA, 2015) note that conservative assumptions used in a risk assessment are
intended to ensure that the estimated risks do not underestimate the actual risks. Therefore, the estimated
risks may not necessarily represent actual risks experienced by populations at or near a site. The use of
conservative assumptions tends to produce upper-bound estimates of exposure and thus risk.
For residential-based receptors, the following conservative assumptions were used:
It was assumed that maximum-exposed off-site residential receptors (both children and adults) stood
outdoors and are subject to DPM at their residence for 8 hours per day, and approximately 260
construction days per year. In reality, California residents typically will spend on average 2 hours per day
Page 2 Health Risk Assessment Background and Modeling Data
outdoors at their residences (USEPA, 2011). This would result in lower exposures to construction related
DPM emissions and lower estimated risk values.
The calculated risk for infants from third trimester to age 2 is multiplied by a factor of 10 to account for
early life exposure and uncertainty in child versus adult exposure impacts (OEHHA, 2015).
For senior living residents, the following conservative assumptions were used:
It was assumed that maximum exposed receptor (senior living resident) stood outside and are subject to
DPM at the retirement community for 8 hours per weekday and approximately 260 construction days per
year.
1.2 METHODOLOGY AND SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
For this HRA, the BAAQMD significance thresholds were deemed to be appropriate and the thresholds that
were used for this project are shown below:
Excess cancer risk of more than 10 in a million
Non-cancer hazard index (chronic or acute) greater than 1.0
Incremental increase in average annual PM2.5 concentration of greater than 0.3 μg/m3
The methodology used in this HRA is consistent with the following BAAQMD and the OEHHA guidance
documents:
BAAQMD, 2017. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Guidelines. May 2017.
BAAQMD, 2016. Planning Healthy Places. May 2016.
BAAQMD, 2010. Screening Tables for Air Toxics Evaluation During Construction. May 2010.
BAAQMD, 2012. Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards. Version 3.0. May
2012.
OEHHA. 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for the Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.
February 2015.
Potential exposures to DPM and PM2.5 from proposed project construction were evaluated for off-site
sensitive receptors in close proximity to the site. Pollutant concentrations were estimated using an air
dispersion model, and excess lifetime cancer risks and chronic non-cancer hazard indexes were calculated.
These risks were then compared to the significance thresholds adopted for this HRA.
Health Risk Assessment Background and Modeling Data Page 3
1.3 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Construction emissions were calculated as average daily emissions in pounds per day, using the proposed
construction schedule and the latest version of California Emissions Estimation Model, known as
CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2 (CAPCOA, 2016). DPM emissions were based on the CalEEMod construction
runs, using annual exhaust PM10 construction emissions presented in pounds (lbs) per day. The PM2.5
emissions were taken from the CalEEMod output for exhaust PM2.5 also presented in lbs per day.
The project was assumed to take place over 10 months years (218 work days) from January 2022 to
November 2022. The average daily emission rates from construction equipment used during the proposed
project were determined by dividing the annual average emissions for each construction year by the number
of construction days per year for each calendar year of construction (i.e., 2022). The off-site hauling emission
rates were adjusted to evaluate localized emissions from the 0.42-mile haul route within 1,000 feet of the
project site. The CalEEMod construction emissions output and emission rate calculations are provided in
Appendix A of the HRA.
1.4 DISPERSION MODELING
Air quality modeling was performed using the AERMOD atmospheric dispersion model to assess the impact
of emitted compounds on sensitive receptors near the project. The model is a steady state Gaussian plume
model and is an approved model by BAAQMD for estimating ground level impacts from point and fugitive
sources in simple and complex terrain. The on-site construction emissions for the project were modeled as
poly-area sources. The off-site mobile sources were modeled as adjacent line volume sources. The model
requires additional input parameters, including chemical emission data and local meteorology. Inputs for the
construction emission rates are those described in Section 1.3. Meteorological data obtained from the
BAAQMD for the nearest representative meteorological station (Moffett Federal Airfield Airport) with the
five latest available years (2009 to 2013) of record were used to represent local weather conditions and
prevailing winds.
The modeling analysis also considered the spatial distribution and elevation of each emitting source in
relation to the sensitive receptors. To accommodate the model’s Cartesian grid format, direction-dependent
calculations were obtained by identifying the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates for each
source location. In addition, digital elevation model (DEM) data for the area were obtained and included in
the model runs to account for complex terrain. An emission release height of 4.15 meters was used as
representative of the stack exhaust height for off-road construction equipment and diesel truck traffic, and an
initial vertical dispersion parameter of 1.93 m was used, per California Air Resources Board (CARB) guidance
(2000).
To determine contaminant impacts during construction hours, the model’s Season-Hour-Day (HRDOW)
scalar option was invoked to predict flagpole-level concentrations (1.5 m for receptors) for construction
emissions generated between the hours of 7:00 AM and 4:00 PM with a 1-hour lunch break. In addition, a
scalar factor was applied to the risk calculations to account for the number of days receptors are exposed to
construction emissions per year.
Page 4 Health Risk Assessment Background and Modeling Data
A unit emission rate of 1 gram per second was used for all modeling runs. The unit emission rates were
proportioned over the poly-area sources for on-site construction emissions and divided between the volume
sources for off-site hauling emissions. The maximum modeled concentrations from the output files were then
multiplied by the emission rates calculated in Appendix A to obtain the maximum flagpole-level
concentrations at the off-site maximum exposed receptors (MER). The off-site MER is a single-family
residence immediately south of the site. The MER location is the receptor location associated with the
maximum predicted AERMOD concentrations from the on-site emission source. The calculated on-site
emission rates are approximately 4 orders of magnitude higher than the calculated off-site emission rates (see
Appendix A). Therefore, the maximum concentrations associated with the on-site emission sources produce
the highest overall ground-level MER concentrations and, consequently, highest calculated health risks.
The air dispersion model output for the emission sources is presented in Appendix B. The model output
DPM and PM2.5 concentrations from the construction emission sources are provided in Appendix C.
1.5 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
1.5.1 Carcinogenic Chemical Risk
A threshold of ten in a million (10x10-6) has been established as a level posing no significant risk for
exposures to carcinogens. Health risks associated with exposure to carcinogenic compounds can be defined in
terms of the probability of developing cancer as a result of exposure to a chemical at a given concentration.
The cancer risk probability is determined by multiplying the chemical’s annual concentration by its cancer
potency factor (CPF), a measure of the carcinogenic potential of a chemical when a dose is received through
the inhalation pathway. It is an upper-limit estimate of the probability of contracting cancer as a result of
continuous exposure to an ambient concentration of one microgram per cubic meter (µg/m3) over a lifetime
of 70 years.
Recent guidance from OEHHA recommends a refinement to the standard point estimate approach with the
use of age-specific breathing rates and age sensitivity factors (ASFs) to assess risk for susceptible
subpopulations such as children. For the inhalation pathway, the procedure requires the incorporation of
several discrete variates to effectively quantify dose for each age group. Once determined, contaminant dose
is multiplied by the cancer potency factor in units of inverse dose expressed in milligrams per kilogram per
day (mg/kg/day)-1 to derive the cancer risk estimate. Therefore, to accommodate the unique exposures
associated with the sensitive receptors, the following dose algorithm was used.
Dose୍ୖ,୮ୣ୰ ୟୣ ୰୭୳୮ ൌ ሺCୟ୧୰ ൈ EF ൈ ሾ BR
BWሿ ൈ A ൈ CFሻ
Where:
DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg-day), per age group
Cair = concentration of contaminant in air (µg/m3)
EF = exposure frequency (number of days/365 days)
BR/BW = daily breathing rate normalized to body weight (L/kg-day)
A = inhalation absorption factor (default = 1)
CF = conversion factor (1x10-6, µg to mg, L to m3)
Health Risk Assessment Background and Modeling Data Page 5
The inhalation absorption factor (A) is a unitless factor that is only used if the cancer potency factor included
a correction for absorption across the lung. The default value of 1 was used for this assessment. For
residential receptors, the exposure frequency (EF) of 0.96 is used to represent 350 days per year to allow for a
two week period away from home each year (OEHHA, 2015). The 95th percentile daily breathing rates
(BR/BW), exposure duration (ED), age sensitivity factors (ASFs), and fraction of time at home (FAH) for
the various age groups are provided herein:
Age Groups BR/BW (L/kg-day) ED ASF FAH
Third trimester 361 0.25 10 0.85
0-2 age group 1,090 2 10 0.85
2-9 age group 861 7 3 0.72
2-16 age group 745 14 3 0.72
16-30 age group 335 14 1 0.73
16-70 age group 290 54 1 0.73
For construction analysis, the exposure duration spans the length of construction (e.g. 218 work days,
approximately 0.84 year). As the length of construction is less than 2 years, only the third trimester and 0-2
age bins apply to the construction analysis for the off-site residential receptors.
To represent the unique characteristics of senior living populations, the assessment employed the USEPA’s
guidance to develop viable dose estimates based on reasonable maximum exposure, defined as the “highest
exposure that is reasonably expected to occur” for a given receptor population. To assess senior living
residential risk, exposures were adjusted to account for an employment period of 365 days per year for 30
years. This timeline is considered appropriate for potential senior living exposures established by OEHHA.
To calculate the overall cancer risk, the risk for each appropriate age group is calculated per the following
equation:
Cancer Risk ୍ୖ ൌ Dose୍ୖ ൈ CPF ൈ ASF ൈ FAH ൈ ED
𝐴𝑇
Where:
DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg-day), per age group
CPF = cancer potency factor, chemical-specific (mg/kg-day)-1
ASF = age sensitivity factor, per age group
FAH = fraction of time at home, per age group (for residential receptors only)
ED = exposure duration (years)
AT = averaging time period over which exposure duration is averaged (70 years)
The CPFs used in the assessment were obtained from OEHHA guidance. The excess lifetime cancer risks
during the construction period to the maximally exposed resident were calculated based on the factors
provided above. The cancer risks for each age group are summed to estimate the total cancer risk for each
toxic chemical species. The final step converts the cancer risk in scientific notation to a whole number that
expresses the cancer risk in “chances per million” by multiplying the cancer risk by a factor of 1x106 (i.e. 1
million).
Page 6 Health Risk Assessment Background and Modeling Data
The calculated results are provided in Appendix C.
1.5.2 Non-Carcinogenic Hazards
An evaluation was also conducted of the potential non-cancer effects of chronic chemical exposures. Adverse
health effects are evaluated by comparing the annual receptor level (flagpole) concentration of each chemical
compound with the appropriate reference exposure limit (REL). Available RELs promulgated by OEHHA
were considered in the assessment.
The hazard index approach was used to quantify non-carcinogenic impacts. The hazard index assumes that
chronic sub-threshold exposures adversely affect a specific organ or organ system (toxicological endpoint).
Target organs presented in regulatory guidance were used for each discrete chemical exposure. To calculate
the hazard index, each chemical concentration or dose is divided by the appropriate toxicity value. This ratio
is summed for compounds affecting the same toxicological endpoint. A health hazard is presumed to exist
where the total equals or exceeds one.
The chronic hazard analysis for DPM is provided in Appendix C. The calculations contain the relevant
exposure concentrations and corresponding reference dose values used in the evaluation of non-carcinogenic
exposures.
1.5.3 Criteria Pollutants
The BAAQMD has recently incorporated PM2.5 into the District’s CEQA significance thresholds due to
recent studies that show adverse health impacts from exposure to this pollutant. An incremental increase of
greater than 0.3 µg/m3 for the annual average PM2.5 concentration is considered to be a significant impact.
Health Risk Assessment Background and Modeling Data Page 7
1.6 CONSTRUCTION HRA RESULTS
The calculated results are provided in Appendix C and the results are summarized in Table 1.
TABLE 1. CONSTRUCTION RISK SUMMARY ‐ UNMITIGATED
Receptor
Cancer Risk
(per million)
Chronic
Hazards
PM2.5
(µg/m3)
Maximum Exposed Receptor – Off-site Resident 59.4 0.133 0.63
Maximum Exposed Receptor – Senior Living Resident 0.009 0.002 0.001
BAAQMD Threshold 10 1.0 0.30
Exceeds Threshold? Yes No Yes
Note: Cancer risk calculated using 2015 OEHHA HRA guidance.
Cancer risk for the residential MER from project-related construction emissions was calculated to be 59.4in a
million, which exceeds the 10 in a million significance threshold. In accordance with the latest 2015 OEHHA
guidance, the calculated total cancer risk conservatively assumes that the risk for the MER consists of a
pregnant woman in the third trimester that subsequently gives birth to an infant during the approximately 10-
month construction period; therefore, all calculated risk values were multiplied by a factor of 10. In addition,
it was conservatively assumed that the residents were outdoors 8 hours a day, 260-261 construction days per
year and exposed to all of the daily construction emissions. The cancer risk for the maximum exposed senior
living residential receptor would not exceed 10 per million.
For non-carcinogenic effects, the chronic hazard index identified for each toxicological endpoint totaled less
than one for all the off-site sensitive receptors. Therefore, chronic non-carcinogenic hazards are within
acceptable limits. For the residential MER, the maximum annual PM2.5 concentration of 0.63 µg/m3 exceeds
the BAAQMD significance threshold of 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3). However, the maximum
annual PM2.5 concentration for the maximum exposed senior living residential receptor does not exceed the
threshold.
The following mitigation measure to project construction equipment is proposed because the incremental
cancer risk and maximum annual PM2.5 concentration at the residential MER would exceed BAAQMD’s
significance thresholds:
Mitigation Measure AQ-2: During construction, the construction contractor(s) shall:
Use construction equipment that meets the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s
(EPA) Tier 4 Interim emissions standards for off-road diesel-powered construction equipment
with more than 25 horsepower, unless it can be demonstrated to the City of Cupertino Building
Division that such equipment is not available. Any emissions control device used by the
contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by
Tier 4 Interim emissions standards for a similarly sized engine, as defined by the California Air
Resources Board’s regulations.
Page 8 Health Risk Assessment Background and Modeling Data
Prior to issuance of any construction permit, ensure that all construction plans submitted to the
City of Cupertino Planning Department and/or Building Division clearly show the requirement
for EPA Tier 4 Interim emissions standards for construction equipment over 25 horsepower.
Maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the project site for verification by the City of
Cupertino Building Division official or his/her designee. The construction equipment list shall
state the makes, models, and number of construction equipment on-site.
Ensure that all equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the
manufacturer’s recommendations.
Communicate with all sub-contractors in contracts and construction documents that all
nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to 5 minutes or less in compliance
with California Air Resources Board Rule 2449 and is responsible for ensuring that this
requirement is met.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2 would reduce the project’s localized construction emissions, as shown in Table 2.
The results indicate that, with mitigation, cancer risks and annual PM2.5 concentrations would be less than
BAAQMD’s significance thresholds for residential-based receptors. Therefore, the project would not expose
off-site sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of air pollutant emissions during construction and
impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
TABLE 2 CONSTRUCTION RISK SUMMARY – MITIGATED
Receptor
Cancer Risk
(per million)
Chronic
Hazards
PM2.5
(µg/m3)a
Maximum Exposed Receptor – Off-site Resident 4.9 0.011 0.05
Maximum Exposed Receptor – Senior Living Resident <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
BAAQMD Threshold 10 1.0 0.3
Exceeds Threshold? No No No
Risks incorporate Mitigation Measure AQ‐2, which requires all equipment of 25 horsepower or more be fitted with engines that meet the EPA’s Tier 4
Interim emissions standards.
Note: Cancer risk calculated using 2015 OEHHA HRA guidance.
Health Risk Assessment Background and Modeling Data Page 9
2. References
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.
———. 2016. Planning Healthy Places. Dated May 2016.
———. 2012. Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards. Version 3.0. Dated May
2012.
———. 2010. Screening Tables for Air Toxics Evaluation During Construction. Version 1.0. Dated May
2010.
———. 2009-2013. Meteorological Data Set for Metro Oakland International Airport.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2016. California Emissions Estimator
Model (CalEEMod). Version 2016.3.2. Prepared by: ENVIRON International Corporation and the
California Air Districts.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from
Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles.
———. 2020. Meteorological Files. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/harp-aermod-
meteorological-files
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance
Manual for the Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. Dated February 2015.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition
(Final). EPA/600/R-09/052F, 2011.
______. 2005. Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised). EPA-450/2-78-027R.
Health Risk Assessment Background and Modeling Data
Appendix A. Emission Rate Calculations
Health Risk Assessment Background and Modeling Data
Appendix B. Air Dispersion Model Output
Health Risk Assessment Background and Modeling Data
Appendix C. Construction Risk Calculations
PLACEWORKS
0
Scale (Feet)
500
Source: Google Earth Pro, 2020; PlaceWorks, 2020.
Project Site Maximum Exposed Receptor - Residential
Receptors - Residential
Truck Route
Figure 1
Site and Off-Site Receptor Locations
Maximum Exposed Receptor - Senior Living Resident
Receptors - Senior Living Resident
Lo
n
g
O
a
k
L
n
Lo
n
g
O
a
k
L
n
Sp
a
n
i
s
h
O
a
k
C
t
Sp
a
n
i
s
h
O
a
k
C
t
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
O
a
k
W
y
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
O
a
k
W
y
Majestic Oak WyMajestic Oak Wy
En
g
l
i
s
h
O
a
k
W
y
En
g
l
i
s
h
O
a
k
W
y
Salem AveSalem Ave
Poppy DrPoppy Dr
Al
p
i
n
e
D
r
Al
p
i
n
e
D
r
Cupertino RdCupertino Rd
A
n
t
h
o
n
y
P
l
A
n
t
h
o
n
y
P
l
Silver Oak WySilver Oak Wy
N
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
B
l
v
d
N
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
B
l
v
d
Stevens Creek BlvdStevens Creek Blvd
Hi
l
l
c
r
e
s
t
R
d
Hi
l
l
c
r
e
s
t
R
d
Bellvue AveBellvue Ave
Janice AveJanice Ave
Dubon AveDubon Ave
Woodridge CtWoodridge Ct
Walnut Cir NWalnut Cir N
Medina LnMedina Ln
Rancho Ventura S t
Rancho Ventura S t
S
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
B
l
v
d
S
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
B
l
v
d
Mi
r
a
V
i
s
t
a
R
d
Mi
r
a
V
i
s
t
a
R
d
Pa
l
o
V
i
s
t
a
R
d
Pa
l
o
V
i
s
t
a
R
d
Ca
s
a
P
l
Ca
s
a
P
l
Ra
m
o
n
a
C
t
Ra
m
o
n
a
C
t
Ca
m
i
n
o
V
i
s
t
a
D
r
Ca
m
i
n
o
V
i
s
t
a
D
r
Pa
l
o
V
i
s
t
a
A
v
e
Pa
l
o
V
i
s
t
a
A
v
e
Lo
c
k
w
o
o
d
D
r
Lo
c
k
w
o
o
d
D
r
Le
b
a
n
o
n
D
r
Le
b
a
n
o
n
D
r
Mc
K
l
i
n
t
l
o
c
k
L
n
Mc
K
l
i
n
t
l
o
c
k
L
n
A m ad o r O ak Ct
A m ad o r O ak Ct
Silver Oak LnSilver Oak Ln
Sw
a
n
O
a
k
L
n
Sw
a
n
O
a
k
L
n
Residential
Residential
Residential
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD CONSTRUCTION HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Health Risk Assessment Background and Modeling Data
Appendix A. Emission Rate Calculations
Construction Emissions - DPM and PM2.5
Input to Risk Tables
Average Daily Emissions and Emission Rates
Onsite Construction PM10 Exhaust Emissions1 Onsite Construction PM2.5 Exhaust Emissions2
Year
Average
Daily
Emissions
(lbs/day)
Average
Daily
Emissions
(lbs/hr)
Emission
Rate (g/s)
Average
Daily
Emissions
(lbs/day)
Average
Daily
Emissions
(lbs/hr)
Emission
Rate (g/s)
2022 0.42 5.26E-02 6.63E-03 0.40 5.00E-02 6.29E-03
Offsite Construction PM10 Exhaust Emissions1 Offsite Construction PM2.5 Exhaust Emissions2
Year
Average
Daily
Emissions
(lbs/day)
Hauling
Emissions
w/in 1,000ft
(lbs/day) 3
Emission
Rate (lbs/hr)
Emission
Rate (g/s)
Average
Daily
Emissions
(lbs/day)
Hauling
Emissions
w/in 1,000ft
(lbs/day) 3
Emission
Rate (lbs/hr)
Emission
Rate (g/s)
2022 1.38E-03 2.89E-05 3.61E-06 4.55E-07 1.38E-03 2.89E-05 3.61E-06 4.55E-07
Note: Emissions evenly distributed over 55 modeled volume sources.
Year Workdays
Risk Scalar 5
Hauling Length (miles)20 miles
Haul Length within 1,000 ft of Site (mile) 3 0.42 miles 2022 218 0.84
8 hours
1 DPM emissions taken as PM10 exhaust emissions from CalEEMod average daily emissions.
2 PM2.5 emissions taken as PM2.5 exhaust emissions from CalEEMod average daily emissions.
4 Work hours applied in By Hour/Day (HRDOW) variable emissions module in air dispersion model (see App B - Air Dispersion Model Output).
Hours per work day (7:00 AM to 4:00 PM, 1-
hour of breaks) 4
3 Emissions from CalEEMod offsite average daily emissions, which is based on proportioned haul truck trip distances, are adjusted to evaluate emissions from the 0.42-mile route
within 1,000 of the project site.
5 Risk scalars determined for each year of construction to adjust receptor exposures to the exposure durations for each construction year (see App C - Risk Calculations).
Construction Emissions - DPM and PM2.5
Input to Risk Tables
With Mitigation - Tier 4 Interim Engines for Eq. > 25 hp
Average Daily Emissions and Emission Rates: Mitigated Scenario
Onsite Construction PM10 Exhaust Emissions1 Onsite Construction PM2.5 Exhaust Emissions2
Year
Average
Daily
Emissions
(lbs/day)
Average
Daily
Emissions
(lbs/hr)
Emission
Rate (g/s)
Average
Daily
Emissions
(lbs/day)
Average
Daily
Emissions
(lbs/hr)
Emission
Rate (g/s)
2022 0.03 4.36E-03 5.49E-04 0.03 4.36E-03 5.49E-04
Offsite Construction PM10 Exhaust Emissions1 Offsite Construction PM2.5 Exhaust Emissions2
Year
Average
Daily
Emissions
(lbs/day)
Hauling
Emissions
w/in 1,000ft
(lbs/day) 3
Emission
Rate (lbs/hr)
Emission
Rate (g/s)
Average
Daily
Emissions
(lbs/day)
Hauling
Emissions
w/in 1,000ft
(lbs/day) 3
Emission
Rate (lbs/hr)
Emission
Rate (g/s)
2022 1.38E-03 2.89E-05 3.61E-06 4.55E-07 1.38E-03 2.89E-05 3.61E-06 4.55E-07
Note: Emissions evenly distributed over 55 modeled volume sources.
Year Workdays
Risk Scalar 5
Hauling Length (miles)20 miles
Haul Length within 1,000 ft of Site (mile) 3 0.42 miles 2022 218 0.84
8 hours
1 DPM emissions taken as PM10 exhaust emissions from CalEEMod average daily emissions.
2 PM2.5 emissions taken as PM2.5 exhaust emissions from CalEEMod average daily emissions.
4 Work hours applied in By Hour/Day (HRDOW) variable emissions module in air dispersion model (see App B - Air Dispersion Model Output).
Hours per work day (7:00 AM to 4:00 PM, 1-
hour of breaks) 4
3 Emissions from CalEEMod offsite average daily emissions, which is based on proportioned haul truck trip distances, are adjusted to evaluate emissions from the 0.42-mile route
within 1,000 of the project site.
5 Risk scalars determined for each year of construction to adjust receptor exposures to the exposure durations for each construction year (see App C - Risk Calculations).
Health Risk Assessment Background and Modeling Data
Appendix B. Air Dispersion Model Output
*** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** 22690 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino *** 07/21/20
*** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** Construction HRA, Residential Receptors *** 09:29:47
PAGE 1
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN
*** MODEL SETUP OPTIONS SUMMARY ***
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
**Model Is Setup For Calculation of Average CONCentration Values.
-- DEPOSITION LOGIC --
**NO GAS DEPOSITION Data Provided.
**NO PARTICLE DEPOSITION Data Provided.
**Model Uses NO DRY DEPLETION. DRYDPLT = F
**Model Uses NO WET DEPLETION. WETDPLT = F
**Model Uses URBAN Dispersion Algorithm for the SBL for 56 Source(s),
for Total of 1 Urban Area(s):
Urban Population = 1928000.0 ; Urban Roughness Length = 1.000 m
**Model Uses Regulatory DEFAULT Options:
1. Stack-tip Downwash.
2. Model Accounts for ELEVated Terrain Effects.
3. Use Calms Processing Routine.
4. Use Missing Data Processing Routine.
5. No Exponential Decay.
6. Urban Roughness Length of 1.0 Meter Assumed.
**Other Options Specified:
CCVR_Sub - Meteorological data includes CCVR substitutions
TEMP_Sub - Meteorological data includes TEMP substitutions
**Model Accepts FLAGPOLE Receptor Heights.
**The User Specified a Pollutant Type of: OTHER
**Model Calculates PERIOD Averages Only
**This Run Includes: 56 Source(s); 2 Source Group(s); and 391 Receptor(s)
with: 0 POINT(s), including
0 POINTCAP(s) and 0 POINTHOR(s)
and: 55 VOLUME source(s)
and: 1 AREA type source(s)
and: 0 LINE source(s)
and: 0 RLINE/RLINEXT source(s)
and: 0 OPENPIT source(s)
and: 0 BUOYANT LINE source(s) with 0 line(s)
**Model Set To Continue RUNning After the Setup Testing.
Model Output
Unit Emission Rates (1 g/s)
**The AERMET Input Meteorological Data Version Date: 14134
**Output Options Selected:
Model Outputs Tables of PERIOD Averages by Receptor
Model Outputs External File(s) of High Values for Plotting (PLOTFILE Keyword)
Model Outputs Separate Summary File of High Ranked Values (SUMMFILE Keyword)
**NOTE: The Following Flags May Appear Following CONC Values: c for Calm Hours
m for Missing Hours
b for Both Calm and Missing Hours
**Misc. Inputs: Base Elev. for Pot. Temp. Profile (m MSL) = 11.90 ; Decay Coef. = 0.000 ; Rot. Angle = 0.0
Emission Units = GRAMS/SEC ; Emission Rate Unit Factor = 0.10000E+07
Output Units = MICROGRAMS/M**3
**Approximate Storage Requirements of Model = 3.6 MB of RAM.
**Input Runstream File: aermod.inp
**Output Print File: aermod.out
**Detailed Error/Message File: COCU18.err
**File for Summary of Results: COCU18.sum
Model Output
Unit Emission Rates (1 g/s)
*** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** 22690 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino *** 07/21/20
*** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** Construction HRA, Residential Receptors *** 09:29:47
PAGE 2
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN
*** VOLUME SOURCE DATA ***
NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE RELEASE INIT. INIT. URBAN EMISSION RATE
SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT SY SZ SOURCE SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) BY
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
L0000001 0 0.18182E-01 582491.5 4131335.0 114.4 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000002 0 0.18182E-01 582493.1 4131322.9 114.8 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000003 0 0.18182E-01 582494.6 4131310.8 115.2 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000004 0 0.18182E-01 582496.2 4131298.8 115.7 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000005 0 0.18182E-01 582497.8 4131286.7 116.1 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000006 0 0.18182E-01 582499.3 4131274.6 116.2 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000007 0 0.18182E-01 582500.9 4131262.5 116.4 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000008 0 0.18182E-01 582502.2 4131250.4 116.3 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000009 0 0.18182E-01 582503.6 4131238.2 116.0 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000010 0 0.18182E-01 582504.9 4131226.1 115.8 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000011 0 0.18182E-01 582506.2 4131214.0 115.7 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000012 0 0.18182E-01 582507.5 4131201.9 115.7 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000013 0 0.18182E-01 582508.7 4131189.8 115.8 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000014 0 0.18182E-01 582509.7 4131177.6 115.9 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000015 0 0.18182E-01 582510.6 4131165.4 115.9 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000016 0 0.18182E-01 582511.6 4131153.3 116.0 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000017 0 0.18182E-01 582512.5 4131141.1 116.1 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000018 0 0.18182E-01 582513.5 4131129.0 116.2 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000019 0 0.18182E-01 582514.4 4131116.8 116.3 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000020 0 0.18182E-01 582514.8 4131104.6 116.5 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000021 0 0.18182E-01 582515.2 4131092.4 116.6 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000022 0 0.18182E-01 582515.7 4131080.3 116.7 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000023 0 0.18182E-01 582516.1 4131068.1 116.8 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000024 0 0.18182E-01 582516.5 4131055.9 117.0 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000025 0 0.18182E-01 582517.0 4131043.7 117.2 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000026 0 0.18182E-01 582517.4 4131031.5 117.5 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000027 0 0.18182E-01 582517.8 4131019.3 117.8 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000028 0 0.18182E-01 582518.3 4131007.2 118.0 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000029 0 0.18182E-01 582518.7 4130995.0 118.1 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000030 0 0.18182E-01 582530.6 4130995.2 117.8 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000031 0 0.18182E-01 582542.8 4130995.8 117.8 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000032 0 0.18182E-01 582555.0 4130996.4 117.7 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000033 0 0.18182E-01 582567.1 4130996.9 117.8 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000034 0 0.18182E-01 582579.3 4130997.5 117.8 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000035 0 0.18182E-01 582591.5 4130998.0 118.1 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000036 0 0.18182E-01 582603.7 4130998.6 118.3 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000037 0 0.18182E-01 582615.8 4130999.2 118.5 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000038 0 0.18182E-01 582628.0 4130999.7 118.6 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
Model Output
Unit Emission Rates (1 g/s)
L0000039 0 0.18182E-01 582640.2 4131000.3 118.7 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000040 0 0.18182E-01 582652.4 4131000.9 118.7 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
*** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** 22690 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino *** 07/21/20
*** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** Construction HRA, Residential Receptors *** 09:29:47
PAGE 3
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN
*** VOLUME SOURCE DATA ***
NUMBER EMISSION RATE BASE RELEASE INIT. INIT. URBAN EMISSION RATE
SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC) X Y ELEV. HEIGHT SY SZ SOURCE SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) BY
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
L0000041 0 0.18182E-01 582664.6 4131001.4 118.6 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000042 0 0.18182E-01 582676.7 4131002.0 118.5 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000043 0 0.18182E-01 582688.9 4131001.9 118.6 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000044 0 0.18182E-01 582701.1 4131001.7 118.8 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000045 0 0.18182E-01 582713.3 4131001.5 119.0 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000046 0 0.18182E-01 582725.5 4131001.3 119.1 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000047 0 0.18182E-01 582737.7 4131001.1 119.3 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000048 0 0.18182E-01 582749.9 4131000.9 119.5 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000049 0 0.18182E-01 582762.1 4131000.7 119.6 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000050 0 0.18182E-01 582774.2 4131001.3 119.5 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000051 0 0.18182E-01 582786.3 4131003.2 119.5 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000052 0 0.18182E-01 582798.3 4131005.0 119.5 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000053 0 0.18182E-01 582810.4 4131006.9 119.5 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000054 0 0.18182E-01 582822.4 4131008.7 119.5 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
L0000055 0 0.18182E-01 582834.5 4131010.6 119.5 4.15 5.67 3.26 YES HRDOW
*** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** 22690 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino *** 07/21/20
*** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** Construction HRA, Residential Receptors *** 09:29:47
PAGE 4
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN
*** AREAPOLY SOURCE DATA ***
NUMBER EMISSION RATE LOCATION OF AREA BASE RELEASE NUMBER INIT. URBAN EMISSION RATE
SOURCE PART. (GRAMS/SEC X Y ELEV. HEIGHT OF VERTS. SZ SOURCE SCALAR VARY
ID CATS. /METER**2) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) BY
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1 0 0.32580E-03 582509.2 4130943.0 118.2 4.15 11 1.93 YES HRDOW
Model Output
Unit Emission Rates (1 g/s)
*** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** 22690 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino *** 07/21/20
*** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** Construction HRA, Residential Receptors *** 09:29:47
PAGE 5
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN
*** SOURCE IDs DEFINING SOURCE GROUPS ***
SRCGROUP ID SOURCE IDs
----------- ----------
ONSITE 1 ,
HAUL L0000001 , L0000002 , L0000003 , L0000004 , L0000005 , L0000006 , L0000007 , L0000008 ,
L0000009 , L0000010 , L0000011 , L0000012 , L0000013 , L0000014 , L0000015 , L0000016 ,
L0000017 , L0000018 , L0000019 , L0000020 , L0000021 , L0000022 , L0000023 , L0000024 ,
L0000025 , L0000026 , L0000027 , L0000028 , L0000029 , L0000030 , L0000031 , L0000032 ,
L0000033 , L0000034 , L0000035 , L0000036 , L0000037 , L0000038 , L0000039 , L0000040 ,
L0000041 , L0000042 , L0000043 , L0000044 , L0000045 , L0000046 , L0000047 , L0000048 ,
L0000049 , L0000050 , L0000051 , L0000052 , L0000053 , L0000054 , L0000055 ,
*** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** 22690 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino *** 07/21/20
*** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** Construction HRA, Residential Receptors *** 09:29:47
PAGE 6
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN
*** SOURCE IDs DEFINED AS URBAN SOURCES ***
URBAN ID URBAN POP SOURCE IDs
-------- --------- ----------
1928000. 1 , L0000001 , L0000002 , L0000003 , L0000004 , L0000005 , L0000006 ,
L0000007 ,
L0000008 , L0000009 , L0000010 , L0000011 , L0000012 , L0000013 , L0000014 , L0000015 ,
L0000016 , L0000017 , L0000018 , L0000019 , L0000020 , L0000021 , L0000022 , L0000023 ,
L0000024 , L0000025 , L0000026 , L0000027 , L0000028 , L0000029 , L0000030 , L0000031 ,
L0000032 , L0000033 , L0000034 , L0000035 , L0000036 , L0000037 , L0000038 , L0000039 ,
L0000040 , L0000041 , L0000042 , L0000043 , L0000044 , L0000045 , L0000046 , L0000047 ,
L0000048 , L0000049 , L0000050 , L0000051 , L0000052 , L0000053 , L0000054 , L0000055 ,
Model Output
Unit Emission Rates (1 g/s)
*** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** 22690 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino *** 07/21/20
*** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** Construction HRA, Residential Receptors *** 09:29:47
PAGE 7
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN
* SOURCE EMISSION RATE SCALARS WHICH VARY DIURNALLY AND BY DAY OF WEEK (HRDOW) *
SOURCE ID = ALL SOURCES ; SOURCE TYPE = AREAPOLY and VOLUME:
HOUR SCALAR HOUR SCALAR HOUR SCALAR HOUR SCALAR HOUR SCALAR HOUR SCALAR HOUR SCALAR HOUR SCALAR
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DAY OF WEEK = WEEKDAY
1 .0000E+00 2 .0000E+00 3 .0000E+00 4 .0000E+00 5 .0000E+00 6 .0000E+00 7 .0000E+00 8 .1000E+01
9 .1000E+01 10 .1000E+01 11 .1000E+01 12 .1000E+01 13 .0000E+00 14 .1000E+01 15 .1000E+01 16 .1000E+01
17 .0000E+00 18 .0000E+00 19 .0000E+00 20 .0000E+00 21 .0000E+00 22 .0000E+00 23 .0000E+00 24 .0000E+00
DAY OF WEEK = SATURDAY
1 .0000E+00 2 .0000E+00 3 .0000E+00 4 .0000E+00 5 .0000E+00 6 .0000E+00 7 .0000E+00 8 .0000E+00
9 .0000E+00 10 .0000E+00 11 .0000E+00 12 .0000E+00 13 .0000E+00 14 .0000E+00 15 .0000E+00 16 .0000E+00
17 .0000E+00 18 .0000E+00 19 .0000E+00 20 .0000E+00 21 .0000E+00 22 .0000E+00 23 .0000E+00 24 .0000E+00
DAY OF WEEK = SUNDAY
1 .0000E+00 2 .0000E+00 3 .0000E+00 4 .0000E+00 5 .0000E+00 6 .0000E+00 7 .0000E+00 8 .0000E+00
9 .0000E+00 10 .0000E+00 11 .0000E+00 12 .0000E+00 13 .0000E+00 14 .0000E+00 15 .0000E+00 16 .0000E+00
17 .0000E+00 18 .0000E+00 19 .0000E+00 20 .0000E+00 21 .0000E+00 22 .0000E+00 23 .0000E+00 24 .0000E+00
Model Output
Unit Emission Rates (1 g/s)
*** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** 22690 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino *** 07/21/20
*** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** Construction HRA, Residential Receptors *** 09:29:47
PAGE 69
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN
*** METEOROLOGICAL DAYS SELECTED FOR PROCESSING ***
(1=YES; 0=NO)
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
NOTE: METEOROLOGICAL DATA ACTUALLY PROCESSED WILL ALSO DEPEND ON WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE DATA FILE.
*** UPPER BOUND OF FIRST THROUGH FIFTH WIND SPEED CATEGORIES ***
(METERS/SEC)
1.54, 3.09, 5.14, 8.23, 10.80,
Model Output
Unit Emission Rates (1 g/s)
*** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** 22690 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino *** 07/21/20
*** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** Construction HRA, Residential Receptors *** 09:29:47
PAGE 70
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN
*** UP TO THE FIRST 24 HOURS OF METEOROLOGICAL DATA ***
Surface file: ..\MetData\745090.SFC Met Version: 14134
Profile file: ..\MetData\745090.PFL
Surface format: FREE
Profile format: FREE
Surface station no.: 23244 Upper air station no.: 23230
Name: UNKNOWN Name: OAKLAND/WSO_AP
Year: 2009 Year: 2009
First 24 hours of scalar data
YR MO DY JDY HR H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-O LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS WD HT REF TA HT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
09 01 01 1 01 -12.1 0.213 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 236. 72.6 0.09 0.54 1.00 2.86 1. 10.0 282.5 2.0
09 01 01 1 02 -14.9 0.261 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 321. 109.2 0.09 0.54 1.00 3.36 18. 10.0 282.0 2.0
09 01 01 1 03 -9.1 0.160 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 158. 40.7 0.09 0.54 1.00 2.36 24. 10.0 282.0 2.0
09 01 01 1 04 -999.0 -9.000 -9.000 -9.000 -999. -999. -99999.0 0.24 0.54 1.00 0.00 0. 10.0 281.4 2.0
09 01 01 1 05 -3.9 0.075 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 49. 9.8 0.09 0.54 1.00 1.76 23. 10.0 281.4 2.0
09 01 01 1 06 -9.1 0.159 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 153. 40.5 0.09 0.54 1.00 2.36 2. 10.0 280.9 2.0
09 01 01 1 07 -9.1 0.159 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 153. 40.5 0.09 0.54 1.00 2.36 15. 10.0 280.9 2.0
09 01 01 1 08 -4.7 0.084 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 61. 11.7 0.15 0.54 0.73 1.76 323. 10.0 280.9 2.0
09 01 01 1 09 -4.9 0.212 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 234. 179.0 0.15 0.54 0.38 2.36 357. 10.0 280.4 2.0
09 01 01 1 10 5.7 0.163 0.241 0.014 89. 159. -69.3 0.09 0.54 0.25 1.76 11. 10.0 280.9 2.0
09 01 01 1 11 12.2 -9.000 -9.000 -9.000 158. -999. -99999.0 0.24 0.54 0.21 0.00 0. 10.0 280.9 2.0
09 01 01 1 12 16.0 0.426 0.456 0.016 216. 668. -442.4 0.15 0.54 0.19 4.36 346. 10.0 281.4 2.0
09 01 01 1 13 16.6 0.236 0.493 0.015 263. 305. -71.8 0.36 0.54 0.19 1.76 253. 10.0 281.4 2.0
09 01 01 1 14 14.2 -9.000 -9.000 -9.000 297. -999. -99999.0 0.24 0.54 0.20 0.00 0. 10.0 282.0 2.0
09 01 01 1 15 44.9 -9.000 -9.000 -9.000 387. -999. -99999.0 0.24 0.54 0.23 0.00 0. 10.0 283.8 2.0
09 01 01 1 16 13.2 -9.000 -9.000 -9.000 410. -999. -99999.0 0.24 0.54 0.31 0.00 0. 10.0 284.1 2.0
09 01 01 1 17 -12.3 0.130 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 112. 16.2 0.15 0.54 0.55 2.36 351. 10.0 282.1 2.0
09 01 01 1 18 -9.3 0.106 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 83. 11.6 0.36 0.54 1.00 1.76 297. 10.0 282.1 2.0
09 01 01 1 19 -999.0 -9.000 -9.000 -9.000 -999. -999. -99999.0 0.24 0.54 1.00 0.00 0. 10.0 281.1 2.0
09 01 01 1 20 -999.0 -9.000 -9.000 -9.000 -999. -999. -99999.0 0.24 0.54 1.00 0.00 0. 10.0 281.1 2.0
09 01 01 1 21 -999.0 -9.000 -9.000 -9.000 -999. -999. -99999.0 0.24 0.54 1.00 0.00 0. 10.0 281.1 2.0
09 01 01 1 22 -999.0 -9.000 -9.000 -9.000 -999. -999. -99999.0 0.24 0.54 1.00 0.00 0. 10.0 281.1 2.0
09 01 01 1 23 -999.0 -9.000 -9.000 -9.000 -999. -999. -99999.0 0.24 0.54 1.00 0.00 0. 10.0 281.1 2.0
09 01 01 1 24 -999.0 -9.000 -9.000 -9.000 -999. -999. -99999.0 0.24 0.54 1.00 0.00 0. 10.0 280.1 2.0
First hour of profile data
YR MO DY HR HEIGHT F WDIR WSPD AMB_TMP sigmaA sigmaW sigmaV
09 01 01 01 10.0 1 1. 2.86 282.6 99.0 -99.00 -99.00
F indicates top of profile (=1) or below (=0)
Model Output
Unit Emission Rates (1 g/s)
*** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** 22690 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino *** 07/21/20
*** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** Construction HRA, Residential Receptors *** 09:29:47
PAGE 71
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN
*** THE PERIOD ( 43872 HRS) AVERAGE CONCENTRATION VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: ONSITE ***
INCLUDING SOURCE(S): 1 ,
*** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS ***
** CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 **
X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
582111.53 4130697.09 0.05189 582151.53 4130697.09 0.07355
582191.53 4130697.09 0.11089 582231.53 4130697.09 0.17458
582271.53 4130697.09 0.28405 582311.53 4130697.09 0.47641
582351.53 4130697.09 0.81880 582391.53 4130697.09 1.40788
582431.53 4130697.09 2.30141 582471.53 4130697.09 3.32345
582511.53 4130697.09 3.99311 582551.53 4130697.09 3.94542
582591.53 4130697.09 3.26933 582631.53 4130697.09 2.38250
582671.53 4130697.09 1.60654 582711.53 4130697.09 1.06612
582751.53 4130697.09 0.72524 582791.53 4130697.09 0.50365
582831.53 4130697.09 0.36942 582111.53 4130727.09 0.04952
582151.53 4130727.09 0.06999 582191.53 4130727.09 0.10432
582231.53 4130727.09 0.16687 582271.53 4130727.09 0.28133
582311.53 4130727.09 0.48998 582351.53 4130727.09 0.88966
582391.53 4130727.09 1.63663 582431.53 4130727.09 2.82829
582471.53 4130727.09 4.21964 582511.53 4130727.09 5.07564
582551.53 4130727.09 4.82709 582591.53 4130727.09 3.75293
582631.53 4130727.09 2.55915 582671.53 4130727.09 1.63694
582711.53 4130727.09 1.04707 582751.53 4130727.09 0.69840
582791.53 4130727.09 0.48244 582831.53 4130727.09 0.35241
582111.53 4130757.09 0.04771 582151.53 4130757.09 0.06665
582191.53 4130757.09 0.09885 582231.53 4130757.09 0.15697
582271.53 4130757.09 0.27029 582311.53 4130757.09 0.50033
582351.53 4130757.09 0.96869 582391.53 4130757.09 1.91856
582431.53 4130757.09 3.55198 582471.53 4130757.09 5.52092
582511.53 4130757.09 6.61787 582551.53 4130757.09 5.96909
582591.53 4130757.09 4.28447 582631.53 4130757.09 2.68401
582671.53 4130757.09 1.61156 582711.53 4130757.09 0.99565
582751.53 4130757.09 0.66169 582791.53 4130757.09 0.45952
582831.53 4130757.09 0.33672 582111.53 4130787.09 0.04610
582151.53 4130787.09 0.06314 582191.53 4130787.09 0.09220
582231.53 4130787.09 0.14623 582271.53 4130787.09 0.25486
582311.53 4130787.09 0.49388 582351.53 4130787.09 1.02153
582391.53 4130787.09 2.24565 582431.53 4130787.09 4.57734
582471.53 4130787.09 7.49411 582511.53 4130787.09 8.89340
582551.53 4130787.09 7.44053 582591.53 4130787.09 4.77933
582631.53 4130787.09 2.71167 582671.53 4130787.09 1.53764
582711.53 4130787.09 0.93253 582751.53 4130787.09 0.62012
Model Output
Unit Emission Rates (1 g/s)
582791.53 4130787.09 0.43549 582831.53 4130787.09 0.32200
582111.53 4130817.09 0.04577 582151.53 4130817.09 0.06132
582191.53 4130817.09 0.08694 582231.53 4130817.09 0.13549
*** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** 22690 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino *** 07/21/20
*** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** Construction HRA, Residential Receptors *** 09:29:47
PAGE 72
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN
*** THE PERIOD ( 43872 HRS) AVERAGE CONCENTRATION VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: ONSITE ***
INCLUDING SOURCE(S): 1 ,
*** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS ***
** CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 **
X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
582271.53 4130817.09 0.23558 582311.53 4130817.09 0.46890
582351.53 4130817.09 1.05415 582391.53 4130817.09 2.63392
582431.53 4130817.09 6.04365 582471.53 4130817.09 10.62496
582511.53 4130817.09 12.42714 582551.53 4130817.09 9.31481
582591.53 4130817.09 5.18312 582631.53 4130817.09 2.63745
582671.53 4130817.09 1.42584 582711.53 4130817.09 0.86979
582751.53 4130817.09 0.57752 582791.53 4130817.09 0.41270
582831.53 4130817.09 0.30963 582111.53 4130847.09 0.04705
582151.53 4130847.09 0.06131 582191.53 4130847.09 0.08443
582231.53 4130847.09 0.12732 582271.53 4130847.09 0.21588
582311.53 4130847.09 0.43081 582351.53 4130847.09 1.02414
582391.53 4130847.09 3.01469 582431.53 4130847.09 8.23465
582471.53 4130847.09 16.01141 582511.53 4130847.09 18.27891
582551.53 4130847.09 11.55991 582591.53 4130847.09 5.34022
582631.53 4130847.09 2.44792 582671.53 4130847.09 1.29038
582711.53 4130847.09 0.79329 582751.53 4130847.09 0.53716
582791.53 4130847.09 0.39246 582831.53 4130847.09 0.29926
582111.53 4130877.09 0.05020 582151.53 4130877.09 0.06442
582191.53 4130877.09 0.08617 582231.53 4130877.09 0.12472
582271.53 4130877.09 0.20059 582311.53 4130877.09 0.38597
582351.53 4130877.09 0.94648 582391.53 4130877.09 3.35059
582431.53 4130877.09 11.79760 582471.53 4130877.09 26.20561
582511.53 4130877.09 28.81194 582551.53 4130877.09 13.59630
582591.53 4130877.09 4.96884 582631.53 4130877.09 2.14041
582671.53 4130877.09 1.14880 582711.53 4130877.09 0.72485
582751.53 4130877.09 0.50483 582791.53 4130877.09 0.37574
582831.53 4130877.09 0.29007 582111.53 4130907.09 0.05579
582151.53 4130907.09 0.07130 582191.53 4130907.09 0.09367
582231.53 4130907.09 0.13185 582271.53 4130907.09 0.20049
582311.53 4130907.09 0.36494 582351.53 4130907.09 0.83355
582391.53 4130907.09 3.37559 582431.53 4130907.09 18.27494
582471.53 4130907.09 47.59861 582511.53 4130907.09 49.39619
582551.53 4130907.09 13.60759 582591.53 4130907.09 4.07477
582631.53 4130907.09 1.80554 582671.53 4130907.09 1.02630
Model Output
Unit Emission Rates (1 g/s)
582711.53 4130907.09 0.67270 582751.53 4130907.09 0.47952
582791.53 4130907.09 0.36197 582831.53 4130907.09 0.28218
582111.53 4130937.09 0.06519 582151.53 4130937.09 0.08381
582191.53 4130937.09 0.11147 582231.53 4130937.09 0.15502
582351.53 4130937.09 0.79028 582391.53 4130937.09 2.78391
582431.53 4130937.09 34.50093 582471.53 4130937.09 100.09548 Residential MER
*** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** 22690 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino *** 07/21/20
*** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** Construction HRA, Residential Receptors *** 09:29:47
PAGE 73
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN
*** THE PERIOD ( 43872 HRS) AVERAGE CONCENTRATION VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: ONSITE ***
INCLUDING SOURCE(S): 1 ,
*** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS ***
** CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 **
X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
582511.53 4130937.09 82.87908 582551.53 4130937.09 10.03204
582591.53 4130937.09 3.11132 582631.53 4130937.09 1.53411
582671.53 4130937.09 0.93244 582711.53 4130937.09 0.63124
582751.53 4130937.09 0.45748 582791.53 4130937.09 0.34873
582831.53 4130937.09 0.27389 582111.53 4130967.09 0.08051
582151.53 4130967.09 0.10516 582191.53 4130967.09 0.14347
582231.53 4130967.09 0.20338 582346.84 4130955.96 0.85895
582432.70 4130954.20 63.76270 582591.53 4130967.09 2.44773
582631.53 4130967.09 1.33224 582671.53 4130967.09 0.84815
582711.53 4130967.09 0.58825 582751.53 4130967.09 0.43211
582791.53 4130967.09 0.33208 582831.53 4130967.09 0.26319
582791.53 4130997.09 0.31055 582831.53 4130997.09 0.24894
582111.53 4131027.09 0.13618 582151.53 4131027.09 0.18690
582191.53 4131027.09 0.28764 582231.53 4131027.09 0.43190
582271.53 4131027.09 0.70203 582311.53 4131027.09 1.26051
582351.53 4131027.09 2.61908 582391.53 4131027.09 5.80612
582431.53 4131027.09 8.86529 582551.53 4131027.09 1.87406
582591.53 4131027.09 1.26219 582631.53 4131027.09 0.86566
582671.53 4131027.09 0.61821 582711.53 4131027.09 0.46207
582751.53 4131027.09 0.35649 582791.53 4131027.09 0.28340
582831.53 4131027.09 0.23097 582111.53 4131057.09 0.18496
582151.53 4131057.09 0.25401 582191.53 4131057.09 0.36403
582231.53 4131057.09 0.54775 582271.53 4131057.09 0.87426
582311.53 4131057.09 1.48729 582351.53 4131057.09 2.62758
582391.53 4131057.09 4.17865 582431.53 4131057.09 4.65023
582551.53 4131057.09 1.07905 582591.53 4131057.09 0.82318
582631.53 4131057.09 0.63545 582671.53 4131057.09 0.49180
582711.53 4131057.09 0.38700 582751.53 4131057.09 0.30892
582791.53 4131057.09 0.25148 582831.53 4131057.09 0.20952
582111.53 4131087.09 0.22281 582151.53 4131087.09 0.30569
582191.53 4131087.09 0.43406 582231.53 4131087.09 0.64013
Model Output
Unit Emission Rates (1 g/s)
582271.53 4131087.09 0.97725 582311.53 4131087.09 1.50923
582351.53 4131087.09 2.24413 582391.53 4131087.09 2.84264
582431.53 4131087.09 2.64266 582551.53 4131087.09 0.68446
582591.53 4131087.09 0.55723 582631.53 4131087.09 0.46111
582671.53 4131087.09 0.38214 582711.53 4131087.09 0.31667
582751.53 4131087.09 0.26128 582791.53 4131087.09 0.21848
582831.53 4131087.09 0.18631 582111.53 4131117.09 0.25874
582151.53 4131117.09 0.35121 582191.53 4131117.09 0.48792
582231.53 4131117.09 0.69163 582271.53 4131117.09 0.98900
*** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** 22690 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino *** 07/21/20
*** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** Construction HRA, Residential Receptors *** 09:29:47
PAGE 74
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN
*** THE PERIOD ( 43872 HRS) AVERAGE CONCENTRATION VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: ONSITE ***
INCLUDING SOURCE(S): 1 ,
*** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS ***
** CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 **
X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
582311.53 4131117.09 1.38063 582351.53 4131117.09 1.78228
582391.53 4131117.09 1.94068 582431.53 4131117.09 1.63066
582471.53 4131117.09 1.06596 582551.53 4131117.09 0.47546
582591.53 4131117.09 0.39693 582631.53 4131117.09 0.34144
582671.53 4131117.09 0.29512 582711.53 4131117.09 0.25477
582751.53 4131117.09 0.21816 582791.53 4131117.09 0.18724
582831.53 4131117.09 0.16369 582111.53 4131147.09 0.28920
582151.53 4131147.09 0.38420 582191.53 4131147.09 0.51711
582231.53 4131147.09 0.69943 582271.53 4131147.09 0.93330
582311.53 4131147.09 1.18975 582351.53 4131147.09 1.37674
582391.53 4131147.09 1.35359 582431.53 4131147.09 1.07509
582471.53 4131147.09 0.73475 582551.53 4131147.09 0.35128 Senior Living MER
582591.53 4131147.09 0.29613 582631.53 4131147.09 0.26066
582671.53 4131147.09 0.23117 582711.53 4131147.09 0.20513
582751.53 4131147.09 0.18133 582791.53 4131147.09 0.15919
582831.53 4131147.09 0.14238 582191.53 4131177.09 0.52245
582231.53 4131177.09 0.67294 582271.53 4131177.09 0.84153
582311.53 4131177.09 0.99177 582351.53 4131177.09 1.05745
582391.53 4131177.09 0.96851 582431.53 4131177.09 0.74691
582471.53 4131177.09 0.53006 582551.53 4131177.09 0.27049
582591.53 4131177.09 0.22966 582631.53 4131177.09 0.20512
582671.53 4131177.09 0.18481 582711.53 4131177.09 0.16720
582751.53 4131177.09 0.15120 582791.53 4131177.09 0.13508
582831.53 4131177.09 0.12319 582191.53 4131207.09 0.50886
582231.53 4131207.09 0.62482 582271.53 4131207.09 0.73702
582311.53 4131207.09 0.81443 582351.53 4131207.09 0.81501
582391.53 4131207.09 0.71201 582431.53 4131207.09 0.54578
582471.53 4131207.09 0.39239 582551.53 4131207.09 0.21524
Model Output
Unit Emission Rates (1 g/s)
582591.53 4131207.09 0.18420 582631.53 4131207.09 0.16575
582671.53 4131207.09 0.15099 582711.53 4131207.09 0.13822
582751.53 4131207.09 0.12710 582791.53 4131207.09 0.11511
582831.53 4131207.09 0.10693 582191.53 4131237.09 0.48155
582231.53 4131237.09 0.56590 582271.53 4131237.09 0.63460
582311.53 4131237.09 0.66528 582351.53 4131237.09 0.63328
582391.53 4131237.09 0.53726 582431.53 4131237.09 0.41256
582471.53 4131237.09 0.30158 582551.53 4131237.09 0.17565
582591.53 4131237.09 0.15125 582631.53 4131237.09 0.13683
582671.53 4131237.09 0.12562 582711.53 4131237.09 0.11591
582751.53 4131237.09 0.10769 582791.53 4131237.09 0.09844
582831.53 4131237.09 0.09265 582191.53 4131267.09 0.44593
Model Output
Unit Emission Rates (1 g/s)
*** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** 22690 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino *** 07/21/20
*** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** Construction HRA, Residential Receptors *** 09:29:47
PAGE 75
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN
*** THE PERIOD ( 43872 HRS) AVERAGE CONCENTRATION VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: ONSITE ***
INCLUDING SOURCE(S): 1 ,
*** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS ***
** CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 **
X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
582231.53 4131267.09 0.50378 582271.53 4131267.09 0.54105
582311.53 4131267.09 0.54341 582351.53 4131267.09 0.49812
582391.53 4131267.09 0.41455 582431.53 4131267.09 0.32036
582471.53 4131267.09 0.24115 582551.53 4131267.09 0.14620
582591.53 4131267.09 0.12649 582631.53 4131267.09 0.11479
582671.53 4131267.09 0.10613 582711.53 4131267.09 0.09861
582751.53 4131267.09 0.09206 582791.53 4131267.09 0.08453
582831.53 4131267.09 0.08071 582111.53 4131297.09 0.31074
582151.53 4131297.09 0.35967 582191.53 4131297.09 0.40678
582231.53 4131297.09 0.44331 582271.53 4131297.09 0.45907
582311.53 4131297.09 0.44568 582351.53 4131297.09 0.39689
582391.53 4131297.09 0.32638 582431.53 4131297.09 0.25717
582471.53 4131297.09 0.19865 582551.53 4131297.09 0.12362
582591.53 4131297.09 0.10719 582631.53 4131297.09 0.09763
582671.53 4131297.09 0.09079 582711.53 4131297.09 0.08490
582751.53 4131297.09 0.07920 582791.53 4131297.09 0.07345
582831.53 4131297.09 0.07071 582111.53 4131327.09 0.29669
582151.53 4131327.09 0.33396 582191.53 4131327.09 0.36628
582231.53 4131327.09 0.38743 582271.53 4131327.09 0.38913
582311.53 4131327.09 0.36796 582351.53 4131327.09 0.32176
582391.53 4131327.09 0.26334 582431.53 4131327.09 0.21073
582471.53 4131327.09 0.16437 582551.53 4131327.09 0.10582
582591.53 4131327.09 0.09219 582631.53 4131327.09 0.08416
582671.53 4131327.09 0.07857 582711.53 4131327.09 0.07399
582751.53 4131327.09 0.06897 582791.53 4131327.09 0.06523
582831.53 4131327.09 0.06141 582111.53 4131357.09 0.27967
582151.53 4131357.09 0.30744 582191.53 4131357.09 0.32741
582231.53 4131357.09 0.33693 582271.53 4131357.09 0.32985
582311.53 4131357.09 0.30547 582351.53 4131357.09 0.26400
582391.53 4131357.09 0.21569 582431.53 4131357.09 0.17357
582471.53 4131357.09 0.13805 582511.53 4131357.09 0.11018
582551.53 4131357.09 0.09154 582591.53 4131357.09 0.08018
582631.53 4131357.09 0.07333 582671.53 4131357.09 0.06868
582711.53 4131357.09 0.06491 582751.53 4131357.09 0.06080
582791.53 4131357.09 0.05661 582831.53 4131357.09 0.05563
582397.42 4130968.19 3.87683
Model Output
Unit Emission Rates (1 g/s)
*** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** 22690 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino *** 07/21/20
*** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** Construction HRA, Residential Receptors *** 09:29:47
PAGE 76
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN
*** THE PERIOD ( 43872 HRS) AVERAGE CONCENTRATION VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: HAUL ***
INCLUDING SOURCE(S): L0000001 , L0000002 , L0000003 , L0000004 , L0000005 ,
L0000006 , L0000007 , L0000008 , L0000009 , L0000010 , L0000011 , L0000012 , L0000013 ,
L0000014 , L0000015 , L0000016 , L0000017 , L0000018 , L0000019 , L0000020 , L0000021 ,
L0000022 , L0000023 , L0000024 , L0000025 , L0000026 , L0000027 , L0000028 , . . . ,
*** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS ***
** CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 **
X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
582111.53 4130697.09 0.05167 582151.53 4130697.09 0.06331
582191.53 4130697.09 0.07974 582231.53 4130697.09 0.10132
582271.53 4130697.09 0.13072 582311.53 4130697.09 0.17310
582351.53 4130697.09 0.23498 582391.53 4130697.09 0.32612
582431.53 4130697.09 0.46467 582471.53 4130697.09 0.66271
582511.53 4130697.09 0.91001 582551.53 4130697.09 1.16888
582591.53 4130697.09 1.38560 582631.53 4130697.09 1.51096
582671.53 4130697.09 1.54037 582711.53 4130697.09 1.49919
582751.53 4130697.09 1.41292 582791.53 4130697.09 1.28713
582831.53 4130697.09 1.13567 582111.53 4130727.09 0.05304
582151.53 4130727.09 0.06530 582191.53 4130727.09 0.08140
582231.53 4130727.09 0.10448 582271.53 4130727.09 0.13651
582311.53 4130727.09 0.18076 582351.53 4130727.09 0.24873
582391.53 4130727.09 0.35357 582431.53 4130727.09 0.51553
582471.53 4130727.09 0.75512 582511.53 4130727.09 1.06432
582551.53 4130727.09 1.38424 582591.53 4130727.09 1.63707
582631.53 4130727.09 1.76723 582671.53 4130727.09 1.77899
582711.53 4130727.09 1.71214 582751.53 4130727.09 1.60006
582791.53 4130727.09 1.44895 582831.53 4130727.09 1.26482
582111.53 4130757.09 0.05503 582151.53 4130757.09 0.06765
582191.53 4130757.09 0.08473 582231.53 4130757.09 0.10774
582271.53 4130757.09 0.14117 582311.53 4130757.09 0.19170
582351.53 4130757.09 0.26672 582391.53 4130757.09 0.38865
582431.53 4130757.09 0.57920 582471.53 4130757.09 0.87133
582511.53 4130757.09 1.26118 582551.53 4130757.09 1.66597
582591.53 4130757.09 1.96289 582631.53 4130757.09 2.08739
582671.53 4130757.09 2.06739 582711.53 4130757.09 1.96458
582751.53 4130757.09 1.82865 582791.53 4130757.09 1.64930
582831.53 4130757.09 1.42469 582111.53 4130787.09 0.05636
582151.53 4130787.09 0.06905 582191.53 4130787.09 0.08659
582231.53 4130787.09 0.11153 582271.53 4130787.09 0.14709
582311.53 4130787.09 0.20189 582351.53 4130787.09 0.28329
582391.53 4130787.09 0.42628 582431.53 4130787.09 0.65277
582471.53 4130787.09 1.01510 582511.53 4130787.09 1.51837
Model Output
Unit Emission Rates (1 g/s)
582551.53 4130787.09 2.03749 582591.53 4130787.09 2.38798
582631.53 4130787.09 2.49246 582671.53 4130787.09 2.42283
582711.53 4130787.09 2.27891 582751.53 4130787.09 2.11582
582791.53 4130787.09 1.90475 582831.53 4130787.09 1.62696
582111.53 4130817.09 0.05820 582151.53 4130817.09 0.07145
582191.53 4130817.09 0.08888 582231.53 4130817.09 0.11539
*** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** 22690 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino *** 07/21/20
*** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** Construction HRA, Residential Receptors *** 09:29:47
PAGE 77
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN
*** THE PERIOD ( 43872 HRS) AVERAGE CONCENTRATION VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: HAUL ***
INCLUDING SOURCE(S): L0000001 , L0000002 , L0000003 , L0000004 , L0000005 ,
L0000006 , L0000007 , L0000008 , L0000009 , L0000010 , L0000011 , L0000012 , L0000013 ,
L0000014 , L0000015 , L0000016 , L0000017 , L0000018 , L0000019 , L0000020 , L0000021 ,
L0000022 , L0000023 , L0000024 , L0000025 , L0000026 , L0000027 , L0000028 , . . . ,
*** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS ***
** CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 **
X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
582271.53 4130817.09 0.15371 582311.53 4130817.09 0.21388
582351.53 4130817.09 0.30388 582391.53 4130817.09 0.46589
582431.53 4130817.09 0.73654 582471.53 4130817.09 1.19003
582511.53 4130817.09 1.86731 582551.53 4130817.09 2.55825
582591.53 4130817.09 2.96581 582631.53 4130817.09 3.01828
582671.53 4130817.09 2.87423 582711.53 4130817.09 2.69283
582751.53 4130817.09 2.49136 582791.53 4130817.09 2.24369
582831.53 4130817.09 1.89265 582111.53 4130847.09 0.06055
582151.53 4130847.09 0.07381 582191.53 4130847.09 0.09200
582231.53 4130847.09 0.11993 582271.53 4130847.09 0.16126
582311.53 4130847.09 0.22684 582351.53 4130847.09 0.31988
582391.53 4130847.09 0.50944 582431.53 4130847.09 0.82585
582471.53 4130847.09 1.41254 582511.53 4130847.09 2.36058
582551.53 4130847.09 3.31987 582591.53 4130847.09 3.77196
582631.53 4130847.09 3.71822 582671.53 4130847.09 3.46970
582711.53 4130847.09 3.23395 582751.53 4130847.09 3.00444
582791.53 4130847.09 2.71420 582831.53 4130847.09 2.25416
582111.53 4130877.09 0.06311 582151.53 4130877.09 0.07722
582191.53 4130877.09 0.09606 582231.53 4130877.09 0.12535
582271.53 4130877.09 0.17059 582311.53 4130877.09 0.24370
582351.53 4130877.09 0.34594 582391.53 4130877.09 0.55532
582431.53 4130877.09 0.92945 582471.53 4130877.09 1.69634
582511.53 4130877.09 3.09613 582551.53 4130877.09 4.49736
582591.53 4130877.09 4.93492 582631.53 4130877.09 4.68033
582671.53 4130877.09 4.29814 582711.53 4130877.09 4.00340
582751.53 4130877.09 3.75841 582791.53 4130877.09 3.40977
582831.53 4130877.09 2.77396 582111.53 4130907.09 0.06602
582151.53 4130907.09 0.08090 582191.53 4130907.09 0.10022
Model Output
Unit Emission Rates (1 g/s)
582231.53 4130907.09 0.13144 582271.53 4130907.09 0.17923
582311.53 4130907.09 0.25980 582351.53 4130907.09 0.37613
582391.53 4130907.09 0.59813 582431.53 4130907.09 1.03941
582471.53 4130907.09 2.04509 582511.53 4130907.09 4.28167
582551.53 4130907.09 6.48070 582591.53 4130907.09 6.69201
582631.53 4130907.09 6.09257 582671.53 4130907.09 5.55213
582711.53 4130907.09 5.21053 582751.53 4130907.09 4.95637
582791.53 4130907.09 4.52873 582831.53 4130907.09 3.58090
582111.53 4130937.09 0.06958 582151.53 4130937.09 0.08499
582191.53 4130937.09 0.10663 582231.53 4130937.09 0.13806
582351.53 4130937.09 0.40978 582391.53 4130937.09 0.64673
582431.53 4130937.09 1.16261 582471.53 4130937.09 2.46913 Residential MER
*** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** 22690 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino *** 07/21/20
*** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** Construction HRA, Residential Receptors *** 09:29:47
PAGE 78
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN
*** THE PERIOD ( 43872 HRS) AVERAGE CONCENTRATION VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: HAUL ***
INCLUDING SOURCE(S): L0000001 , L0000002 , L0000003 , L0000004 , L0000005 ,
L0000006 , L0000007 , L0000008 , L0000009 , L0000010 , L0000011 , L0000012 , L0000013 ,
L0000014 , L0000015 , L0000016 , L0000017 , L0000018 , L0000019 , L0000020 , L0000021 ,
L0000022 , L0000023 , L0000024 , L0000025 , L0000026 , L0000027 , L0000028 , . . . ,
*** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS ***
** CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 **
X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
582511.53 4130937.09 6.46338 582551.53 4130937.09 10.17475
582591.53 4130937.09 9.51216 582631.53 4130937.09 8.37963
582671.53 4130937.09 7.67943 582711.53 4130937.09 7.31784
582751.53 4130937.09 7.08066 582791.53 4130937.09 6.54256
582831.53 4130937.09 4.97111 582111.53 4130967.09 0.07375
582151.53 4130967.09 0.08980 582191.53 4130967.09 0.11471
582231.53 4130967.09 0.14728 582346.84 4130955.96 0.40835
582432.70 4130954.20 1.27035 582591.53 4130967.09 14.50955
582631.53 4130967.09 12.61346 582671.53 4130967.09 11.79222
582711.53 4130967.09 11.50556 582751.53 4130967.09 11.30374
582791.53 4130967.09 10.50606 582831.53 4130967.09 7.71376
582791.53 4130997.09 5.97759 582831.53 4130997.09 13.90706
582111.53 4131027.09 0.08778 582151.53 4131027.09 0.10781
582191.53 4131027.09 0.13747 582231.53 4131027.09 0.17737
582271.53 4131027.09 0.24245 582311.53 4131027.09 0.33929
582351.53 4131027.09 0.52439 582391.53 4131027.09 0.88209
582431.53 4131027.09 1.71829 582551.53 4131027.09 13.06873
582591.53 4131027.09 8.64230 582631.53 4131027.09 7.33676
582671.53 4131027.09 6.65000 582711.53 4131027.09 6.21801
582751.53 4131027.09 5.69418 582791.53 4131027.09 5.61049
582831.53 4131027.09 4.53402 582111.53 4131057.09 0.09609
582151.53 4131057.09 0.11940 582191.53 4131057.09 0.15098
Model Output
Unit Emission Rates (1 g/s)
582231.53 4131057.09 0.19588 582271.53 4131057.09 0.26270
582311.53 4131057.09 0.37166 582351.53 4131057.09 0.57967
582391.53 4131057.09 0.97790 582431.53 4131057.09 1.95677
582551.53 4131057.09 11.08283 582591.53 4131057.09 5.87362
582631.53 4131057.09 4.29355 582671.53 4131057.09 3.63376
582711.53 4131057.09 3.22691 582751.53 4131057.09 2.83303
582791.53 4131057.09 2.39781 582831.53 4131057.09 1.69674
582111.53 4131087.09 0.10460 582151.53 4131087.09 0.12928
582191.53 4131087.09 0.16358 582231.53 4131087.09 0.21530
582271.53 4131087.09 0.29750 582311.53 4131087.09 0.41570
582351.53 4131087.09 0.63543 582391.53 4131087.09 1.07086
582431.53 4131087.09 2.09843 582551.53 4131087.09 10.03954
582591.53 4131087.09 4.74800 582631.53 4131087.09 3.12262
582671.53 4131087.09 2.43297 582711.53 4131087.09 2.05446
582751.53 4131087.09 1.72927 582791.53 4131087.09 1.34769
582831.53 4131087.09 0.98257 582111.53 4131117.09 0.11462
582151.53 4131117.09 0.14405 582191.53 4131117.09 0.18379
582231.53 4131117.09 0.24142 582271.53 4131117.09 0.33054
*** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** 22690 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino *** 07/21/20
*** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** Construction HRA, Residential Receptors *** 09:29:47
PAGE 79
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN
*** THE PERIOD ( 43872 HRS) AVERAGE CONCENTRATION VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: HAUL ***
INCLUDING SOURCE(S): L0000001 , L0000002 , L0000003 , L0000004 , L0000005 ,
L0000006 , L0000007 , L0000008 , L0000009 , L0000010 , L0000011 , L0000012 , L0000013 ,
L0000014 , L0000015 , L0000016 , L0000017 , L0000018 , L0000019 , L0000020 , L0000021 ,
L0000022 , L0000023 , L0000024 , L0000025 , L0000026 , L0000027 , L0000028 , . . . ,
*** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS ***
** CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 **
X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
582311.53 4131117.09 0.46162 582351.53 4131117.09 0.69205
582391.53 4131117.09 1.14711 582431.53 4131117.09 2.17961
582471.53 4131117.09 5.25086 582551.53 4131117.09 9.05604
582591.53 4131117.09 4.03365 582631.53 4131117.09 2.48101
582671.53 4131117.09 1.81692 582711.53 4131117.09 1.46229
582751.53 4131117.09 1.19176 582791.53 4131117.09 0.90705
582831.53 4131117.09 0.70126 582111.53 4131147.09 0.12817
582151.53 4131147.09 0.15812 582191.53 4131147.09 0.19975
582231.53 4131147.09 0.26104 582271.53 4131147.09 0.35304
582311.53 4131147.09 0.49772 582351.53 4131147.09 0.73985
582391.53 4131147.09 1.19780 582431.53 4131147.09 2.18580
582471.53 4131147.09 5.54534 582551.53 4131147.09 8.07810 Senior Living MER
582591.53 4131147.09 3.47273 582631.53 4131147.09 2.03535
582671.53 4131147.09 1.43406 582711.53 4131147.09 1.11463
582751.53 4131147.09 0.88494 582791.53 4131147.09 0.67626
582831.53 4131147.09 0.53997 582191.53 4131177.09 0.21200
Model Output
Unit Emission Rates (1 g/s)
582231.53 4131177.09 0.27632 582271.53 4131177.09 0.37353
582311.53 4131177.09 0.52444 582351.53 4131177.09 0.76845
582391.53 4131177.09 1.20335 582431.53 4131177.09 2.12790
582471.53 4131177.09 5.82646 582551.53 4131177.09 7.10314
582591.53 4131177.09 2.93618 582631.53 4131177.09 1.68132
582671.53 4131177.09 1.16194 582711.53 4131177.09 0.88512
582751.53 4131177.09 0.69286 582791.53 4131177.09 0.53429
582831.53 4131177.09 0.43484 582191.53 4131207.09 0.22392
582231.53 4131207.09 0.29001 582271.53 4131207.09 0.38993
582311.53 4131207.09 0.53967 582351.53 4131207.09 0.77476
582391.53 4131207.09 1.17754 582431.53 4131207.09 2.10803
582471.53 4131207.09 5.82456 582551.53 4131207.09 5.98920
582591.53 4131207.09 2.43515 582631.53 4131207.09 1.38644
582671.53 4131207.09 0.95496 582711.53 4131207.09 0.72292
582751.53 4131207.09 0.56383 582791.53 4131207.09 0.43992
582831.53 4131207.09 0.36410 582191.53 4131237.09 0.23462
582231.53 4131237.09 0.30005 582271.53 4131237.09 0.39991
582311.53 4131237.09 0.54588 582351.53 4131237.09 0.76509
582391.53 4131237.09 1.14414 582431.53 4131237.09 2.05135
582471.53 4131237.09 5.81887 582551.53 4131237.09 4.82430
582591.53 4131237.09 1.96034 582631.53 4131237.09 1.13834
582671.53 4131237.09 0.79269 582711.53 4131237.09 0.60175
582751.53 4131237.09 0.46952 582791.53 4131237.09 0.36976
582831.53 4131237.09 0.31102 582191.53 4131267.09 0.24272
*** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** 22690 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino *** 07/21/20
*** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** Construction HRA, Residential Receptors *** 09:29:47
PAGE 80
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN
*** THE PERIOD ( 43872 HRS) AVERAGE CONCENTRATION VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: HAUL ***
INCLUDING SOURCE(S): L0000001 , L0000002 , L0000003 , L0000004 , L0000005 ,
L0000006 , L0000007 , L0000008 , L0000009 , L0000010 , L0000011 , L0000012 , L0000013 ,
L0000014 , L0000015 , L0000016 , L0000017 , L0000018 , L0000019 , L0000020 , L0000021 ,
L0000022 , L0000023 , L0000024 , L0000025 , L0000026 , L0000027 , L0000028 , . . . ,
*** DISCRETE CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS ***
** CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 **
X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
582231.53 4131267.09 0.30747 582271.53 4131267.09 0.40504
582311.53 4131267.09 0.54478 582351.53 4131267.09 0.74653
582391.53 4131267.09 1.10679 582431.53 4131267.09 1.93989
582471.53 4131267.09 5.84643 582551.53 4131267.09 3.62973
582591.53 4131267.09 1.53456 582631.53 4131267.09 0.93176
582671.53 4131267.09 0.66246 582711.53 4131267.09 0.50707
582751.53 4131267.09 0.39549 582791.53 4131267.09 0.31736
582831.53 4131267.09 0.26953 582111.53 4131297.09 0.16431
582151.53 4131297.09 0.20121 582191.53 4131297.09 0.24862
582231.53 4131297.09 0.31327 582271.53 4131297.09 0.40640
Model Output
Unit Emission Rates (1 g/s)
582311.53 4131297.09 0.53806 582351.53 4131297.09 0.72082
582391.53 4131297.09 1.05697 582431.53 4131297.09 1.82672
582471.53 4131297.09 5.69981 582551.53 4131297.09 2.50871
582591.53 4131297.09 1.17928 582631.53 4131297.09 0.75941
582671.53 4131297.09 0.55493 582711.53 4131297.09 0.43030
582751.53 4131297.09 0.33540 582791.53 4131297.09 0.27293
582831.53 4131297.09 0.23343 582111.53 4131327.09 0.16747
582151.53 4131327.09 0.20535 582191.53 4131327.09 0.25367
582231.53 4131327.09 0.31494 582271.53 4131327.09 0.40264
582311.53 4131327.09 0.52522 582351.53 4131327.09 0.69299
582391.53 4131327.09 1.00594 582431.53 4131327.09 1.69329
582471.53 4131327.09 4.85240 582551.53 4131327.09 1.66482
582591.53 4131327.09 0.90533 582631.53 4131327.09 0.61717
582671.53 4131327.09 0.46389 582711.53 4131327.09 0.36528
582751.53 4131327.09 0.28576 582791.53 4131327.09 0.23081
582831.53 4131327.09 0.20298 582111.53 4131357.09 0.16775
582151.53 4131357.09 0.20613 582191.53 4131357.09 0.25454
582231.53 4131357.09 0.31391 582271.53 4131357.09 0.39478
582311.53 4131357.09 0.50711 582351.53 4131357.09 0.65401
582391.53 4131357.09 0.92886 582431.53 4131357.09 1.41802
582471.53 4131357.09 2.82995 582511.53 4131357.09 2.11478
582551.53 4131357.09 1.08243 582591.53 4131357.09 0.68512
582631.53 4131357.09 0.49688 582671.53 4131357.09 0.38623
582711.53 4131357.09 0.31095 582751.53 4131357.09 0.24654
582791.53 4131357.09 0.19212 582831.53 4131357.09 0.17279
582397.42 4130968.19 0.77674
Model Output
Unit Emission Rates (1 g/s)
*** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** 22690 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino *** 07/21/20
*** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** Construction HRA, Residential Receptors *** 09:29:47
PAGE 81
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN
*** THE SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM PERIOD ( 43872 HRS) RESULTS ***
** CONC OF OTHER IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 **
NETWORK
GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZHILL, ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID-ID
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Residential MER ONSITE 1ST HIGHEST VALUE IS 100.09548 AT ( 582471.53, 4130937.09, 119.33, 254.10, 1.50) DC
2ND HIGHEST VALUE IS 82.87908 AT ( 582511.53, 4130937.09, 118.32, 254.10, 1.50) DC
3RD HIGHEST VALUE IS 63.76270 AT ( 582432.70, 4130954.20, 119.91, 254.10, 1.50) DC
4TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 49.39619 AT ( 582511.53, 4130907.09, 118.67, 254.10, 1.50) DC
5TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 47.59861 AT ( 582471.53, 4130907.09, 119.44, 254.10, 1.50) DC
6TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 34.50093 AT ( 582431.53, 4130937.09, 120.06, 254.10, 1.50) DC
7TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 28.81194 AT ( 582511.53, 4130877.09, 118.77, 254.10, 1.50) DC
8TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 26.20561 AT ( 582471.53, 4130877.09, 119.56, 254.10, 1.50) DC
9TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 18.27891 AT ( 582511.53, 4130847.09, 119.02, 254.10, 1.50) DC
10TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 18.27494 AT ( 582431.53, 4130907.09, 120.13, 254.10, 1.50) DC
HAUL 1ST HIGHEST VALUE IS 14.50955 AT ( 582591.53, 4130967.09, 118.21, 254.10, 1.50) DC
2ND HIGHEST VALUE IS 13.90706 AT ( 582831.53, 4130997.09, 119.67, 119.67, 1.50) DC
3RD HIGHEST VALUE IS 13.06873 AT ( 582551.53, 4131027.09, 117.53, 254.10, 1.50) DC
4TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 12.61346 AT ( 582631.53, 4130967.09, 119.30, 254.10, 1.50) DC
5TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 11.79222 AT ( 582671.53, 4130967.09, 119.16, 252.84, 1.50) DC
6TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 11.50556 AT ( 582711.53, 4130967.09, 119.28, 119.28, 1.50) DC
7TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 11.30374 AT ( 582751.53, 4130967.09, 119.72, 119.72, 1.50) DC
8TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 11.08283 AT ( 582551.53, 4131057.09, 116.80, 254.10, 1.50) DC
9TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 10.50606 AT ( 582791.53, 4130967.09, 119.60, 119.60, 1.50) DC
10TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 10.17475 AT ( 582551.53, 4130937.09, 118.24, 254.10, 1.50) DC
*** RECEPTOR TYPES: GC = GRIDCART
GP = GRIDPOLR
DC = DISCCART
DP = DISCPOLR
Model Output
Unit Emission Rates (1 g/s)
*** AERMOD - VERSION 19191 *** *** 22690 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino *** 07/21/20
*** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** Construction HRA, Residential Receptors *** 09:29:47
PAGE 82
*** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL URBAN
*** Message Summary : AERMOD Model Execution ***
--------- Summary of Total Messages --------
A Total of 0 Fatal Error Message(s)
A Total of 0 Warning Message(s)
A Total of 15496 Informational Message(s)
A Total of 43872 Hours Were Processed
A Total of 14061 Calm Hours Identified
A Total of 1435 Missing Hours Identified ( 3.27 Percent)
******** FATAL ERROR MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
************************************
*** AERMOD Finishes Successfully ***
************************************
Model Output
Unit Emission Rates (1 g/s)
Health Risk Assessment Background and Modeling Data
Appendix C. Construction Risk Calculations
Table C1
Residential MER Concentrations for Risk Calculations
Contaminant Model Emission Rates 2 MER Total MER Conc.
Output 1 Conc. Annual Average
(µg/m3)(g/s)(µg/m3)(µg/m3)
( a )( c )( d )( e )( f )
Residential Receptors - Unmitigated
DPM 2022
On-Site Emissions 100.1 6.63E-03 6.64E-01 6.64E-01
Truck Route 2.47 4.55E-07 1.12E-06
Total DPM concentrations used for Cancer Risk and Chronic Hazard calculations
2022 On-Site Emissions 100.1 6.29E-03 6.30E-01 6.30E-01
Truck Route 2.47 4.55E-07 1.12E-06
Maximum Annual PM2.5 Concentration 0.63
Residential Receptors - Mitigated Run: Tier 4 Interim Engines for eq. > 25 HP
DPM 2022
On-Site Emissions 100.1 5.49E-04 5.50E-02 5.50E-02
Truck Route 2.47 4.55E-07 1.12E-06
Total DPM concentrations used for Cancer Risk and Chronic Hazard calculations
2022 On-Site Emissions 100.1 5.49E-04 5.50E-02 5.50E-02
Truck Route 2.47 4.55E-07 1.12E-06
Maximum Annual PM2.5 Concentration 0.05
Maximum Exposed Receptor (MER) UTM coordinates: 582471.53E, 4130937.09N
1 Model Output at the MER based on unit emission rates for sources (1 g/s).
2 Emission Rates from Emission Rate Calculations (Appendix A - Construction Emissions).
Source
( b )
PM2.5
PM2.5
Table C2
Residential MER Health Risk Calculations
MER Weight Contaminant
Total Cancer
Risk
Conc. Fraction URF CPF 3rd Trimester 0 < 2 years 3rd Trimester 0 < 2 years REL RESP
(µg/m3) (µg/m
3)-1 (mg/kg/day)-1 (mg/kg-day)(mg/kg-day)per million per million per million (µg/m3)
( b )( c )( d )( e )( f )( g )( h )( j )( k )( m )( n )( o )
Residential Receptors - Unmitigated
2022 6.64E-01 1.00E+00 DPM 3.0E-04 1.1E+00 2.30E-04 6.94E-04 7.32E+00 5.20E+01 59.4 5.0E+00 1.33E-01
Total 59.4
0.133
Residential Receptors - Mitigated Run: Tier 4 Interim Engines for eq. > 25 HP
2022 5.50E-02 1.00E+00 DPM 3.0E-04 1.1E+00 1.90E-05 5.74E-05 6.06E-01 4.31E+00 4.9 5.0E+00 1.10E-02
Total 4.9 0.011
Maximum Exposed Receptor (MER) UTM coordinates: 582471.53E, 4130937.09N
OEHHA age bin 3rd Trimester 0 < 2 years
exposure year(s)2022 2022
Dose Exposure Factors:exposure frequency (days/year)350 350
inhalation rate (L/kg-day) 1 361 1090
inhalation absorption factor 11
conversion factor (mg/µg; m3/L)1.0E-06 1.0E-06
Risk Calculation Factors:age sensitivity factor 10 10
averaging time (years)70 70
per million 1.0E+06 1.0E+06
fraction of time at home 0.85 0.85
exposure durations per age bin
Construction Year Risk Scalar 2 3rd Trimester 0 < 2 years
2022 0.84
0.25 0.59
Total 0.84 0.25 0.59
1 Inhalation rate taken as the 95th percentile breathing rates (OEHHA, 2015).
2 Risk scalar determined for each year of construction to adjust receptor exposures to the exposure durations for each construction year (see App A - Construction Emissions).
3 Chronic Hazards for DPM using the chronic reference exposure level (REL) for the Respiratory Toxicological Endpoint.
Chronic Hazards 3
( a )
Source
On & Off-Site Emissions
On & Off-Site Emissions
Carcinogenic Risks
(by age bin)Dose (by age bin)
exposure durations (year)
Table C3
Senior Living MER Concentrations for Risk Calculations
Contaminant Model Emission Rates 2 MER Total MER Conc.
Output 1 Conc. Annual Average
(µg/m3)(g/s)(µg/m3)(µg/m3)
( a )( c )( d )( e )( f )
Senior Living Receptors - Unmitigated
DPM 2022
On-Site Emissions 0.35 6.63E-03 2.33E-03 2.33E-03
Truck Route 8.08 4.55E-07 3.68E-06
Total DPM concentrations used for Cancer Risk and Chronic Hazard calculations
PM25 2022 On-Site Emissions 0.35 6.29E-03 2.21E-03 2.21E-03
Truck Route 8.08 4.55E-07 3.68E-06
Maximum Annual PM2.5 Concentration 2.2E-03
Senior Living Receptors - Mitigated Run: Tier 4 Interim Engines for eq. > 50 HP
DPM 2022
On-Site Emissions 0.35 5.49E-04 1.92E-04 1.96E-04
Truck Route 8.08 4.55E-07 3.68E-06
Total DPM concentrations used for Cancer Risk and Chronic Hazard calculations
2022 On-Site Emissions 0.35 5.49E-04 1.92E-04 1.96E-04
Truck Route 8.08 4.55E-07 3.68E-06
Maximum Annual PM2.5 Concentration 2.0E-04
Senior Living MER UTM coordinates: 582551.53E, 4131147.09N
2 Emission Rates from Emission Rate Calculations (Appendix A - Construction Emissions).
Source
( b )
1 Model Output at the MER based on unit emission rates for sources (1 g/s).
PM2.5
Table C4
Senior Living MER Health Risk Calculations
MER Weight
Conc. Fraction URF CPF
Senior Resident
16 < 70 years
Senior Resident
16 < 70 years REL RESP
(µg/m3) (µg/m3)-1 (mg/kg/day)-1 (mg/kg-day) per million (µg/m3)
( b )( c )( d )( e )( f )( g )( j )( n )( o )
Senior Living Receptors - Unmitigated
2022 2.33E-03 1.00E+00 DPM 3.0E-04 1.1E+00 6.77E-07 8.51E-03 5.0E+00 4.67E-04
Total 8.5E-03
4.7E-04
Senior Living Receptors - Mitigated Run: Tier 4 Interim Engines for eq. > 50 HP
2022 1.96E-04 1.00E+00 DPM 3.0E-04 1.1E+00 5.68E-08 7.14E-04 5.0E+00 3.92E-05
Total 7.1E-04
3.9E-05
Senior Resident
OEHHA age bin 16 < 70 years
exposure year(s)2021-2022
Dose Exposure Factors:exposure frequency (days/year)365
inhalation rate (L/kg-day) 1 290
inhalation absorption factor 1
conversion factor (mg/µg; m3/L)1.0E-06
Risk Calculation Factors:age sensitivity factor 1
averaging time (years)70
per million 1.0E+06
Construction Year Risk Scalar 2 Senior Res
2022 0.84 0.84
Total 0.84 0.84
1 Inhalation rate taken as the 95th percentile breathing rates (OEHHA, 2015).
3 Chronic Hazards for DPM using the chronic reference exposure level (REL) for the Respiratory Toxicological Endpoint.
Source Dose (by age bin)
Carcinogenic Risks
(by age bin)Chronic Hazards 3Contaminant
( a )
On & Off-
Site
On & Off-
Site
exposure durations
(year)
2 Risk scalar determined for each year of construction to adjust receptor exposures to the exposure durations for each construction year (see App A -
Construction Emissions).
exposure durations per age bin
........................................................................................................................
A PPENDIX C :
G EOTECHNICAL R EPORT
........................................................................................................................
Geotechnical Report
For the New Development at
22690 Stevens Creek
Cupertino, CA 95014
APN#342-14-104
Prepared for
Mr. Ali Mozaffari
Alan Enterprise LLC
By
Achievement Engineering Corp.
2455 Autumnvale Drive, Unit E
San Jose, California, 95131
Project Number: 4134
Date: March 03, 2020
Project Number: 4134
Date: March 03, 2020
Mr. Ali Mozaffari
22690 Stevens Creek
Cupertino, CA 95014
Subject: Geotechnical Report for the New Development at
22690 Stevens Creek
Cupertino, CA 95014
APN#342-14-104
Dear Sir,
Achievement Engineering Corp. (AEC) is pleased to submit this Geotechnical Report for the above-
referenced project. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the subsurface soil conditions at the
proposed site and develop recommendations for the design and construction of the structure
foundations.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project and would be happy to discuss
our findings with you. We look forward to serving as your geotechnical/ environmental engineer on
the future projects.
Respectfully Submitted,
Achievement Engineering Corp.
Sadaf M. Safaai, PE
Project Engineer
Copies: Mr. Ali Mozaffari, Alan Enterprise LLC
Achievement Engineering Corp.
ii
Table of Contents
1- Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1
1-1- Project Description ....................................................................................................................... 1
1-2- Geologic Setting and Faults .......................................................................................................... 1
1-2-1 Regional Geology ............................................................................................................................ 1
2- Project Investigation ............................................................................................................................. 3
2-1- Field Investigation and Exploratory Boreholes ............................................................................ 3
2-1-1- Ground Water Table.............................................................................................................. 4
2-1-2- Standard Penetration Test (SPT) (ASTM: D1586) ............................................................... 4
2-2- Laboratory Test Results ................................................................................................................ 6
2-2-1- Grain Size Analysis ............................................................................................................... 6
2-3- Natural Moisture Content and Density Test ................................................................................. 7
3- Description of Soil Layers .................................................................................................................... 8
3-1- General Description of the Subsurface Soil Layers ...................................................................... 8
3-2- Geotechnical Parameters .............................................................................................................. 8
4- Foundation Design Recommendations ............................................................................................... 10
4-1- Recommended Foundation ......................................................................................................... 10
4-2- Allowable Bearing Capacity ....................................................................................................... 10
4-3- Total Settlement .......................................................................................................................... 11
4-4- Differential Settlement ............................................................................................................... 11
4-5- Modulus of Subgrade Reaction .................................................................................................. 11
4-6- Ground Floor Slabs ..................................................................................................................... 11
4-7- Lateral Resistance ....................................................................................................................... 11
4-8- Site and Foundation Drainage .................................................................................................... 12
4-9- Utility Trenches .......................................................................................................................... 13
5- Liquefaction Consideration................................................................................................................. 13
6- Seismic Design Considerations .......................................................................................................... 14
7- Construction Considerations ............................................................................................................... 14
7-1- General........................................................................................................................................ 14
7-2- Fill Materials............................................................................................................................... 14
7-2-1- Compacted Structural Fill ................................................................................................... 14
7-2-2- Common Fill ....................................................................................................................... 15
7-3- Quality Control ........................................................................................................................... 15
8- Summary of Design recommendation ................................................................................................ 16
9- Limitations .......................................................................................................................................... 16
10- References ........................................................................................................................................... 17
Achievement Engineering Corp.
iii
Exhibit I – Boring Logs
Exhibit II - Lab Results
Exhibit III - Maps
Exhibit IV – USGS Seismic Design
Exhibit V – Shallow Footing Design
Achievement Engineering Corp.
1
1- Introduction
Achievement Engineering Corp. (AEC) has performed a geotechnical investigation at 22690 Stevens
Creek, Cupertino, CA 95014. This report discusses the findings of the geotechnical investigation
program, including the site soils and groundwater presence, and presents recommendations for the
design and construction of the foundation of the structure.
The objective of this report is to evaluate the characteristics of the subsurface strata and to obtain
geotechnical parameters for the design of the foundation.
The following report highlights the significant findings and conclusions representing our best
professional judgment based on information and data available to us during the course of this
investigation.
1-1- Project Description
The purpose of this study was to investigate the subsurface soil and groundwater presence at the site
of 22690 Stevens Creek, Cupertino, CA 95014 and to develop foundation design recommendations
for the project based on our evaluation of subsurface conditions. In addition, comments and
recommendations related to foundation are provided in this report. Other geotechnical aspects of the
project design, including lateral earth pressures, drainage and backfill requirements, are also
discussed.
The Site is located at 22690 Stevens Creek, Cupertino, CA 95014, with coordinates of 37° 19’
18.32” N and 122° 04’ 8.12” W.
The vicinity map of the project is illustrated in Exhibit III. The Site Location in Topographic Map
and Landslide Map have also been presented in Exhibit III of the report showing the subject site is
located on Class 0 – No Susceptibility Landslide Zone (Source USGS).
1-2- Geologic Setting and Faults
1-2-1 Regional Geology
The project site is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province. Local uplift of the Santa
Cruz Mountains within the last 2 to 3 million years has occurred due to a restraining bend of the San
Andreas Fault, producing transpressional forces across the plate boundary. Thrust faults bound the
San Andreas Fault, are responsible for uplift of the range. The range is characterized by rugged hills
with moderate relief, steep valleys, and locally steep hillsides abutting drainages. East -flowing
Achievement Engineering Corp.
2
drainages result in dissection of the mountain range and alluvial deposition within the San Francisco
Bay structural trough.
The site is underlain by surficial sediments (Qoa/Qt), older surficial sediments (age; late Pleistocene)
older alluvial terrace gravel; sand and clay, un-deformed.
The Site Location on 7.5' Series Geologic Map by USGS, has been represented in Exhibit III of the
report.
1-2-2- Faults
Fault activity map of California (CGS, 2010) shows that there are some faults around the site
location (Exhibit III). Among the eight faults of Monte Vista-Shannon, Berrocal, Cascade, Stanford,
San Andreas San Jose, Pulgas and Butano, the nearest one to the site location is Monte Vista-
Shannon fault with a distance of 0.5 mile (Exhibit III) and the most major one is San Andreas with a
distance of 4.7 miles.
The project site is located on the north of Monte Vista-Shannon (0.5 mi.), northeast of Berrocal Fault
(1.91 mi.), northwest of Cascade Fault (2.13), southwest of Stanford Fault (4.0 mi.), northeast of San
Andreas fault (4.7 mi.), southwest of San Jose (6.32 mi.) , southeast of Pulgas (7.29 mi.) and
northeast of Butano Fault (8.45 mi).
The Monte Vista Shannon Fault is a potentially active fault. It is a relatively short fault that runs
between and generally parallel to the much longer San Andreas Fault and Hayward Fault Zones,
trending northwest along the eastern foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains in the Coast Range
Geomorphic Province. The most recent activity has been estimated to have been approximately
700,000 years ago. It has a slip rate of 0.4 mm/year. The fault runs through the campus of the
Foothill College.
The Berrocal is a late Quaternary southwest-dipping, reverse-dextral oblique slip fault zone that
forms a part of what has been referred to as the Southwestern Santa Clara Valley thrust belt. The
Berrocal fault zone, which is commonly associated with the Monte Vista-Shannon fault zone, offsets
sediment of the Pliocene-Pleistocene Santa Clara Formation and probably deforms late Pleistocene
fluvial and alluvial fan deposits. It has been concluded that the Berrocal fault zone lacks evidence of
Holocene displacement. Late Quaternary slip rate is poorly constrained and the recurrence interval is
not known. The amount of uplift of late Pleistocene terraces (about 250 ka) of ancestral Los Gatos
Creek suggests a post-250 ka incision rate of 0.6 mm/yr.
The Cascade fault is a potentially active fault. It is a relatively short fault that stretches from City of
Los Gatos to City of Los Altos in Southern Bay Area. This fault is an undifferentiated Quaternary
possibly active in Late Quaternary or Holocene, reverse to reverse -dextral oblique slip fault that
Achievement Engineering Corp.
3
forms a part of what McLaughlin et al. (1996) refer to as the Southwestern Santa Clara Valley thrust
belt, which is located generally along the foothills of the northeastern Santa Cruz Mountains. Slip
rates for the Cascade fault is still unknown, although Hitchcock and Kelson (1999) determined a
0.2±0.05 mm/yr incision rate of Regnart Creek across the trace of the Cascade fault.
Stanford and Pulgas Faults are Quaternary fault with undifferentiated ages. The San Andreas is the
best-known and largest fault system in North America. This fault trends in a northwesterly direction
for nearly 780 miles through much of western California. It is a transform boundary separating two
crustal plates that move very slowly. The Pacific plate located at the west, moves northwestward
relative to the North America plate, causing earthquakes along the faults. The slip rate for this fault
is up to 1.5 in./year.
The San Jose fault dips steeply to the north. Type of Faulting is left-lateral strike-slip; minor reverse
component possible with a length of 18 km, close to Claremont, La Verne and Pomona. Its last
Significant Quake was Feb. 28, 1990 (ML 5.4). Its most recent surface rupture was Late Quaternary.
It has a slip rate between 0.2 and 2.0 mm/yr with probable magnitude of ML 5 to 6.
The San Andreas is the best-known and largest fault system in North America. This fault trends in a
northwesterly direction for nearly 780 miles through much of western California. It is a transform
boundary separating two crustal plates that move very slowly. The Pacific plate located at the west,
moves northwestward relative to the North America plate, causing earthquakes along the faults. The
slip rate for this fault is up to 1.5 in./year.
The Butano Fault extends for 46 km from San Gregorio to the San Andreas Fault; it exhibits right
lateral motion, at slip rate of less than 0.2 mm/yr. (Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United
States).
2- Project Investigation
A subsurface exploration program consisting of two test borings was conducted on 2 February 2020
under the supervision of AEC.
2-1- Field Investigation and Exploratory Boreholes
The test borings were drilled up to depths of 7 and 8 ft. below the ground surface. Borings were
advanced using 3 1/2” diameter hollow stem augers. Borings were terminated at these depths due to
refusal. Table 1 shows the specifications of the boreholes; the boreholes location is shown in Exhibit
III. Boreholes log is also presented in Exhibit I of the report.
Achievement Engineering Corp.
4
Table 1- Specifications of the borehole
Borehole Name Depth (ft.) Diameter (inch)
B1 7 3 1/2”
B2 8 3 1/2”
2-1-1- Ground Water Table
According to the boreholes log, no water table has been encountered in borehole up to depth of 8 ft.
2-1-2- Standard Penetration Test (SPT) (ASTM: D1586)
Soil samples were typically recovered continuously at 1-2 ft. intervals by driving a standard split-
spoon sampler ((1-3/8 in). I.D., (2 in.) O.D., a distance of 18 inches or 24 inches into the undisturbed
soil under the impact of a 140 lb. hammer free-falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to
advance the sampler through each 6 in. interval was recorded. The “N” value is taken as the number
of blows required to advance the sampler the last 12 in. of the 18-in. sampling range. When the split-
spoon sampler was advanced over 24-in. range, the “N” value is the number of blows required to
drive the sampler the middle 12 in. Variations of SPT versus depth, in different boreholes, are
presented in Figure 1 and Table 2.
Table 2-The value of SPT versus depth in borehole
Depth (ft) Nspt
B1
2 >50
5 >50
B2
2 15
5 >50
Achievement Engineering Corp.
5
Figure 1-Variation of SPT versus depth in different boreholes
According to SPT test results, the SPT value is more than 50 in B1 which is due to a very dense
layer of clayey sand, also the SPT values are 15 near the ground surface in B2 and are more than 50
in other depths, this shows existence of a firm layer of clay near ground at B2, but eventually that the
consistency will change to hard.
According to the US Army Corps of Engineers, ENGINEER MANUAL ENGINEERING AND
DESIGN, Geotechnical Investigations, the descriptive consistency of fine-grained soils may be
classified as “very firm” to “hard” per SPT correlation and “very dense” for coarse-grained soils.
Table 3- Granular soils classification based on SPT number (US Army Corps of Engineers
Manual)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 20 40 60 80 100
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
NSPT
SPT vs Depth
B1
B2
Achievement Engineering Corp.
6
Table 4- Strength of fine-grained soils (US Army Corps of Engineers Manual)
2-2- Laboratory Test Results
A laboratory soil testing program was performed to determine soil classification and for correlation
of engineering properties. Laboratory tests were performed on selected samples of the soils. Testing
consisted of geotechnical index tests including water content and density determinations and grain
size distributions and Atterberg Limits. The results of these tests have been used to estimate the main
parameters required for designing of the foundation, such as internal friction angle and cohesion.
The details of Lab tests are presented in Exhibit II.
2-2-1- Grain Size Analysis
Particle size analysis ASTM (D421-85(02)), (D422-63(02))
Atterberg limits (AASHTO T89 and T90 – ASTM D4318)
The particle size analysis is conducted on the selected soil samples in accordance with the
abovementioned standards.
According to particle distribution results, soil classification is determined in compliance with the
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) (ASTM D2487 and ASTM D2488) and is recorded on
the borehole log. Grain size distribution tests results are presented in Table 5. According to grain
size distribution tests results, alluvial part of the site is categorized mainly as clay of low plasticity
and clayey sand.
Achievement Engineering Corp.
7
Table 5- Grain size distribution tests results
Classification
(USCS)
Atterberg
Limits Graining (%) Sample
Depth (ft.)
Borehole
No. PI % LL % Clay and
Silt Sand Gravel
SC 9 23.9 32.9 44.3 22.8 2 B1
CL 9.5 22.8 54.2 36.3 9.5 2 B1
2-3- Natural Moisture Content and Density Test
- Natural moisture content ASTM (D2216-98)
The natural moisture contents of soil samples are measured for the selected samples, the value of
each is indicated in borehole logs.
- Density Tests
Density of the selected soil samples has been determined by measuring the weight and volume of
the samples obtained from sample liners. Water content and dry density tests results of the soil
samples are summarized in Table 6.
Table 6- Water content and dry unit weight
Borehole
No.
Sample
Depth (ft.)
Height of
Sample w (%) Dry Density
(pcf)
B1 1-2 - 12 -
B1 2-3.5 6” 10 122.2
B1 4-5 - 11 -
B1 5-6.5 6” 11 120.7
B2 1-2 - 9 -
B2 2-3.5 6” 10 107.4
B2 4-5 - 11 -
B2 5-6.5 6” 12 116.5
Achievement Engineering Corp.
8
3- Description of Soil Layers
3-1- General Description of the Subsurface Soil Layers
Based on the visual observations during the drilling, in-situ test results and laboratory testing, the
encountered soil is generally classified as:
Clayey sand (SC)
Clay of low plasticity (CL)
The soil is classified as very dense clayey sand in B1 and a very firm low plasticity clay in B2 (at
surface).
3-2- Geotechnical Parameters
The SPT has been used to correlate engineering parameters such as strength, angle of internal
friction (Table 7) and the stress-strain modulus (Es) as shown in Table 8.
Table 7- Typical values of soil friction angle for different soils according to USCS
Description USCS
Soil friction angle [°]
Reference
min max
Inorganic clays, silty clays, sandy clays
of low plasticity CL 27 35
[1]
Silty clay OL, CL,
OH, CH 18 32 [2]
Clay CL, CH,
OH, OL 18 28 [2]
1. Swiss Standard SN 670 010b, Characteristic Coefficients of soils, Association of Swiss Road and Traffic
Engineers
2. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Pavement Design, 2007
Achievement Engineering Corp.
9
Table 8-Equations for stress-strain modulus Es by several test methods (Bowles, 2002)
Es in kPa for SPT and units of qc for CPT; divide kPa by 50 to obtain ksf.
Final values of geotechnical parameters for the subject site using the field observations, in-situ and
laboratory tests are summarized in Table 9.
Table 9- Geotechnical Parameters Estimates
Material γwet (pcf) γsat (pcf) c (ksf) φ
(degrees) Es (ksf) ν K0 Ka Kp
SC 134 138 0.3 30 600 0.3 0.5 0.33 3.0
CL 124 132 0.35 27 350 0.4 0.55 0.38 2.66
γwet : wet unit weight in the field. Es : elasticity modulus
γsat : saturated unit weight. ν : poisson ratio
c : cohesion. K0 : at rest earth pressure
φ : angle of internal friction Ka , Kp: active and passive earth pressure
Achievement Engineering Corp.
10
4- Foundation Design Recommendations
Recommendations presented herein are based on the proposed building layout and site development
plan as understood at this time. The development is muli-family residential and commercial
structures of three story. However, at the time of preparation of this report, structural column loads
were not available and no construction document is available. As further information is developed
by the architect and/or structural engineer concerning these items, the design criteria should be
reviewed by AEC for continued applicability. As a general recommendation, foundation and below-
grade elements of the building should be designed in accordance with the building code selected for
design. The following sections provide specific geotechnical design recommendations for the
foundation and below-grade structure, if any.
The foundation bearing soils are typically very firm low plasticity clay and very dense clayey sand.
It is necessary to build up the subgrade to achieve the proposed footing subgrade level, for this it is
recommended that compacted structural fill be used. The compacted structural fill should be grad ed
in accordance with the recommendations in Section 7.2.1.
4-1- Recommended Foundation
Based on the loading conditions assumed by us and subsurface conditions as observed in the field
investigations it is our opinion that direct soil bearing foundations such as reinforced concrete strip
foundation will likely provide the most technically-feasible and cost-effective foundation system for
the proposed structure.
4-2- Allowable Bearing Capacity
As noted above, the foundation bearing soils at the site consist of very firm low plasticity clay and
very dense clayey sand. The recommended maximum allowable gross bearing pressure for design of
strip footing in these soils in undisturbed condition is 3.3 ksf for 18 in. width and 3.2 ksf for 15 in.
widths. This bearing pressure value applies to the total dead load plus permanently and/or frequently
applied live loads including the weight of the foundation elements. This bearing pressure may
however, be increased by one-third when considering transient loads such as earthquake forces.
The least lateral dimension of continuous footings should be 18 in., for the structures. Exterior
footings and footings in unheated areas should bear a minimum of 12 in. below the adjacent ground
surface. The bottom of footings should be established below a 2 horizontal to 1 vertical (2H:1V)
slope line drawn upward and outward from the bottom of any adjacent utility or structure.
The outputs of foundation bearing capacity are presented in Exhibit V and can be consulted for other
footing widths, in case of existence of detached parkings in the development for example.
Achievement Engineering Corp.
11
4-3- Total Settlement
Settlement considerations, rather than bearing capacity, generally control spread footing or
reinforced concrete mat foundation selection and design at these depths in these soils. It is our
opinion that for the maximum allowable bearing pressure recommended above, soil bearing
foundations should experience a maximum post-construction settlement of approximately 1 in. We
anticipate that the majority of the settlements will occur during or soon after construction with the
largest settlements occurring at the center of the structure. As noted above, the anticipated bearing
pressure is more than the existing pressure of the overburden soils at the proposed bearing elevati on
so settlement will control foundation selection.
4-4- Differential Settlement
Differential settlements are generally caused by variations in soil profile (including layer thickness),
compressibility characteristics, applied load, bearing pressures, foundation dimension, and
foundation stiffness. At this time, it is expected that the differential settlement should be on the order
of ½ inch. However, when the design documents are ready, this value should be re-evaluated.
4-5- Modulus of Subgrade Reaction
If a reinforced concrete strip is selected as the preferred option, the structural design of reinforced
concrete strip foundations typically requires a modulus of subgrade reaction (Winkler spring) or a
similar elastic analysis method to determine thickness and reinforcing requirements for the strip
foundation. We recommend that a modulus of subgrade reaction (ks) of 116 kips per cubic foot
(kcf) be used.
4-6- Ground Floor Slabs
It is recommended that the ground floor slabs of buildings and structures, if any, be designed as soil-
supported slabs-on-grade, bearing on a minimum 6-inch thick layer of crushed stone that is graded in
accordance with the recommendations in Section 7.2. We also recommend that a 10 mil-thick
polyethylene vapor barrier be placed on top of the aggregate layer to reduce moisture condensation
on the underside of the slab-on-grade.
4-7- Lateral Resistance
Shallow foundations bearing on a reinforced subgrade or on compacted structural fill may be
designed to resist lateral forces using a friction coefficient of 0.4 along the bottom of the foundations
and a passive resistance of 365 pounds per square foot per foot (pcf) of depth on the vertical sides of
the foundations. This value does not include a safety factor; a safety factor of 1.5 should be used
Achievement Engineering Corp.
12
against sliding in the design. The frictional and passive pressure components of lateral resistance
may be combined, provided that passive resistance does not exceed two-thirds of the total. The top
24-in of soil should be neglected when calculating passive lateral earth pressures unless the area
around the foundation is covered with pavement.
Retaining wall, if any, will be subjected to lateral earth pressures. A soil wet unit weight and
coefficient of active lateral earth pressure (ka) of 129 pcf and 0.42, respectively, should be utilized
for design of walls.
Additional active pressure should be added for a surcharge condition due to sloping ground,
vehicular traffic or adjacent structures and should be designed for each condition as the project
progresses.
4-8- Site and Foundation Drainage
As previously discussed, and as shown on the test boring logs, groundwater was not encountered in
any of the other explorations. However, during periods of significant precipitation, or during the
spring thaw, there is a possibility that water could become trapped on the outside face of the walls,
with no way to relieve the pressure head from the accumulated water, the water could exert excess
pressure on the walls and leak into the finished below grade spaces.
To drain such water, it is recommended that a perimeter wall drain be provided along the outside of
the wall. The perimeter drain should consist of a 0.1 m (4-inch) diameter perforated pipe surrounded
by 0.15 m (6 inches) of crushed stone, graded in accordance with the recommendations in Section
7.2.2, placed inside a non-woven geotextile filter fabric to limit silting. The perimeter drain trench
should be backfilled with compacted structural fill. Pipe invert elevations should be kept below the
bottom of the adjacent slab but above the footing bearing elevation. The perimeter drain should be
pitched to drain by gravity to the site storm drain system.
All grades must provide effective drainage away from the structures, during and after construction.
Water ponding next to the structures can result in greater than calculated soil movement and
differential floor slab settlement, cracked slab and wall movement or leaked roof. Effective drainage
should be maintained during life time of the building.
Exposed ground should be sloped at a minimum 5 percent away from the structure for the at least 10
ft. beyond the perimeter of the structure. After the construction (building and landscape), we
recommend final grades to be inspected for effective drainage. Grades of the around of the building
should also be inspected periodically during life time of the building.
Planters located within 10 ft. of the structure should be self -contained to prevent water accessing the
building and pavement subgrade soil (if any). Sprinkler main and spray heads should be located a
minimum 5 ft. away from the building lines. Low volume, drip styled landscaped irrigation should
Achievement Engineering Corp.
13
not be used near the building. Roof run off should be located in the drains or gutters. Roof drain and
downspouts should discharge onto pavements that slope away from building/structures or the
downspouts should extend a minimum of 10 ft. away from the structures.
4-9- Utility Trenches
Utility trenches should be properly backfilled. The pipes should be bedded on clean sands (Sand
Equivalent greater than 30) to a depth of at least 1 foot over the pipe, and the bedding material must
be inspected and approved in writing by a representative from our firm. The use of gravel is not
acceptable unless used in conjunction with filter fabric to prevent the gravel from having direct
contact with soil. The remainder of the trench backfill may be derived from onsite soil or approved
import soil, compacted as necessary, until the required compaction is obtained as below:
Utility trenches should be backfilled with fill placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in uncompacted
thickness. Native backfill materials should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction
and granular import material should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. These
compaction recommendations assume a reasonable “cushion” layer around the pipes.
If imported granular soil is used, sufficient water should be added during the trench backfilling
operations to prevent the soil from “bulking” during compaction.
5- Liquefaction Consideration
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which loose, saturated, relatively cohesionless soil deposits lose
shear strength during strong ground motions. Primary factors controlling liquefaction include
intensity and duration of ground motion, gradation characteristics of the subsurface soils, in-situ
stress conditions, and the depth to groundwater. Liquefaction is typified by a loss of shear strength in
the liquefied layers due to rapid increases in pore water pressure generated by e arthquake
accelerations.
Liquefaction typically occurs in areas where the soils below the water table are composed of poorly
consolidated, fine to medium-grained, primarily sandy soil. In addition to the requisite soil
conditions, the ground acceleration and duration of the earthquake must also be of a sufficient level
to induce liquefaction.
The project location on liquefaction map (Source CGS) site is not within liquefaction hazard zone,
thus further study was not within the scope of services for this report.
Achievement Engineering Corp.
14
6- Seismic Design Considerations
The details of USGS seismic design are presented in Exhibit IV.
7- Construction Considerations
7-1- General
The primary purpose of this section of the report is to comment on items related to excavation,
earthwork and related geotechnical aspects of the proposed foundation design. It is written primarily
for the engineer having responsibility of preparation for the plans and specifications of the
foundation, but it may also aid personnel who monitor the construction. Prospective contractors for
this project must evaluate construction problems on the basis of their experience on similar projects,
taking into account their own construction methods and procedures.
7-2- Fill Materials
7-2-1- Compacted Structural Fill
The structural fill should be a well-graded granular material. Caltrans AB Class II is recommended
to be used for this purpose with the following specifications.
Table 10-CALTRANS AB Class II recommended parameters
Material γd (pcf) γsat (pcf) c (ksf) φ
(degrees)
CALTRANS AB CLASS
II
(92% compacted)
125 130 0.1 38
Minimum 5 feet of the compacted backfill behind any wall is required for wall of 10’ tall, shorter
wall can have narrower backfill zone.
Imported structural fill should be used if the on-site excavated soils cannot meet the gradation
requirements indicated above.
In addition to the above requirements, structural fill to be placed in the upper 3 ft. of filled areas
during periods of wet and/or freezing weather should contain less than 5 percent passing the No. 200
Achievement Engineering Corp.
15
sieve. Material proposed as structural fill should be tested and approved by a qualified geotechnical
engineer prior to its use.
To evaluate the suitability and the quality of the fill source, we recommend that the laborator y
testing of fill material be performed in accordance with the ASTM Test Methods indicated below.
Table 11- Summary of ASTM Test Methods
Summary of ASTM Test Methods
Test ASTM Designation
Moisture Content D 2216
Modified Proctor D 1557
Sieve Analysis D 422
Atterberg Limits D 4318
Structural fill in unconfined areas should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 9-in. in loose
thickness and compacted to at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density, as
determined by ASTM Test D 1557 (Modified Proctor). Structural fill should be moisture conditioned
to within 2 percentage points of the optimum moisture content.
Structural fill should be compacted by self-propelled vibratory rollers or other approved compaction
equipment. Where compaction occurs in confined areas, the loose lift thickness should be reduced to
a maximum of 6 in. and compaction performed by hand-guided vibratory compactors or tampers.
Before placing fill materials, the exposed natural soil should be observed and proof rolled to identify
any soft compressible layers. At the end of each day’s operations, the last lift should be rolled by a
smooth-wheel roller to eliminate ridges of un-compacted soil to aid runoff and drainage. No layer of
fill should be placed until the underlying materials have been approved.
7-2-2- Common Fill
Common (non-structural) fill should consist of sandy or gravelly soil with a maximum particle size
of 3 inches, with less than 35 percent passing the No. 200 sieve, and with a plasticity index of 20 or
less.
7-3- Quality Control
Placement and compaction of all fill materials should be monitored and tested by a qualified
technician under supervision of a professional geotechnical engineer. We recommend that all
structural fill placements be tested in accordance with ASTM D2922 and D3017 (Nuclear Density
Method) to verify the density, degree of compaction, and moisture content of the fill. The
Achievement Engineering Corp.
16
specifications should call for frequent testing on each lift. In the event where any portion of the fill
fails to meet the compaction requirements, the area should be reworked, re-compacted, and retested
until the specified compaction is achieved.
8- Summary of Design recommendation
The site soil parameters need to be chosen from Table 9.
The in-fill soil back of any wall in contact with geogrid in general needs to be in compliance of
section 7.2.
All the design methods and parameters including factor of safeties need to be followed per
requirements of the engineer designing the structure. All the construction details are required to be
per direction of the engineer designing the structure.
Drainage is required per detail and specs of footings.
All the deviations from this report needs to be brought to the attention of AEC as will be discussed
in section 9.
Section 7.3 of this report and all the special inspection requirements mentioned in the report are
required to be performed by AEC and needs to be identified on the cover sheet of the construction
documents before being submitted to the authority having jurisdiction. The plans are required to be
reviewed by AEC and be verified to be in compliance with the requirements of this report before
being submitted to jurisdiction having authority.
9- Limitations
This Report was prepared pursuant to an Agreement dated 01/24/2020 between Mr. Ali Mozaffari
(Alan Enterprise LLC) and AEC. All uses of this Report are subject to, and deemed acceptance of,
the conditions and restrictions contained in the Agreement. The observations and conclusions
described in this Report are based solely on the Scope of Services provided pursuant to the
Agreement. AEC has not performed any additional observations, investigations, studies or other
testing not specified in the Agreement and the Report. AEC shall not be liable for the existence of
any condition the discovery of which would have required the performance of services not
authorized under the Agreement.
This Report is prepared for the exclusive use Alan Enterprise LLC in connection with the design and
construction of the mentioned development. There are no intended beneficiaries other than Alan
Enterprise LLC AEC shall owe no duty, whatsoever, to any other person or entity on account of the
Achievement Engineering Corp.
17
Agreement or the Report. Use of this Report by any person or entity other than Alan Enterprise LLC
for any purpose whatsoever is expressly forbidden unless such other person or entity obtains written
authorization from Alan Enterprise LLC and from AEC. Use of this Report by such other person or
entity without the written authorization of Alan Enterprise LLC and AEC shall be at such other
person's or entities sole risk, and shall be without legal exposure or liability to AEC.
Use of this Report by any person or entity, including by Alan Enterprise LLC for a purpose other
than for the design and construction of the proposed development is expressly prohibited unless such
person or entity obtains written authorization from AEC indicating that the Report is adequate for
such other use. Use of this Report by any person or entity for such other purpose without written
authorization by AEC shall be at such person's or entities sole risk and shall be without legal
exposure or liability to AEC.
This report reflects site conditions observed and described by records available to AEC as of the date
of report preparation. The passage of time may result in significant changes in site conditions,
technology, or economic conditions which could alter the findings and/or recommendations of the
report. Accordingly, Alan Enterprise LLC and any other party to whom the report is provided
recognize and agree that AEC shall bear no liability for deviations from observed conditions or
available records after the time of report preparation.
Use of this Report b y any person or entity in violation of the restrictions expressed in this Report
shall be deemed and accepted by the user as conclusive evidence that such use and the reliance
placed on this Report, or any portions thereof, is unreasonable, and that the user accepts full and
exclusive responsibility and liability for any losses, damages or other liability which may result.
10- References
1- 7.5' Series Geologic Map, USGS.
2- 7.5' Series Topographic Map, USGS.
3- ASTM test methods.
4- Department of the U.S. army corps of engineers Washington, DC 20314-1000, Engineering
and design geotechnical investigations, Manual No. 1110-1-1804.
5- Fault activity map of California, CGS, 2010.
6- Foundation analysis and design, Joseph E. Bowles, McGraw-Hill, fifth edition.
7- Liquefaction map, USGS.
Achievement Engineering Corp.
18
8- Landslide map, USGS.
9- Minnesota Department of Transportation, Pavement Design, 2007.
10- Swiss Standard SN 670 010b, Characteristic Coefficients of soils, Association of Swiss Road
and Traffic Engineers.
11- Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States.
Exhibit I
Boring Log
Address:
SPT
C2
C2.5
Notes:
0.0 - 7 ft
Brown clayey sand with gravel ( SC ) -1
Damp - Particle is angular with elongated 12.0
shape and gravel maximum size - None 2 40
reaction with HCL - Hard to very hard C2.5 49 66 >4.5 122.2 10 32.9 44.3 22.8 23.9 9.0
consistency - Strong cementation - Blocky 3 53
structure - None dilatancy - Low to none
dry strength - High toughness - Non 4
plastic - Very dense.11.0
5 58
C2.5 67 91 >4.5 120.7 11.0
6 73
7
No underground water encountered 8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
---
Weather:
BL
O
W
S
P
E
R
F
O
O
T
PO
C
K
E
T
P
E
N
.
(
t
s
f
)
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(
p
c
f
)
Sunny
B1
Logged By :NamiTest Date :2/4/2020
BORING ELEV.: BORING DIA.:
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG Project No : Borehole No. : 4134
Cupertino
SAMPLER:
SPT
:cal. 2"
Company Drilling: AEC Drilling Corp.
:cal. 2.5"
LI
Q
U
I
D
L
I
M
I
T
PL
A
S
T
I
C
I
T
Y
I
N
D
E
X
Refusal depth at 7 ft
LOACATION OF BOREHOLE : Specified on Plan
Description:
SA
N
D
S
(
%
)
GR
A
V
E
L
S
(
%
)
US
C
S
S
O
I
L
T
Y
P
E
DE
P
T
H
(
f
e
e
t
)
MO
I
S
T
.
C
O
N
T
.
(
%
)
N-
S
P
T
SA
M
P
L
E
FI
N
E
S
(
%
)
FORM#: S-10 REV.2 DATE PREPARED: 10/20/2014 DATE REVISED: 11/25/2014
Address:
SPT
C2
C2.5
Notes:
0.0 - 4 ft
Brown to light brown sandy lean clay ( CL)1
Wet - Maximum particle size is cobble and 9.0
angular with elongated shape - No odor -2 7
None reaction with HCL-Hard consistency C2.5 11 15 >4.5 107.4 10 54.2 36.3 9.5 22.8 9.5
Strong cementation - Blocky structure -3 12
None dilatancy - None dry strength - High
Toughness - None plastic - Stiff.4
11.0
4.0 - 8.0 ft 5 44
Same as above but hard.C2.5 68 92 >4.5 116.5 12.0
6 73
7
8
Refusal depth at 8 ft
No underground water encountered 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SA
M
P
L
E
FI
N
E
S
(
%
)
LOACATION OF BOREHOLE : Specified on Plan
Description:
SA
N
D
S
(
%
)
GR
A
V
E
L
S
(
%
)
US
C
S
S
O
I
L
T
Y
P
E
DE
P
T
H
(
f
e
e
t
)
MO
I
S
T
.
C
O
N
T
.
(
%
)
N-
S
P
T
LI
Q
U
I
D
L
I
M
I
T
PL
A
S
T
I
C
I
T
Y
I
N
D
E
X
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG Project No : Borehole No. : 4134
Cupertino
SAMPLER:
SPT
:cal. 2"
Company Drilling: AEC Drilling Corp.
:cal. 2.5"
B2
Logged By :NamiTest Date :2/4/2020
BORING ELEV.: BORING DIA.: ---
Weather:
BL
O
W
S
P
E
R
F
O
O
T
PO
C
K
E
T
P
E
N
.
(
t
s
f
)
DR
Y
D
E
N
S
I
T
Y
(
p
c
f
)
Sunny
FORM#: S-10 REV.2 DATE PREPARED: 10/20/2014 DATE REVISED: 11/25/2014
Exhibit II
Lab Results
Moisture Density
(AASHTO T265 - ASTM D2216)
Report Date:
Project No:
Project Name:
Project Address:
Technician:
Type of Material:
Source:
Sampled by:Sample Date:
Sample No:B1 1'- 2'B1 2' - 3.5'B1 4' - 5'B1 5' - 6.5'
Ht. of Sample:Disturbed 6.00 Disturbed 6.00
Tare No:CA - 17 CA - 10 CA - 5 CA - 14
Gross Wet Wt:1057.69 1255.72 1270.78 1241.74
Gross Dry Wt:977.95 1167.76 1174.42 1152.29
Tare Wt:309.93 315.16 313.25 310.13
Net Dry Wt:668.02 852.60 861.17 842.16
Wt. of Water:79.74 87.96 96.36 89.45
% Moisture 12%10%11%11%
Liners Dia 2.5"2.5"
Density Factors 0.860 0.860
Dry Density 122.21 120.71
Tested By: Reviewed By:
Signature: Signature:
2/17/2020
4134
Alan
Cupertino
Nami
Soil Sample Description:
Field
Nami 2/4/2020
Nami A.F
|Form #L-19| Date Prepared: | Rev #2| Revised: 05/26/2018|
2455 Autumnvale Drive, Unit E | San Jose, CA 95131| Tel: (408) 217-9174 | Fax: (408) 217-9632
www.achieveng.com
Moisture Density
(AASHTO T265 - ASTM D2216)
Report Date:
Project No:
Project Name:
Project Address:
Technician:
Type of Material:
Source:
Sampled by:Sample Date:
Sample No:B2 1'- 2'B2 2' - 3.5'B2 4' - 5'B2 5' - 6.5'
Ht. of Sample:Disturbed 6.00 Disturbed 6.00
Tare No:CA - 2 CA - 3 CA - 6 CA - 15
Gross Wet Wt:1221.66 1139.35 1328.28 1217.07
Gross Dry Wt:1144.92 1060.98 1224.34 1123.01
Tare Wt:311.43 311.66 311.80 309.96
Net Dry Wt:833.49 749.32 912.54 813.05
Wt. of Water:76.74 78.37 103.94 94.06
% Moisture 9%10%11%12%
Liners Dia 2.5"2.5"
Density Factors 0.860 0.860
Dry Density 107.40 116.54
Tested By: Reviewed By:
Signature: Signature:
Sample Description:
Field
Nami 2/4/2020
Nami A.F
2/17/2020
4134
Alan
Cupertino
Nami
Soil
|Form #L-19| Date Prepared: | Rev #2| Revised: 05/26/2018|
2455 Autumnvale Drive, Unit E | San Jose, CA 95131| Tel: (408) 217-9174 | Fax: (408) 217-9632
www.achieveng.com
SIEVE ANALYSIS SHEET
(AASHTO T27-ASTM C136 and D6913)
2/20/2020
B1 2' - 3.5'4134
½”Alan
2 [4]Cupertino
8"Nami
Soil
Sieve
Size
Sieve
Size
Wt. Ret.
(gr)% Ret.% Passing Retained
Limit (kg)Pan #:CA - 10
4 100mm 4”0 0.00%100.00%DntUse Pan weight (gr):315.16
3 75mm 3”0 0.00%100.00%DntUse
2 50mm 2”0 0.00%100.00%3.6 Mass of pan & dried sample
1 37.5mm 1 ½”0 0.00%100.00%2.7 before wash (gr):609.13
1 25mm 1”0 0.00%100.00%1.8
1 19mm ¾”0 0.00%100.00%1.4 Original mass before wash (gr):293.97
0 12.5mm ½”23.15 7.87%92.13%0.89
0 9.5mm 3/8”8.56 2.91%89.21%0.67 Min. readability of scale (gr) =0.29
0 4.75mm #4 35.44 12.06%77.16%0.33
0 2.36mm #8 27.6 9.39%67.77%Mass of pan & dried sample
0 1.18mm #16 18.9 6.43%61.34%after wash (gr):512.6
0 600µm #30 16.07 5.47%55.87%
0 300µm #50 22.47 7.64%48.23%Mass of sample after wash &
0 150µm #100 24.18 8.23%40.00%being dried (gr):197.44
0 75µm #200 21.01 7.15%32.86%
Mass after mechanical shake (gr):197.38
SampleSE=Df Percent of Gravel =22.84%
Fine Content =32.86%
100 Percent of Sand =44.30%
D10 (mm)=0.0750
D30 (mm)=0.0750
D60 (mm)=1.0379
D50 (mm)=0.3695
Fineness Modules (FM): Total Percentages of Coarser Than #100 =
100 Cc=13.8
Cu=0.1
Total H²O:
Check for waste limt (0.3%) :0.03%
Material:
Wt Ret:%Passing:
Project Address:
Date:
Project No.:
Project Name:
Tested By:
Borehole Number and Depth:
Min. Test Sample size in kg [lb] =
Nominal Max. Size in sample =
Nominal Dimension of seive =
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
0.1110100
Fi
n
e
r
t
h
a
n
(
%
)
Particle Size (mm)
Series4
| Form # L-20 | Date Prepared: 10/20/2014 | Revised: 10/22/2018 | Revision #: 5 |
2455 Autumnvale Drive, Unit E | San Jose, CA 95131 | Tel: 408-217-9174 | Fax: 408-217-9632
www.achieveng.com
SIEVE ANALYSIS SHEET
(AASHTO T27-ASTM C136 and D6913)
2/20/2020
B2 2' - 3.5'4134
½”Alan
2 [4]Cupertino
8"Nami
Soil
Sieve
Size
Sieve
Size
Wt. Ret.
(gr)% Ret.% Passing Retained
Limit (kg)Pan #:CA - 3
4 100mm 4”0 0.00%100.00%DntUse Pan weight (gr):311.66
3 75mm 3”0 0.00%100.00%DntUse
2 50mm 2”0 0.00%100.00%3.6 Mass of pan & dried sample
1 37.5mm 1 ½”0 0.00%100.00%2.7 before wash (gr):609.98
1 25mm 1”0 0.00%100.00%1.8
1 19mm ¾”0 0.00%100.00%1.4 Original mass before wash (gr):298.32
0 12.5mm ½”7.43 2.49%97.51%0.89
0 9.5mm 3/8”5.59 1.87%95.64%0.67 Min. readability of scale (gr) =0.30
0 4.75mm #4 15.17 5.09%90.55%0.33
0 2.36mm #8 12.91 4.33%86.22%Mass of pan & dried sample
0 1.18mm #16 13.15 4.41%81.81%after wash (gr):448.3
0 600µm #30 14.83 4.97%76.84%
0 300µm #50 22.92 7.68%69.16%Mass of sample after wash &
0 150µm #100 23.68 7.94%61.22%being dried (gr):136.64
0 75µm #200 20.87 7.00%54.23%
Mass after mechanical shake (gr):136.55
SampleSE=Df Percent of Gravel =9.45%
Fine Content =54.23%
100 Percent of Sand =36.32%
D10 (mm)=0.0750
D30 (mm)=0.0750
D60 (mm)=0.1369
D50 (mm)=0.0750
Fineness Modules (FM): Total Percentages of Coarser Than #100 =
100 Cc=1.8
Cu=0.5
Total H²O:
Check for waste limt (0.3%) :0.07%
Material:
Wt Ret:%Passing:
Project Address:
Date:
Project No.:
Project Name:
Tested By:
Borehole Number and Depth:
Min. Test Sample size in kg [lb] =
Nominal Max. Size in sample =
Nominal Dimension of seive =
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
0.1110100
Fi
n
e
r
t
h
a
n
(
%
)
Particle Size (mm)
Series4
| Form # L-20 | Date Prepared: 10/20/2014 | Revised: 10/22/2018 | Revision #: 5 |
2455 Autumnvale Drive, Unit E | San Jose, CA 95131 | Tel: 408-217-9174 | Fax: 408-217-9632
www.achieveng.com
Atterberg Limits
(AASHTO T89 and T90 - ASTM D4318)
Sample Description:Report Date:
Boring No:Project No:
Sample ID:Project Name:
Sample Depth:Project Address:
Material:Technician:
0
1 2 3 4 1 2 3
29 26 17 13
AB - 2 LB - 6 AE - 2 AD - 1 LB - 8 AC - 2 AD - 2
20.63 23.33 23.90 21.82 5.42 5.21 5.38
18.82 21.02 21.42 19.69 5.29 5.08 5.25
11.17 11.28 11.30 11.23 4.35 4.27 4.37
7.65 9.74 10.12 8.46 0.94 0.81 0.88
1.81 2.31 2.48 2.13 0.13 0.13 0.13
23.66%23.72%24.51%25.18%13.83%16.05%14.77%
20.00%
3.37 3.26 2.83 2.56
Group Symbol CL
-0.019136 0.3001706 25
0.0017126 0.0051777
0.9842326 0.0011079 23.9%Shrinkage Limit Results
Liquid Limit %23.86
Plastic Limit %14.88
Plasticity Index 8.97
Shrinkage Limit %
B – Value
Toughness Index
Tested By: Reviewed By:
Signature: Signature:
Net Dry Weight (gr)
Weight of Water (gr)
Water Content (%)
Nami A.F
No. of blows
Tare No.
Gross Wet Weight (gr)
Gross Dry Weight (gr)
Tare Weight (gr)
Liquid Limit Plastic Limit
2' - 3.5'
Alan
Cupertino
SOIL Nami
SOIL 2/28/2020
B1 4134
228204134
23.66%23.72%
24.51%
25.18%
23.9%
y = -0.019ln(x) + 0.3002
23.40%
23.60%
23.80%
24.00%
24.20%
24.40%
24.60%
24.80%
25.00%
25.20%
25.40%
10 100
WA
T
E
R
C
O
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
NUMBER OF BLOWS
Flow curve
-
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
- 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00
Pl
a
s
t
i
c
i
t
y
I
n
d
e
x
(
%
)
Liquid Limit (%)
Plasticity chart
CH or OH
MH or OH
CL or OL
ML or OLCL -ML
|Form #L-21 | Date Prepared: | Rev #2| Revised: 05/26/2018|
2455 Autumnvale Drive, Unit E | San Jose, CA 95131| Tel: (408) 217-9174 | Fax: (408) 217-9632
www.achieveng.com
Atterberg Limits
(AASHTO T89 and T90 - ASTM D4318)
Sample Description:Report Date:
Boring No:Project No:
Sample ID:Project Name:
Sample Depth:Project Address:
Material:Technician:
0
1 2 3 4 1 2 3
35 31 28 24
AL - 2 AE - 3 AD - 2 LB - 1 L - 3 AC - 3 AE - 6
24.86 22.92 24.38 23.76 5.45 5.48 5.82
22.44 20.83 22.00 21.41 5.32 5.34 5.66
11.15 11.21 11.26 11.25 4.32 4.36 4.39
11.29 9.62 10.74 10.16 1 0.98 1.27
2.42 2.09 2.38 2.35 0.13 0.14 0.16
21.43%21.73%22.16%23.13%13.00%14.29%12.60%
20.00%
3.56 3.43 3.33 3.18
Group Symbol CL
-0.045344 0.3741577 25
0.0067981 0.0229623
0.9569798 0.0018818 22.8%Shrinkage Limit Results
Liquid Limit %22.82
Plastic Limit %13.29
Plasticity Index 9.53
Shrinkage Limit %
B – Value
Toughness Index
Tested By: Reviewed By:
Signature: Signature:
Plastic Limit
2' - 3.5'
Alan
Cupertino
SOIL Nami
SOIL 2/28/2020
B2 4134
22820 -4134
No. of blows
Tare No.
Gross Wet Weight (gr)
Gross Dry Weight (gr)
Tare Weight (gr)
Liquid Limit
Net Dry Weight (gr)
Weight of Water (gr)
Water Content (%)
Nami A.F
21.43%
21.73%
22.16%
23.13%
22.8%
y = -0.045ln(x) + 0.3742
21.00%
21.50%
22.00%
22.50%
23.00%
23.50%
10 100
WA
T
E
R
C
O
N
T
E
N
T
(
%
)
NUMBER OF BLOWS
Flow curve
-
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
- 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00
Pl
a
s
t
i
c
i
t
y
I
n
d
e
x
(
%
)
Liquid Limit (%)
Plasticity chart
CH or OH
MH or OH
CL or OL
ML or OLCL -ML
|Form #L-21 | Date Prepared: | Rev #2| Revised: 05/26/2018|
2455 Autumnvale Drive, Unit E | San Jose, CA 95131| Tel: (408) 217-9174 | Fax: (408) 217-9632
www.achieveng.com
Exhibit III
Maps
MM/DD/YYYY REMARKS
0 02/29/2020
1 ___ / ___/___
2 ___ / ___/___
3 ___ / ___/___
4 ___ / ___/___
Project Number:
4134
01
M
Project Title:
Ali Mozaffari -22690 Stevens Creek Blv –
Exhibit III
REVISIONS
Vicinity Map
22690 Stevens Creek
Boulevard, Cupertino, CA
MM/DD/YYYY REMARKS
0 02/29/2020
1 ___ / ___/___
2 ___ / ___/___
3 ___ / ___/___
4 ___ / ___/___
Project Number:
4134
02
M
Project Title:
Ali Mozaffari -22690 Stevens Creek Blv –
Exhibit III
REVISIONS
Boring Location Map
MM/DD/YYYY REMARKS
0 02/29/2020
1 ___ / ___/___
2 ___ / ___/___
3 ___ / ___/___
4 ___ / ___/___
Project Number:
4134
03
M
Project Title:
Ali Mozaffari -22690 Stevens Creek Blv –
Exhibit III
REVISIONS
Site Location on 7.5' quadrangle Series
Topographical Map by USGS
22690 Stevens Creek
Boulevard, Cupertino, CA
MM/DD/YYYY REMARKS
0 02/29/2020
1 ___ / ___/___
2 ___ / ___/___
3 ___ / ___/___
4 ___ / ___/___
Project Number:
4134
04
M
Project Title:
Ali Mozaffari -22690 Stevens Creek Blv –
Exhibit III
REVISIONS
Site Location on 7.5' quadrangle Series
Geological Map by USGS
22690 Stevens Creek
Boulevard, Cupertino, CA
MM/DD/YYYY REMARKS
0 02/29/2020
1 ___ / ___/___
2 ___ / ___/___
3 ___ / ___/___
4 ___ / ___/___
Project Number:
4134
05
M
Project Title:
Ali Mozaffari -22690 Stevens Creek Blv –
Exhibit III
REVISIONS
Site Location on State Map for Earthquake Zone of required
investigation by CGS (site is NOT located within hazard zone)
22690 Stevens Creek
Boulevard, Cupertino, CA
MM/DD/YYYY REMARKS
0 02/29/2020
1 ___ / ___/___
2 ___ / ___/___
3 ___ / ___/___
4 ___ / ___/___
Project Number:
4134
06
M
Project Title:
Ali Mozaffari -22690 Stevens Creek Blv –
Exhibit III
REVISIONS
Site Location on Fault Activity Map
of California (2010) by CGS
22690 Stevens Creek
Boulevard, Cupertino, CA
MM/DD/YYYY REMARKS
0 02/29/2020
1 ___ / ___/___
2 ___ / ___/___
3 ___ / ___/___
4 ___ / ___/___
Project Number:
4134
07
M
Project Title:
Ali Mozaffari -22690 Stevens Creek Blv –
Exhibit III
REVISIONS
Site Location distance to Nears Faults
(10-mile Radius)
Fault Name and Distance to Project Site
1 Monte Vista-Shannon Fault System 0.5 Miles
2 Berrocal Faults 1.91 Miles
3 Cascade Fault 2.13 Miles
4 Stanford Fault 4 Miles
5 San Andreas Fault System 4.7 Miles
6 San Jose Fault 6.32 Miles
7 Pulgas Fault 7.29 Miles
8 Butano Fault 8.45 Miles
MM/DD/YYYY REMARKS
0 02/29/2020
1 ___ / ___/___
2 ___ / ___/___
3 ___ / ___/___
4 ___ / ___/___
Project Number:
4134
08
M
Project Title:
Ali Mozaffari -22690 Stevens Creek Blv –
Exhibit III
REVISIONS
Project Location on Landslide Susceptibility Map (Source USGS)
site is within Class 0 –No Susceptibility
22690 Stevens Creek
Boulevard, Cupertino, CA
Exhibit IV
USGS Seismic Design
2/13/2020 U.S. Seismic Design Maps
https://seismicmaps.org 1/2
4134
22690 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino, CA 95014, USA
Latitude, Longitude: 37.3217554, -122.068922
Date 2/13/2020, 2:11:29 PM
Design Code Reference Document ASCE7-16
Risk Category II
Site Class D - Stiff Soil
Type Value Description
SS 2.281 MCER ground motion. (for 0.2 second period)
S1 0.821 MCER ground motion. (for 1.0s period)
SMS 2.281 Site-modified spectral acceleration value
SM1 null -See Section 11.4.8 Site-modified spectral acceleration value
SDS 1.521 Numeric seismic design value at 0.2 second SA
SD1 null -See Section 11.4.8 Numeric seismic design value at 1.0 second SA
Type Value Description
SDC null -See Section 11.4.8 Seismic design category
Fa 1 Site amplification factor at 0.2 second
Fv null -See Section 11.4.8 Site amplification factor at 1.0 second
PGA 0.943 MCEG peak ground acceleration
FPGA 1.1 Site amplification factor at PGA
PGAM 1.037 Site modified peak ground acceleration
TL 12 Long-period transition period in seconds
SsRT 2.335 Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion. (0.2 second)
SsUH 2.573 Factored uniform-hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) spectral acceleration
SsD 2.281 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (0.2 second)
S1RT 0.941 Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion. (1.0 second)
S1UH 1.054 Factored uniform-hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) spectral acceleration.
S1D 0.821 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (1.0 second)
PGAd 0.943 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (Peak Ground Acceleration)
CRS 0.907 Mapped value of the risk coefficient at short periods
CR1 0.893 Mapped value of the risk coefficient at a period of 1 s
Exhibit V
Shallow Footing Design
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
q
(
p
s
f
)
B (ft)
Strip Footing
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
se
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
(
i
n
)
B (ft)
Strip Footing
Address: 2455 Autumnvale Drive, Unit E, San Jose, CA 95131, Tel: (408) 217-9174, Fax: (408) 217-9632
www.achieveng.com
Form #: R-15, V-Ι, C-ΙΙ, S-8 Date Prepared: 7/29/2014 Revision No.: 1 Revised: 11/26/2014
Project Number: 4134
Date: March 25, 2020
Mr. Ali Mozaffari
22690 Stevens Creek
Cupertino, CA 95014
Subject: Addendum to Geotechnical Report (Pavement Design) for the New Development at
22690 Stevens Creek
Cupertino, CA 95014
APN#342-14-104
Dear Sir,
In response to your inquiry, and your authorization, the following professional services were provided:
Two sets of CBR test (ASTM D1383) have been performed on selected samples collected
from the site (Please refer to the attached test results).
Recommendations for pavement design and pedestrian concrete sidewalk.
Pavement Design and Pedestrian Rigid Concrete Sidewalk
Recommendations
As previously discussed, two sets of CBR tests (per ASTM D1383) have been performed for two
surficial samples collected from the Site. California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test results indicated that
near surface soils have an average CBR value of approximately 1.4 that is classified as poor subgrade
per Reference 1. Based on the correlations between CBR and MR (Resilient Modulus) per Reference
2, the corresponding MR and California R-Value for the surficial soil at the Site are 2025 psi and 3,
respectively. The soil classification test shows the surface soil of the site is SC /CL, in Unified Soil
Classification System.
Subgrade Preparation
Remove all debris, large rocks, vegetation and topsoil from the area to be paved. These items either
do not compact well or cause non-uniform compaction and mat thickness.
It is recommended that the poor soil undergo subgrade treatment or replacement before placing
aggregate and asphalt. For more information on subgrade treatments refer to Chapter 4.0 of Reference
1.
Address: 2455 Autumnvale Drive, Unit E, San Jose, CA 95131, Tel: (408) 217-9174, Fax: (408) 217-9632
www.achieveng.com
Form #: R-15, V-Ι, C-ΙΙ, S-8 Date Prepared: 7/29/2014 Revision No.: 1 Revised: 11/26/2014
The subgrade should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density as
determined by ASTM D1557 to ensure the compacted subgrade is able to support construction traffic.
If the subgrade ruts excessively under construction traffic, it should be repaired before being paved
over. Left unrepaired subgrade ruts may reflectively cause premature pavement rutting.
It is recommended that a representative from our firm be present at the site and observe the integrity
of the subgrade during the construction. In case the poor soil is present or unsuitable materials are
encountered as predicted, the subgrade may require stabilization (such as lime treatment), over-
excavation (and replacing the unsuitable soil with gravel borrows) and adding a base course and
perhaps a subbase course over the subgrade, that proper methods will be recommended if needed
during construction observation.
After final grading (often called fine-grading), the subgrade elevation should generally conform
closely to the construction plan subgrade elevation. Large elevation discrepancies should not be
compensated for by varying pavement or base thickness because hot mix asphalt (HMA) and
aggregates are more expensive than subgrade.
Rigid Concrete Pavement Recommendation for a TI (Traffic Index) below 9
Utilizing the Reference 3 rigid pavement catalog decision tree, the site surface soil is classified as
Type II of subgrade and the Site is located in Caltrans Pavement Climate Region of Central Coast.
Thus, the recommended rigid pavement structural depth for TI ≤ 9, with lateral support is 0.70 ft.
doweled JPCP (Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement) or 1.00 ft. AB (Class 2 Aggregate Base) and for the
case without lateral support is 0.75 ft. doweled JPCP or 1.00 ft. AB and the (Table 623.1E, Reference
3).
AC (Asphalt Concrete) pavement recommendations for a TI of 5, 6 and 7
Considerations regarding worker safety, short construction windows, or the amount of area to be paved
may make it desirable to reduce the total thickness of the pavement by placing full depth hot mix
asphalt (HMA). Also, full depth hot mix asphalt is less affected by moisture or frost, does not allow
moisture build up in the subgrade, provides no permeable layers that entrap water, and has a more
uniform pavement structure. In this step of design, assuming a full depth HMA for pavement and using
the Reference 3, the recommendation for AC pavement structural depth has been summarized in the
table below.
Address: 2455 Autumnvale Drive, Unit E, San Jose, CA 95131, Tel: (408) 217-9174, Fax: (408) 217-9632
www.achieveng.com
Form #: R-15, V-Ι, C-ΙΙ, S-8 Date Prepared: 7/29/2014 Revision No.: 1 Revised: 11/26/2014
Table 1- Recommended AC pavement structural depth
TI GE
1(ft.)
HMA Thickness (ft.)
5 1.6 0.60
6 2.0 0.75
7 2.3 0.90
1) Gravel Equivalent in ft.
Proper mix of AC with Performance Grade for climate region of Central Coast can be used for full
depth pavement (please refer to Table 632.1 of Reference 3).
Please note that the thicknesses determined and outlined in this section, are not intended to preclude
other combinations and thicknesses of materials. Adjustments to the thickness of the various materials
may be made to accommodate construction restrictions or practices, and minimize costs, provided the
minimum thicknesses, maximum thicknesses, and minimum GE requirements (including safety
factors) of the entire pavement structure and each layer are as specified and the contractor can modify
them based on credible references as the project progresses and more data will be available (Per
Reference 3).
It is our pleasure to provide you our professional services. If you have any question or need any
additional information, please do not hesitate to call us at your convenience.
Sincerely Yours,
Sadaf M. Safaai P.E.
State of California Licensed Civil Engineer
Reference
1- Asphalt Paving Design Guide, Asphalt Pavement Association of Oregon, Revised October
2003.
2- FHWA, Geotechnical Aspects of Pavements Reference Manual / Participant Workbook,
Publication No. FHWA NHI-05-037, May 2006.
3- California Department of Transportation, Highway Design Manual, Sixth Edition, 2017.
CBR
Test Result
Alan
Enterprise LLc
# 4134
C B R 1
California Bearing Ratio (CBR)
ASTM: D 1883 - AASHTO: T193-99
3/23/2020 AEC Project#:
Alan Enterprise Sample No.:
Page #:1
Date Prepared: 02/11/2019 Revision No: 1 Revised: 04/06/2019Form#: L-50
12
Dry Density, (Lbs/C.F)126.72
NamiTested by (Name / Initial):Signature:NH
Water Content Data
10
4.59
0
0.022
0.022
Final Dial Gauge Reading, (in)
After SoakingBefore SoakingCondition of specimen
Density Data
6
Wt. of Sample, (Lb)
032320 - 4134 - L50 - NH
Cupertino
Report Date:
*Client:
Report ID:
*Project Address:
4134
CBR1-1
Surcharge Weight, (Lb)Expansion Ratio (ER):
25.848 25.951Wt. of Compacted Sample,
Mold and Base Plate, (Lb)
Wt. of Mold and Base Plate, (Lb)15.83
10.018
Height of Speciment, (in3)4.59
Vol. of Specimen, (in3)
Moisture Content, (%)
Gross wet weight
Gross Dry Weight
Tare No
Expansion Ratio Determination
Sample Condition:
Initial Dial Gauge Reading, (in)
Difference, (in)
Initial Height of Specimen, (in)
Sample No CBR1-1
Net Dry weight
Weight of Water
Tare Weight
Moisture (%)
After Soakingbefore Soaking
CA - 19
589.15
562.13
336.93
225.2
27.02
12
Remark:
𝐸𝑅=0.022
4.59 =0.479
2455 Autumnvale Drive, Unit E, San Jose, CA 95131, Tel: (408) 217-9174, Fax: (408) 217-9632 / www.achieveng.com
California Bearing Ratio (CBR)
ASTM: D 1883 - AASHTO: T193-99
3/23/2020 AEC Project#:
Alan Enterprise Sample No.:
Page #:2
Date Prepared: 02/11/2019 Revision No: 1 Revised: 04/06/2019Form#: L-50
12
Dry Density, (Lbs/C.F)126.72
NamiTested by (Name / Initial):Signature:NH
Water Content Data
10
4.59
0
0.022
0.022
Final Dial Gauge Reading, (in)
After SoakingBefore SoakingCondition of specimen
Density Data
6
Wt. of Sample, (Lb)
032320 - 4134 - L50 - NH
Cupertino
Report Date:
*Client:
Report ID:
*Project Address:
4134
CBR1-2
Surcharge Weight, (Lb)Expansion Ratio (ER):
26.019 25.951Wt. of Compacted Sample,
Mold and Base Plate, (Lb)
Wt. of Mold and Base Plate, (Lb)15.866
10.153
Height of Speciment, (in3)4.59
Vol. of Specimen, (in3)
Moisture Content, (%)
Gross wet weight
Gross Dry Weight
Tare No
Expansion Ratio Determination
Sample Condition:
Initial Dial Gauge Reading, (in)
Difference, (in)
Initial Height of Specimen, (in)
Sample No CBR1-2
Net Dry weight
Weight of Water
Tare Weight
Moisture (%)
After Soakingbefore Soaking
CA - 22
535.63
514.41
336.73
177.68
21.22
12
Remark:
𝐸𝑅=0.022
4.59 =0.479
2455 Autumnvale Drive, Unit E, San Jose, CA 95131, Tel: (408) 217-9174, Fax: (408) 217-9632 / www.achieveng.com
California Bearing Ratio (CBR)
ASTM: D 1883 - AASHTO: T193-99
3/23/2020 AEC Project#:
Alan Enterprise Sample No.:
Page #:3
Date Prepared: 02/11/2019 Revision No: 1 Revised: 04/06/2019Form#: L-50
12
Dry Density, (Lbs/C.F)126.72
NamiTested by (Name / Initial):Signature:NH
Water Content Data
10
4.59
0
0.022
0.022
Final Dial Gauge Reading, (in)
After SoakingBefore SoakingCondition of specimen
Density Data
6
Wt. of Sample, (Lb)
032320 - 4134 - L50 - NH
Cupertino
Report Date:
*Client:
Report ID:
*Project Address:
4134
CBR1-3
Surcharge Weight, (Lb)Expansion Ratio (ER):
25.949 26.028Wt. of Compacted Sample,
Mold and Base Plate, (Lb)
Wt. of Mold and Base Plate, (Lb)15.792
10.157
Height of Speciment, (in3)4.59
Vol. of Specimen, (in3)
Moisture Content, (%)
Gross wet weight
Gross Dry Weight
Tare No
Expansion Ratio Determination
Sample Condition:
Initial Dial Gauge Reading, (in)
Difference, (in)
Initial Height of Specimen, (in)
Sample No CBR1-3
Net Dry weight
Weight of Water
Tare Weight
Moisture (%)
After Soakingbefore Soaking
CA - 21
526.28
505.99
337.93
168.06
20.29
12
Remark:
𝐸𝑅=0.022
4.59 =0.479
2455 Autumnvale Drive, Unit E, San Jose, CA 95131, Tel: (408) 217-9174, Fax: (408) 217-9632 / www.achieveng.com
ELE International Page 1 of 2
California Bearing Ratio of Laboratory
Compacted Soils (CBR)
Client AEC Lab Ref
Project Alan Enterprise LLC Job 4134
Borehole CBR1-1 Sample CBR1-1
Test Details
Standard ASTM D1883-99 / AASHTO T193-98
Sample Type Bulk disturbed sample
Sample Description Silty Sand
Location Cupertino
Variations from Procedure None
Specimen & Equipment Details
Specimen Reference A Method of Sample
Preparation
ASTM D 1883
Diameter 6.0000 in
Height 4.5900 in
Dry Density before Soak 1.91 lb/ft3 Dry Density after Soak 1.91 lb/ft3
Surcharge Weight 10.0000 lb Comments
Moisture Content
Before Compaction 1.00 % After Compaction 12.00 %
Top 1” Layer after penetration 0.00 % Average after soak 13.15 %
Soaking Details
Soaking Time 96.00 hrs
Sample Weight after Soaking 10.1210 lb
Soaking Travel 0.0220 in
Swell 0.48 %
Tested By
and Date:
Nami 03/23/20
Checked By
and Date:
A.F 03/23/20
Approved By
and Date:
S.H 03/236/20
ELE International Page 2 of 2
California Bearing Ratio of Laboratory
Compacted Soils (CBR)
Client AEC Lab Ref
Project Alan Enterprise LLC Job 4134
Borehole CBR1-1 Sample CBR1-1
ELE International Page 1 of 2
California Bearing Ratio of Laboratory
Compacted Soils (CBR)
Client AEC Lab Ref
Project Alan Enterprise LLC Job 4134
Borehole CBR1 Sample CBR1-2
Test Details
Standard ASTM D1883-99 / AASHTO T193-98
Sample Type Bulk disturbed sample
Sample Description Silty Sand
Location Cupertino
Variations from Procedure None
Specimen & Equipment Details
Specimen Reference B Method of Sample
Preparation
ASTM D 1883
Diameter 6.0000 in
Height 4.5900 in
Dry Density before Soak 1.93 lb/ft3 Dry Density after Soak 1.93 lb/ft3
Surcharge Weight 1.0000 lb Comments
Moisture Content
Before Compaction 1.00 % After Compaction 12.00 %
Top 1” Layer after penetration 0.00 % Average after soak 12.88 %
Soaking Details
Soaking Time 96.00 hrs
Sample Weight after Soaking 10.2330 lb
Soaking Travel 0.0220 in
Swell 0.48 %
Tested By
and Date:
Nami 03/23/2020
Checked By
and Date:
A.F 03/23/2020
Approved By
and Date:
S.H 03/23/2020
ELE International Page 2 of 2
California Bearing Ratio of Laboratory
Compacted Soils (CBR)
Client AEC Lab Ref
Project Alan Enterprise LLC Job 4134
Borehole CBR1 Sample CBR1-2
ELE International Page 1 of 2
California Bearing Ratio of Laboratory
Compacted Soils (CBR)
Client AEC Lab Ref
Project Alan Enterprise LLC Job 4134
Borehole CBR1 Sample CBR1-3
Test Details
Standard ASTM D1883-99 / AASHTO T193-98
Sample Type Bulk disturbed sample
Sample Description Silty Sand
Location Cupertino
Variations from Procedure None
Specimen & Equipment Details
Specimen Reference C Method of Sample
Preparation
ASTM D 1883
Diameter 6.0000 in
Height 4.5900 in
Dry Density before Soak 1.93 lb/ft3 Dry Density after Soak 1.93 lb/ft3
Surcharge Weight 10.0000 lb Comments
Moisture Content
Before Compaction 1.00 % After Compaction 12.00 %
Top 1” Layer after penetration 0.00 % Average after soak 12.87 %
Soaking Details
Soaking Time 96.00 hrs
Sample Weight after Soaking 10.2360 lb
Soaking Travel 0.0220 in
Swell 0.48 %
Tested By
and Date:
Nami 03/23/2020
Checked By
and Date:
A.F 03/23/2020
Approved By
and Date:
S.H 03/23/2020
ELE International Page 2 of 2
California Bearing Ratio of Laboratory
Compacted Soils (CBR)
Client AEC Lab Ref
Project Alan Enterprise LLC Job 4134
Borehole CBR1 Sample CBR1-3
LABORATORY COMPACTION (Modified)
(ASTM D1557)
3/10/2020
4134
Sample #:Alan Enterprise LLC
Sample ID:22690 Stevens Creek BLVD, Cupertino
Curve No.GIVO
Page 1 of 2
Silty Sand
3/10/2020
1 2 3 4
10163.1 10431.5 10709.8 10474.9
5905.7 5905.7 5905.7 5905.7
125.31 133.21 141.40 134.49
H-19 AE-9 H-25 H-30
126 125.6 127.5 127.3
457.8 442.3 389.9 456.2
438.12 416.95 362.65 413.46
19.68 25.35 27.25 42.74
312.12 291.35 235.15 286.16
6.31 8.70 11.59 14.94
117.88 122.55 126.72 117.01
126.72
12%
Weight Class A B C D Bulk Mass (lbs):1015.3
Weight (lbs)687.9 54.3 36.6 236.5
Percentage (%)0.678 0.053 0.036 0.233
No Rammer Type:Mechanical
No
No
No
YES
No
Tested By: Reviewed By:
Signature: Signature:
#4 3/8" 3/4"
Method A:
Soil Compaction Data:
#REF!GIVO
Moisture Content %
Dry Unit Weight (pcf)
Weight of Mold (gr)
Wet Unit Weight (pcf)
Tare Number
Weight of Wet Soil & Tare (gr)
Weight of Dry Soil & Tare (gr)
Maximum Dry Density (Lbs/C.F):
List of Methods
1
Source:
Soil
FIELD
Type of Material:
Optimum Mositure (%):
Weight of Wet Soil & Mold (gr)
Weight of Water (gr)
Weight of Tare (gr)
Weight of Dry Soil (gr)
Page #:
Compaction Sample No.
Sample Date:
Report Date:
Project No:
Project Name:
Project Address:
Technician
Material Description:
Sampled by:MOBIN
CBR1
03102020 - 4134 - Soil - CBR1
Method A w/ Correction OR Method B:
Method B:
Method B w/ Correction OR Method C:
Method C:
Not Applicable:
|Form # L-27 | Date Prepared: 10/20/2014 | Rev #6| Revised: 10/18/2018|
2455 Autumnvale Drive, Unit E | San Jose, CA 95131| Tel: (408) 217-9174 | Fax: (408) 217-9632
www.achieveng.com
Moisture Density
(AASHTO T265 - ASTM D2216)
Report Date:
Project No:
Project Name:
Project Address:
Technician:
Type of Material:
Source:
Sampled by:Sample Date:
Sample No:CBR1-1 CBR1-2 CBR1-3
Ht. of Sample:Disturbed Disturbed Disturbed
Tare No:CA - 19 CA - 22 CA - 21
Gross Wet Wt:589.15 535.63 526.28
Gross Dry Wt:562.13 514.41 505.99
Tare Wt:336.93 336.73 337.93
Net Dry Wt:225.20 177.68 168.06
Wt. of Water:27.02 21.22 20.29
% Moisture 12%12%12%
Liners Dia
Density Factors
Dry Density
Tested By: Reviewed By:
Signature: Signature:
Sample Description:
Field
Nami 3/8/2020
Nami A.F
3/23/2020
4134
Alan Enterprise LLC
Cupertino
Nami
Soil
|Form #L-19| Date Prepared: | Rev #2| Revised: 05/26/2018|
2455 Autumnvale Drive, Unit E | San Jose, CA 95131| Tel: (408) 217-9174 | Fax: (408) 217-9632
www.achieveng.com
C B R 2
California Bearing Ratio (CBR)
ASTM: D 1883 - AASHTO: T193-99
3/23/2020 AEC Project#:
Alan Enterprise Sample No.:
Page #:4
Moisture (%)
After Soakingbefore Soaking
CA - 3
861.22
811.47
342.2
469.27
49.75
11
Remark:
Net Dry weight
Weight of Water
Tare Weight
Gross wet weight
Gross Dry Weight
Tare No
Expansion Ratio Determination
Sample Condition:
Initial Dial Gauge Reading, (in)
Difference, (in)
Initial Height of Specimen, (in)
Sample No CBR2-1
Surcharge Weight, (Lb)Expansion Ratio (ER):
24.947 25.509Wt. of Compacted Sample,
Mold and Base Plate, (Lb)
Wt. of Mold and Base Plate, (Lb)15.822
9.125
Height of Speciment, (in3)4.59
Vol. of Specimen, (in3)
Moisture Content, (%)
032320 - 4134 - L50 - NH
Cupertino
Report Date:
*Client:
Report ID:
*Project Address:
4134
CBR2-1
After SoakingBefore SoakingCondition of specimen
Density Data
6
Wt. of Sample, (Lb)
11
Dry Density, (Lbs/C.F)123.99
NamiTested by (Name / Initial):Signature:NH
Water Content Data
10
4.59
0
0.048
0.048
Final Dial Gauge Reading, (in)
Date Prepared: 02/11/2019 Revision No: 1 Revised: 04/06/2019Form#: L-50
𝐸𝑅=0.048
4.59 =1.045
2455 Autumnvale Drive, Unit E, San Jose, CA 95131, Tel: (408) 217-9174, Fax: (408) 217-9632 / www.achieveng.com
California Bearing Ratio (CBR)
ASTM: D 1883 - AASHTO: T193-99
3/23/2020 AEC Project#:
Alan Enterprise Sample No.:
Page #:5
Moisture (%)
After Soakingbefore Soaking
CA - 4
525.94
506.92
336.3
170.62
19.02
11
Remark:
Net Dry weight
Weight of Water
Tare Weight
Gross wet weight
Gross Dry Weight
Tare No
Expansion Ratio Determination
Sample Condition:
Initial Dial Gauge Reading, (in)
Difference, (in)
Initial Height of Specimen, (in)
Sample No CBR2-2
Surcharge Weight, (Lb)Expansion Ratio (ER):
27.418 27.697Wt. of Compacted Sample,
Mold and Base Plate, (Lb)
Wt. of Mold and Base Plate, (Lb)17.558
9.86
Height of Speciment, (in3)4.59
Vol. of Specimen, (in3)
Moisture Content, (%)
032320 - 4134 - L50 - NH
Cupertino
Report Date:
*Client:
Report ID:
*Project Address:
4134
CBR2-1
After SoakingBefore SoakingCondition of specimen
Density Data
6
Wt. of Sample, (Lb)
11
Dry Density, (Lbs/C.F)123.99
NamiTested by (Name / Initial):Signature:NH
Water Content Data
10
4.59
0
0.048
0.048
Final Dial Gauge Reading, (in)
Date Prepared: 02/11/2019 Revision No: 1 Revised: 04/06/2019Form#: L-50
𝐸𝑅=0.048
4.59 =1.045
2455 Autumnvale Drive, Unit E, San Jose, CA 95131, Tel: (408) 217-9174, Fax: (408) 217-9632 / www.achieveng.com
California Bearing Ratio (CBR)
ASTM: D 1883 - AASHTO: T193-99
3/23/2020 AEC Project#:
Alan Enterprise Sample No.:
Page #:6
Date Prepared: 02/11/2019 Revision No: 1 Revised: 04/06/2019Form#: L-50
11
Dry Density, (Lbs/C.F)123.99
NamiTested by (Name / Initial):Signature:NH
Water Content Data
10
4.59
0
0.048
0.048
Final Dial Gauge Reading, (in)
After SoakingBefore SoakingCondition of specimen
Density Data
6
Wt. of Sample, (Lb)
032320 - 4134 - L50 - NH
Cupertino
Report Date:
*Client:
Report ID:
*Project Address:
4134
CBR2-1
Surcharge Weight, (Lb)Expansion Ratio (ER):
27.798 27.969Wt. of Compacted Sample,
Mold and Base Plate, (Lb)
Wt. of Mold and Base Plate, (Lb)17.696
10.102
Height of Speciment, (in3)4.59
Vol. of Specimen, (in3)
Moisture Content, (%)
Gross wet weight
Gross Dry Weight
Tare No
Expansion Ratio Determination
Sample Condition:
Initial Dial Gauge Reading, (in)
Difference, (in)
Initial Height of Specimen, (in)
Sample No CBR2-3
Net Dry weight
Weight of Water
Tare Weight
Moisture (%)
After Soakingbefore Soaking
CA - 5
416.63
408.8
337.02
71.78
7.83
11
Remark:
𝐸𝑅=0.048
4.59 =1.045
2455 Autumnvale Drive, Unit E, San Jose, CA 95131, Tel: (408) 217-9174, Fax: (408) 217-9632 / www.achieveng.com
ELE International Page 1 of 2
California Bearing Ratio of Laboratory
Compacted Soils (CBR)
Client AEC Lab Ref
Project Alan Enterprise LLC Job 4134
Borehole CBR2 Sample CBR2-1
Test Details
Standard ASTM D1883-99 / AASHTO T193-98
Sample Type Bulk disturbed sample
Sample Description Silty Sand
Location Cupertino
Variations from Procedure None
Specimen & Equipment Details
Specimen Reference A Method of Sample
Preparation
ASTM D 1883
Diameter 6.0000 in
Height 4.5900 in
Dry Density before Soak 1.75 lb/ft3 Dry Density after Soak 1.75 lb/ft3
Surcharge Weight 10.0000 lb Comments
Moisture Content
Before Compaction 1.00 % After Compaction 11.00 %
Top 1” Layer after penetration 0.00 % Average after soak 17.84 %
Soaking Details
Soaking Time 96.00 hrs
Sample Weight after Soaking 9.6870 lb
Soaking Travel 0.0480 in
Swell 1.05 %
Tested By
and Date:
Nami 03/23/2020
Checked By
and Date:
A.F 03/23/2020
Approved By
and Date:
S.H 03/23/2020
ELE International Page 2 of 2
California Bearing Ratio of Laboratory
Compacted Soils (CBR)
Client AEC Lab Ref
Project Alan Enterprise LLC Job 4134
Borehole CBR2 Sample CBR2-1
ELE International Page 1 of 2
California Bearing Ratio of Laboratory
Compacted Soils (CBR)
Client AEC Lab Ref
Project Alan Enterprise LLC Job 4134
Borehole CBR2 Sample CBR2-2
Test Details
Standard ASTM D1883-99 / AASHTO T193-98
Sample Type Bulk disturbed sample
Sample Description Silty Sand
Location Cupertino
Variations from Procedure None
Specimen & Equipment Details
Specimen Reference B Method of Sample
Preparation
ASTM D 1883
Diameter 6.0000 in
Height 4.5900 in
Dry Density before Soak 1.89 lb/ft3 Dry Density after Soak 1.89 lb/ft3
Surcharge Weight 10.0000 lb Comments
Moisture Content
Before Compaction 1.00 % After Compaction 11.00 %
Top 1” Layer after penetration 0.00 % Average after soak 14.14 %
Soaking Details
Soaking Time 96.00 hrs
Sample Weight after Soaking 10.1390 lb
Soaking Travel 0.0480 in
Swell 1.05 %
Tested By
and Date:
Nami 03/23/2020
Checked By
and Date:
A.F 03/23/2020
Approved By
and Date:
S.H 03/23/2020
ELE International Page 2 of 2
California Bearing Ratio of Laboratory
Compacted Soils (CBR)
Client AEC Lab Ref
Project Alan Enterprise LLC Job 4134
Borehole CBR2 Sample CBR2-2
ELE International Page 1 of 2
California Bearing Ratio of Laboratory
Compacted Soils (CBR)
Client AEC Lab Ref
Project Alan Enterprise LLC Job 4134
Borehole CBR2 Sample CBR2-3
Test Details
Standard ASTM D1883-99 / AASHTO T193-98
Sample Type Bulk disturbed sample
Sample Description Silty Sand
Location Cupertino
Variations from Procedure None
Specimen & Equipment Details
Specimen Reference C Method of Sample
Preparation
ASTM D 1883
Diameter 6.0000 in
Height 4.5900 in
Dry Density before Soak 1.94 lb/ft3 Dry Density after Soak 1.94 lb/ft3
Surcharge Weight 10.0000 lb Comments
Moisture Content
Before Compaction 1.00 % After Compaction 11.00 %
Top 1” Layer after penetration 0.00 % Average after soak 12.88 %
Soaking Details
Soaking Time 96.00 hrs
Sample Weight after Soaking 10.2730 lb
Soaking Travel 0.0480 in
Swell 1.05 %
Tested By
and Date:
Nami 03/23/2020
Checked By
and Date:
A.F 03/23/2020
Approved By
and Date:
S.H 03/23/2020
ELE International Page 2 of 2
California Bearing Ratio of Laboratory
Compacted Soils (CBR)
Client AEC Lab Ref
Project Alan Enterprise LLC Job 4134
Borehole CBR2 Sample CBR2-3
LABORATORY COMPACTION (Modified)
(ASTM D1557)
3/10/2020
4134
Sample #:Alan Enterprise LLC
Sample ID:22690 Stevens Creek BLVD, Cupertino
Curve No.GIVO
Page 1 of 2
Silty Sand
3/10/2020
1 2 3 4
10206.8 10503.3 10591.2 10310.9
5905.7 5905.7 5905.7 5905.7
126.60 135.32 137.91 129.66
A-7 AE-21 H-31 H-8
134.2 126.3 127.9 129.5
451.4 453.8 433.5 444.4
431.75 425.35 400.95 402.1
19.65 28.45 32.55 42.3
297.55 299.05 273.05 272.6
6.60 9.51 11.92 15.52
118.75 123.57 123.22 112.24
123.99
11%
Weight Class A B C D Bulk Mass (lbs):1058.7
Weight (lbs)756.3 37.5 45.6 219.3
Percentage (%)0.714 0.035 0.043 0.207
No Rammer Type:Mechanical
No
No
No
YES
No
Tested By: Reviewed By:
Signature: Signature:
Method A w/ Correction OR Method B:
Method B:
Method B w/ Correction OR Method C:
Method C:
Not Applicable:
Page #:
Compaction Sample No.
Sample Date:
Report Date:
Project No:
Project Name:
Project Address:
Technician
Material Description:
Sampled by:MOBIN
CBR2
03102020 - 4134 - Soil - CBR2
Optimum Mositure (%):
Weight of Wet Soil & Mold (gr)
Weight of Water (gr)
Weight of Tare (gr)
Weight of Dry Soil (gr)
2
Source:
Soil
FIELD
Type of Material:
#4 3/8" 3/4"
Method A:
Soil Compaction Data:
#REF!GIVO
Moisture Content %
Dry Unit Weight (pcf)
Weight of Mold (gr)
Wet Unit Weight (pcf)
Tare Number
Weight of Wet Soil & Tare (gr)
Weight of Dry Soil & Tare (gr)
Maximum Dry Density (Lbs/C.F):
List of Methods
|Form # L-27 | Date Prepared: 10/20/2014 | Rev #6| Revised: 10/18/2018|
2455 Autumnvale Drive, Unit E | San Jose, CA 95131| Tel: (408) 217-9174 | Fax: (408) 217-9632
www.achieveng.com
Moisture Density
(AASHTO T265 - ASTM D2216)
Report Date:
Project No:
Project Name:
Project Address:
Technician:
Type of Material:
Source:
Sampled by:Sample Date:
Sample No:CBR2 - 1 CBR2 - 2 CBR2 - 3
Ht. of Sample:Disturbed Disturbed Disturbed
Tare No:CA - 3 CA - 4 CA - 5
Gross Wet Wt:861.22 525.94 416.63
Gross Dry Wt:811.47 506.92 408.80
Tare Wt:342.20 336.30 337.02
Net Dry Wt:469.27 170.62 71.78
Wt. of Water:49.75 19.02 7.83
% Moisture 11%11%11%
Liners Dia
Density Factors
Dry Density
Tested By: Reviewed By:
Signature: Signature:
3/23/2020
4134
Alan Enterprise LLC
Cupertino
Nami
Soil Sample Description:
Field
Nami 3/8/2020
Nami A.F
|Form #L-19| Date Prepared: | Rev #2| Revised: 05/26/2018|
2455 Autumnvale Drive, Unit E | San Jose, CA 95131| Tel: (408) 217-9174 | Fax: (408) 217-9632
www.achieveng.com
........................................................................................................................
A PPENDIX D :
P HASE I E NVIRONMENTAL S ITE
A SSESSMENT
........................................................................................................................
Achievement Engineering Corp.
July 29, 2019
Alan Enterprise LLC.
Mr. Ali Mozafari
Reference: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report for
22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard,
Cupertino, California 95014
(Three parcels with APNs 342-14-04, 342-14-05, and 342-14-66)
AEC Project No. 3940
Dear Mr. Mozafari:
Achievement Engineering Corp. (AEC) is pleased to submit this report of Phase I Environmental
Site Assessment (ESA) for the above-referenced project. This report presents a review of the
information collected throug h historical research and our site visit (including interviews)
and a summary of our prof essional judgment based on t he inf ormation available.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project and would be happy to discuss
our findings with you. We look forward to serving as your environmental/geotechnical engineer on
your future projects.
Respectfully,
ACHIEVEMENT ENGINEERING CORP.
Sadaf Safaai, PE
Project Engineer
Copies: Mr. Ali Mozafari
AEC Project No. 3940
July 29, 2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1-EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 2
2-PURPOSE ....................................................................................................................... 5
3-METHODOLOGY USED ................................................................................................. 6
4-REGULATORY REVIEW ................................................................................................ 8
Standard Environmental Records Reviewed. ............................................................... 8
Surrounding Sites Search results ................................................................................ 9
4-2-1-Federal CERCLIS NFRAP: ................................................................................... 9
4-2-2-State- and tribal - equivalent CERCLIS ................................................................. 9
4-2-3-State and tribal leaking storage tank lists .............................................................10
4-2-4-State and tribal registered storage tank lists ........................................................11
4-2-5-State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites ................................................................12
4-2-6-Local Lists of Hazardous waste / Contaminated Sites ..........................................12
4-2-7-Local Lists of Registered Storage Tanks ..............................................................13
4-2-8-Other Ascertainable Records ...............................................................................14
4-2-9-EDR HIGH RISK HISTORICAL RECORDS .........................................................16
4-2-10-Unmapped addresses ......................................................................................17
OTHER REGULATORY INFORMATION ....................................................................17
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST ............................................17
5-PHYSICAL SETTING .....................................................................................................18
TOPOGRAPHY ..........................................................................................................18
SOILS .........................................................................................................................18
FLOOD PLAIN INFORMATION ..................................................................................18
GEOLOGY .................................................................................................................18
SURFACE WATER/GROUND WATER HYDROLOGY ...............................................19
6-HISTORICAL REVIEW ..................................................................................................20
PRESENT OWNER ....................................................................................................20
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS ..........................................................................................20
HISTORICAL MAPS ...................................................................................................20
HISTORICAL CHAIN OF TITLE REPORT ..................................................................20
ZONING AND LAND USE RECORDS ........................................................................20
7-SITE RECONNAISSANCE .............................................................................................21
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND CONTAINERS ...................................................21
FACILITY STORAGE TANKS .....................................................................................21
SOLID WASTE GENERATION AND DISPOSAL ........................................................21
STORM WATER AND WASTE WATER SYSTEMS ...................................................21
AEC Project No. 3940
July 29, 2019
SURFACE AREAS .....................................................................................................21
AREA RECONNAISSANCE .......................................................................................22
8-ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS ............................................................23
WETLANDS ...............................................................................................................23
AIR EMISSIONS .........................................................................................................23
9-FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................24
10-LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................27
APPENDIX A ! EDR REPORT
APPENDIX B ! TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS
APPENDIX C ! AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
APPENDIX D ! SANBORN MAPS
APPENDIX E! CITY DIRECTORY ABSTRACTS
APPENDIX F ! FOIA INFORMATION
APPENDIX G ! SITE PHOTOS
APPENDIX H ! SITE MAP
APPENDIX I ! SITE ZONE MAP
APPENDIX J ! BUILDING PERMIT REPORT
APPENDIX K ! TAX REPORT
APPENDIX L ! ENVIRONMENTAL LIEN
AEC Project No. 3940
July 29, 2019
1- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Achievement Engineering Corp. (AEC) was retained by Alan Enterprise LLC. to perform a Phase
I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the property located at 22690 Stevens Creek
Boulevard, Cupertino, California 95014 (Three parcels with APNs 342-14-04, 342-14-05, and 342-
14-66). The following summary highlights the significant findings and conclusions representing
our best professional judgment based on the information and data available to us during the
course of this assessment. The reader is referred to the report text for full details.
PHYSICAL SETTING
! The subject site is located at 22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California 95014
(Three parcels with APNs 342-14-04, 342-14-05, and 342-14-66), with coordinates of 37° 19!
18.27!!N and 122° 4!8.20!!W.
! The topography of the subject is relatively flat at the target property with an average elevation
of approximately 386.0 feet (General topographic gradient is NNE).
! It appears that the upper soil near the site is Urban Land, with unreported surface texture
and drainage class.
! Rock stratigraphic unit geologic age identification is as follows:
Era: Cenozoic
Category: Continental Deposits
System: Tertiary
Series: Pliocene
Code: Tpc (decoded above as Era, System & Series)
The subject site does not contain any evidence of jurisdictional non-tidal wetlands (national or
state).
HISTORICAL DATA
The subject site is currently owned by Bateh Brothers Liquors and Mini Mart (George and Nahida
Bateh) and is located on the west south corner of Stevens Creek Blvd. and Foothill Blvd.
intersection at 22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California 95014, within mixed use
plan development( General Commercial) zone of Cupertino.
The subject site comprised of three parcels with assessor parcel number (APN) 342-14-04, 342-
14-05, and 342-14-66, with a total area of approximately 0.75 acre. Review of the historical data
available for the subject site reveals that most probably the development of the site as is took
place between 1950 and 1956 (based on aerial photos), the first city directory listing for this
AEC Project No. 3940
July 29, 2019
3
property belongs to 1975, before that, this address does not exist in 1970 and 1968 listings. Bateh
Brothers Liquors and Mini Mart has been listed in 2014 back to 1980 listings. In 1975 directory, a
"#$%&!'()*+,#$%-.#,/0#1 23,#0 4$'500%6)'30-7 86',$%)%30#9)0:/,%-+/30-51 ,340#')%;<=>
reveals that before 1976, the place was used as a bar. No building permit was found indicating
any other use for this property. Per aerial photos, in 1939 an orchard was in the property that
cannot be observed in 1950 aerial photo. Sometime between 1939 and 1950 the trees were
gradually cleared, starting from north to south. The existence of fertilizers, pesticides and metals
are possible in the shallow soil due to this historical land use.
Also, review of the historical data for adjacent properties of the subject site using the City Directory
Abstract (refer to Appendix E) provided by EDR reveals that for the most part, uses were mixed
residential and commercial (a veterinary clinic has existed since (at least 1989) at 10012 N.
Foothill Blvd.) and Beacon Service Station has been in service under different names as follows:
1995- to Present -Cupertino Beacon Service Station, Cupertino Auto Care
1989- Foothill Mobil
1981-1984 -McElroy Mobil Service
1976 -D&D Mobil Service
1971 -Johns Mobil Service, Mobil Oil Corporation
1968 -Johns Mobil
ENVIRONMENTAL LIEN
The search by EDR indicates that no environmental lien was found for the subject property. Also
no OTHER ACTIVITY AND USE LIMITATIONS (AULs) was found for this property. The Appendix
L exhibits the search results.
SITE RECONNAISSANCE
Hazardous Materials !Hazardous chemicals and/or products, as defined in the Code of Federal
Regulations 29 CFR 1910.1200, is not used per record and was not observed at the subject site.
Storage Tanks ! Currently, no underground storage tank is being used at the subject site. Per
Phase I performed by EIS in March 2017, the current business stored small quantities of propane
in a locked metal cabinet adjacent to the northeastern building exterior.
Waste Generation ! At the time of this ESA, no hazardous or regulated wastes has been observed
at the Site. Dumpsters for domestic waste located at the back of building.
Surface Areas ! Currently, The subject property consists of three conjoined parcels that form an
L-shaped area of approximately 0.75-acres. One 3,025-SF commercial structure is developed on
the northeastern corner of the property. The building is currently occupied by Bateh Bros Liquors
& Mini Mart. Paved asphalt parking spaces are located on the eastern portion of the Site. The rest
of the property is currently an undeveloped dirt and gravel lot.
AEC Project No. 3940
July 29, 2019
4
Adjacent Properties ? Adjacent properties are mixed use (commercial, services and residentials)
Two major properties are Beacon Service Station at 22510 Stevens Creek Blvd. and Arcadia
Veterinary at 10012 N. Foothill Blvd.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the currently available information, the subject site is currently owned by Bateh Brothers
Liquors and Mini Mart (George and Nahida Bateh), located at 22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard,
Cupertino, CA 95014 within mixed use plan development (General Commercial) zone of
Cupertino. The site itself has not been listed in any data base searched.
In May 2017 EIS performed a limited Phase II investigation at this property to assess the impact
of neighboring site (Cupertino Beacon at 22510 Stevens Creek) at this property. Above-ESL
benzene concentration in soil vapor was found in the borings at the subject site.
There is one site listed on various databases in the close proximity to and at higher elevation
of the subject site;
! Santa Clara County Fire Station (Also recorded as Monta Vista Fire station) at 22620
Stevens Creek Blvd., 332 ft., west of the subject site.
There are two sites in the close proximity of the site, but at lower elevations:
! Cupertino Beacon at 22510 Stevens Creek, 180 ft. east of the subject property
! Foothill Auto Services at 10121 N. Foothill, 620 ft., north of the subject property
The review of the aerial photos and historical use of the property as an orchard from at least 1939
to 1950 indicate that there is a potential that metals and pesticides exist in shallow site soil. Above-
ESL benzene concentration in soil vapor was found in the borings at the subject site is also a
recognized environmental conditions. Besides, the open LUST case and documented soil,
groundwater, and soil vapor contamination at neighboring property 22510 Stevens Creek
Boulevard (Cupertino Beacon) represents an offsite controlled recognized environmental
condition. To assess the impacts of the neighboring site at the subject site, conducting a limited
Phase II investigation is recommended.
No disturbed soil areas, discolored or polluted water, unusual or noxious, floor drains, PCB
containing transformers or nearby former railroad tracks was observed at the subject site.
AEC Project No. 3940
July 29, 2019
5
2- PURPOSE
The purpose of this Phase I ESA is limited to providing an assessment of current environmental
conditions at the subject site, to the extent feasible, based on the data available and as referenced
as part of an estate transaction process. The assessment was conducted to identify and highlight
recognized environmental conditions (REC). REC can be defined as the presence or likely
presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: 1) due to
any release to the environment, 2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or
3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. De minimis
conditions are not recognized environmental conditions. The following scope of work was
performed to identify REC associated with the subject site:
! A review and evaluation of federal and state databases systems including Federal NPL, Federal
Delisted NPL site list, Federal CERCLIS, Federal RCRA (CORRACTS and non- CORRACTS)
facilities list, Federal CERCLIS NFRAP, Federal RCRA Generator list, Federal institutional
controls/engineering controls registries, Federal ERNS list, State- and tribal, State and tribal
landfill and/or solid waste disposal site lists, State and tribal leaking storage tank lists, State and
tribal registered storage tank lists, State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites and State and tribal
Brownfields sites, Local Brownfield lists, Local Lists of Landfill / Solid Waste Disposal Sites,
Local Lists of Hazardous waste / Contaminated Sites, Local Land Records, Records of
Emergency Release Reports, EDR High Risk Historical Records, EDR Recovered Government
Archives and Other Ascertainable Records, as indicated in Appendix A, pages 6 and 7.
! An evaluation of the physical characteristics of the site including topography, geology, soil type,
wetlands, and flood plain information.
! A review and evaluation of standards practiced including historical information available for the
subject site such as aerial photographs, zoning records and historical maps, reviewing land
uses by the aid of City Directory.
! A site visit searching for physical indication of any contamination, documenting it with
photographs and interviews with land owner/local peopleworking in the area looking for history
of any contamination or release.
! @09)0:,A 340 3:,#0B,#3'CD4$'0 E F%9)#,%G0%3$6 2)30 8''0''G0%3H ;;IJ<23090%'K#00&
Boulevard, Santa Clara, K$6)A,#%)$L -$30-M$#/4 ;<=>$%-CPhase II Limited Soil, Groundwater,
& Soil Vapor Investigation Report, 22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, CaliforniaLH
dated May 2017, both prepared by EIS.
AEC Project No. 3940
July 29, 2019
6
3- METHODOLOGY USED
The following assessment and pertaining report were prepared in accordance with ASTM E 1527-
2013, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessment: Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment Process. We used the following methods to evaluate the environmental conditions
at the subject site.
A review of the regulatory status of the subject site as it pertains to regulated activities involving
the use of hazardous chemicals, the generation of hazardous waste, the treatment, storage, or
disposal of hazardous waste, or the release of regulated substances. AEC used services of
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) to conduct the appropriate radius searches of the
subject site of this report in conformance with the scope and limitations of the above referenced
ASTM. The Standard approximate minimum search review distances requirements are as follows
(The ones in italic font do not have standard distances, but have been reviewed under the
distances specified, if any data available for the subject site):
To One (1) Mile:
! Federal National Priorities List (NPL).
! Resource Conservation and Recovery Act - Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities
(RCRA-TSD).
! Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list
! State- and tribal-equivalent NPL
! Notify 65
To One-Half (0.5) of a Mile:
! Federal Delisted NPL site list
! Federal CERCLIS list
! Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site list
! Solid Waste Disposal Facilities, Active and Inactive (SWLF)
! Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list
! State- and tribal-equivalent CERCLIS
! State and tribal landfill and/or solid waste disposal site lists
! State and tribal leaking storage tank lists (LUST)
! State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites
! HIST CORTESE
! Local Lists of Hazardous waste / Contaminated Sites
To One-Quarter (0.25) of a Mile:
! RCRA-SQG
! RCRA-LQG
AEC Project No. 3940
July 29, 2019
7
! RCRA-CESQG
! Local Lists of Registered Storage Tanks (SWEEPS, HIST UST, CA FID UST, CERS TANKS)
! Available State Lists of Underground Storage Tanks (USTs).
! CUPA Listings
! DRYCLEANERS
To One-Eighth (0.125) of a Mile:
! Environmental Response Notification System (ERNS)
! Resource Conservation and Recovery Act - Large Quantity Generators (RCRA- LgGen)
! Resource Conservation and Recovery Act - Small Quantity Generators (RCRA- SmGen)
! EDR Hist Cleaner
! EDR Hist Auto list
! Federal institutional controls/engineering controls registries
A copy of the EDR Report is attached as Appendix A. This report also includes the time that
information requested, last updated by EDR and last updated by the original reference.
! AEC has forwarded correspondences to Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health
(SCDEH) and Santa Clara Fire Department in compliance with the Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA). The results of all inquiries will be documented in Appendix F. DTSC (Department
of Toxic Substances Control) Archives will also be consulted.
! Historical research of the subject site back to year 1897 was conducted (when data available).
The history of site development and usage was developed using the following historical
sources:
" Aerial photographs available from EDR back to 1939.
" City directories available from EDR back to 1968.
" Historical Topographic maps obtained from EDR back to 1897.
" Certified Sanborn maps obtained for this address was not available.
AEC representative visually and physically observed the peripheral surface areas of the subject
site on 27 July, 2019. In addition, the observations of the adjacent properties to identify high-risk
and contamination migration concerns were made by a walk-through of the accessible sections
of the referenced site and its surroundings. An interview was conducted with George Bateh the
owner of the liquor store and a mechanic who has worked in Cupertino Beacon for almost 19
years which the responses have been used in preparing this report.
AEC Project No. 3940
July 29, 2019
8
4- REGULATORY REVIEW
Standard Environmental Records Reviewed.
The target property was not listed in any of the databases searched by EDR. Among the standard
databases searched by EDR, the following can be named (for full details, see end of Appendix
A):
Federal NPL site list
NPL National Priority List
Proposed NPL- Proposed National Priority List Sites
NPL LIENS Federal Superfund Liens
Federal Delisted NPL site list
Delisted NPL National Priority List Deletions
Federal CERCLIS list
FEDERAL FACILITY Federal Facility Site Information listing
SEMS Superfund Enterprise Management System
Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site list
SEMS-ARCHIVE: Superfund Enterprise Management System Archive
Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list
CORRACTS Corrective Action Report
Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list
RCRA-TSDF: RCRA - Treatment, Storage and Disposal
Federal RCRA generators list
RCRA-LQG RCRA - Large Quantity Generators
RCRA-CESQG RCRA - Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator
Federal institutional controls / engineering controls registries
LUCIS Land Use Control Information System
US ENG CONTROLS Engineering Controls Sites List
US INST CONTROL Sites with Institutional Controls
Federal ERNS list
ERNS Emergency Response Notification System
State- and tribal - equivalent NPL
CA RESPONSE: State Response Sites
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
INDIAN LUST
State and tribal landfill and/or solid waste disposal site lists
SWF/LF Solid Waste Information System
State and tribal registered storage tank lists
FEMA UST Underground Storage Tank Listing
UST CLOSURE: Proposed Closure of Underground Storage Tank (UST) Cases
UST: Active UST Facilities
State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites
INDIAN VCP: Voluntary Cleanup Priority Listing
State and tribal Brownfields sites
BROWNFIELDS Considered Brownfields Sites Listing
AEC Project No. 3940
July 29, 2019
9
Additional Environmental Records are listed in pages 5 to 7, Appendix A.
Surrounding Sites Search results
4-2-1- Federal CERCLIS NFRAP:
SEMS-ARCHIVE: SEMS-ARCHIVE (Superfund Enterprise Management System Archive) tracks
sites that have no further interest under the Federal Superfund Program based on available
information. The list was formerly known as the CERCLIS-NFRAP, renamed to SEMS ARCHIVE
by the EPA in 2015. EPA may perform a minimal level of assessment work at a site while it is
archived if site conditions change and/or new information becomes available. Archived sites have
been removed and archived from the inventory of SEMS sites. Archived status indicates that, to
340 50'3 ,A FD8!'&%,:60-N0H $''0''G0%3 $3 $')30 4$'500%/,GB6030-$%-34$3 FD8 4$'
determined no further steps will be taken to list the site on the National Priorities List (NPL), unless
information indicates this decision was not appropriate or other considerations require a
recommendation for listing at a later time. The decision does not necessarily mean that there is
no hazard associated with a given site; it only means that based upon available information, the
location is not judged to be potential NPL site.
A review of the SEMS-ARCHIVE list, as provided by EDR, and dated 04/11/2019 has revealed
that there is 1 SEMS-ARCHIVE site within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property:
SEMS-ARCHIVE
Equal/Higher
Elevation Address Direction / Distance
KAISER ALUMINUM
FOIL 23333 STEVENS CREEK W 1/4 - 1/2 (0.366 mi.)
4-2-2- State- and tribal - equivalent CERCLIS
K8 FOPE@Q2RQ@S R40 T0B$#3G0%3 ,A R,U)/2+5'3$%/0'K,%3#,6!'VTR2K!'W 2)30 M)3)N$3),%$%-
X#,:%A)06-'@0+'0 D#,N#$G!'V2MX@D!'W FnviroStor database identifies sites that have known
contamination or sites for which here may be reasons to investigate further. The database
includes the following site types: Federal Superfund sites (National Priorities List (NPL)); State
Response, including Military Facilities and State Superfund; Voluntary Cleanup; and School sites.
EnviroStor provides similar information to the information that was available in CalSites, and
provides additional site information, including, but not limited to, identification of formerly-
contaminated properties that have been released for reuse, properties where environmental deed
restrictions have been recorded to prevent inappropriate land uses, and risk characterization
information that is used to assess potential impacts to public health and the environment at
contaminated sites.
A review of the CA ENVIROSTOR list, as provided by EDR, and dated 04/29/2019 has revealed
that there are 4 CA ENVIROSTOR sites within approximately 1 mile of the target property.
AEC Project No. 3940
July 29, 2019
10
CA ENVIROSTOR
Equal/Higher Elevation
Lower Elevation Address Direction / Distance
KAISER ALUMINUM AND 23333 STEVENS CREEK W 1/4 - 1/2 (0.366 mi.)
KAISER CEMENT CORP 2401 STEVENS CREEK B W 1/2 - 1 (0.994 mi.)
CA ENVIROSTOR
Lower Elevation
Lower Elevation Address Direction / Distance
BLACKBERRY FARM PLAY 21979 SAN FERNANDO D ESE 1/4 - 1/2 (0.485 mi.)
ACRIAN INC 10131 BUBB RD E 1/2 - 1 (0.973 mi.)
4-2-3- State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
CA LUST: Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Sites included in GeoTracker.
GeoTracker is the Water Boards data management system for sites that impact, or have the
potential to impact, water quality in California, with emphasis on groundwater.
A review of the CA LUST list, as provided by EDR, has revealed that there are 7 CA LUST
sites within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property.
CA LUST
Equal/Higher Elevation
Equal/Higher Address Direction / Distance
SANTA CLARA COUNTY F 22620 STEVENS CREEK W 0 - 1/8 (0.063 mi.)
MONTA VISTA SUBSTATI 10110 CALIFORNIA OAK NW 1/4 - 1/2 (0.327 mi.)
CA LUST
Lower Elevation
Lower Address Direction / Distance
CUPERTINO BEACON 22510 STEVENS CREEK E 0 - 1/8 (0.034 mi.)
CUPERTINO BEACON 22510 STEVENS CREEK E 0 - 1/8 (0.034 mi.)
ARCO #6182 10121 N FOOTHILL BLV N 0 - 1/8 (0.119 mi.)
FOOTHILL AUTO SERVIC 10121 N. FOOTHILL BO N 0 - 1/8 (0.119 mi.)
FACCIOLA RESIDENCE 22371 CUPERTINO RD ENE 1/8 - 1/4 (0.189 mi.)
CA CPS-SLIC: Cleanup Program Sites (CPS; also known as Site Cleanups [SC] and formerly
known as Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and Cleanups [SLIC] sites) included in GeoTracker.
GeoTracker is the Water Boards data management system for sites that impact, or have the
potential to impact, water quality in California, with emphasis on groundwater.
A review of the CA CPS-SLIC list, as provided by EDR, has revealed that there are 2 CA CPS-
SLIC sites within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property.
AEC Project No. 3940
July 29, 2019
11
CA CPS-SLIC
Equal/Higher Elevation
Equal/Higher Address Direction / Distance
KAISER ALUMINUM AND 23333 STEVENS CREEK W 1/4 - 1/2 (0.366 mi.)
PRIVATE RESIDENCE PRIVATE RESIDENCE S 1/4 - 1/2 (0.495 mi.)
CA HIST LUST: A listing of open and closed leaking underground storage tanks. This listing is no
longer updated by the county. Leaking underground storage tanks are now handled by the
Department of Environmental Health.
A review of the CA HIST LUST list, as provided by EDR, and dated 03/29/2005 has revealed that
there are 4 CA HIST LUST sites within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property.
CA HIST LUST
Equal/Higher Elevation
Equal/Higher Address Direction / Distance
SANTA CLARA COUNTY F 22620 STEVENS CREEK W 0 - 1/8 (0.063 mi.)
CA HIST LUST
Lower Elevation
Lower Address Direction / Distance
CUPERTINO BEACON 22510 STEVENS CREEK E 0 - 1/8 (0.034 mi.)
ARCO #6182 10121 N FOOTHILL BLV N 0 - 1/8 (0.119 mi.)
FACCIOLA RESIDENCE 22371 CUPERTINO RD ENE 1/8 - 1/4 (0.189 mi.)
4-2-4- State and tribal registered storage tank lists
CA UST: The Underground Storage Tank database contains registered USTs. USTs are
regulated under Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The data
/,G0 A#,G 340 23$30 Y$30#@0',+#/0'K,%3#,6 X,$#-!'Z$[$#-,+'2+5'3$%/0 23,#$N0 K,%3$)%0#
Database.
A review of the UST list, as provided by EDR, has revealed that there is 1 UST site within
approximately 0.25 miles of the target property.
CA UST
Equal/Higher Elevation
Equal/Higher Address Direction / Distance
MONTA VISTA FIRE STA 22620 STEVENS CREEK W 0 - 1/8 (0.063 mi.)
CA UST
Lower Elevation
Lower Address Direction / Distance
CUPERTINO BEACON 22510 STEVENS CREEK E 0 - 1/8 (0.034 mi.)
AEC Project No. 3940
July 29, 2019
12
CA UST
Lower Elevation
Lower Address Direction / Distance
BEACON SERVICE STATI 22510 STEVENS CREEK E 0 - 1/8 (0.034 mi.)
ARCO SERVICE STATION 10121 N FOOTHILL BL N 0 - 1/8 (0.119 mi.)
4-2-5- State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites
CA VCP: Contains low threat level properties with either confirmed or unconfirmed releases and
the project proponents have request that DTSC oversee investigation and/or cleanup activities
$%-4$90 $N#00-3,B#,9)-0 /,90#$N0 A,#TR2K!'/,'3'7
A review of the CA VCP list, as provided by EDR, and dated 04/29/2019 has revealed that there
is 1 CA VCP site within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property.
CA VCP
Lower Elevation
Lower Address Direction / Distance
BLACKBERRY FARM PLAY 21979 SAN FERNANDO D ESE 1/4 - 1/2 (0.485 mi.)
4-2-6- Local Lists of Hazardous waste / Contaminated Sites
CA CERS HAZ WASTE: List of sites in the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA)
Regulated Site Portal which fall under the Hazardous Chemical Management, Hazardous Waste
Onsite Treatment, Household Hazardous Waste Collection, Hazardous Waste Generator, and
RCRA LQ HW Generator programs.
A review of the CA CERS HAZ WASTE list, as provided by EDR, and dated 04/09/2019 has
revealed that there are 4 CA CERS HAZ WASTE sites within approximately 0.25 miles of the
target property.
CA CERS HAZ WASTE
Equal/Higher Elevation
Equal/Higher Address Direction / Distance
DONNA COTNER DDS 10011 N FOOTHILL BL NW 0 - 1/8 (0.021 mi.)
CA CERS HAZ WASTE
Lower Elevation
Lower Address Direction / Distance
CUPERTINO BEACON 22510 STEVENS CREEK E 0 - 1/8 (0.034 mi.)
CUPERTINO AUTO REPAIR 22510 STEVENS CREEK E 0 - 1/8 (0.034 mi.)
ACADIA VETERINARY CL 10012 N FOOTHILL BL NE 0 - 1/8 (0.038 mi.)
AEC Project No. 3940
July 29, 2019
13
4-2-7- Local Lists of Registered Storage Tanks
CA SWEEPS UST: Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System. This underground
storage tank listing was updated and maintained by a company contacted by the SWRCB in the
0$#61 =JJ<!'7 R40 6)'3)%N )'%, longer updated or maintained. The local agency is the contact for
more information on a site on the SWEEPS list.
A review of the CA SWEEPS UST list, as provided by EDR, and dated 06/01/1994 has revealed
that there are 4 CA SWEEPS UST sites within approximately 0.25 miles of the target property.
CA SWEEPS UST
Equal/Higher Elevation
Equal/Higher Address Direction / Distance
SANTA CLARA COUNTY F 22620 STEVENS CREEK W 0 - 1/8 (0.063 mi.)
CA SWEEPS UST
Lower Elevation
Lower Address Direction / Distance
BEACON SERVICE STATI 22510 STEVENS CREEK E 0 - 1/8 (0.034 mi.)
FOOTHILL AUTO SERVIC 10121 N. FOOTHILL BO N 0 - 1/8 (0.119 mi.)
FACCIOLA RESIDENCE 22371 CUPERTINO RD ENE 1/8 - 1/4 (0.189 mi.)
CA HIST UST: Historical UST Registered Database.
A review of the CA HIST UST list, as provided by EDR, and dated 10/15/1990 has revealed that
there are 4 CA HIST UST sites within approximately 0.25 miles of the target property.
CA HIST UST
Lower Elevation
Lower Address Direction / Distance
MOBIL SERVICE STATIO 22510 STEVENS CREEK E 0 - 1/8 (0.034 mi.)
!"#$%&$%'& INC. 10121 N FOOTHILL BLV N 0 - 1/8 (0.119 mi.)
!"#$%&$%'&(%)" 10121 N FOOTHILL BLV N 0 - 1/8 (0.119 mi.)
FOOTHILL AUTO SERVIC 10121 N FOOTHILL BLV N 0 - 1/8 (0.119 mi.)
CA FID UST: The Facility Inventory Database contains active and inactive underground storage
tank locations. The source is the State Water Resource Control Board.
A review of the CA FID UST list, as provided by EDR, and dated 10/31/1994 has revealed that
there is 1 CA FID UST site within approximately 0.25 miles of the target property.
CA FID UST Lower Elevation
Lower Address Direction / Distance
MOBIL SERVICE STATIO 22510 STEVENS CREEK E 0 - 1/8 (0.034 mi.)
AEC Project No. 3940
July 29, 2019
14
CA CERS TANKS: List of sites in the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA)
Regulated Site Portal which fall under the Aboveground Petroleum Storage and Underground
Storage Tank regulatory programs.
A review of the CA CERS TANKS list, as provided by EDR, and dated 04/09/2019 has revealed
that there are 2 CA CERS TANKS sites within approximately 0.25 miles of the target property.
CA CERS TANKS
Equal/Higher Elevation
Equal/Higher Address Direction / Distance
MONTA VISTA FIRE STA 22620 STEVENS CREEK W 0 - 1/8 (0.063 mi.)
CA CERS TANKS
Lower Elevation
Lower Address Direction / Distance
CUPERTINO BEACON 22510 STEVENS CREEK E 0 - 1/8 (0.034 mi.)
4-2-8- Other Ascertainable Records
@K@8 O,%.0%\O(@S @K@8E%A,)'FD8!'/,GB#040%')90 )%A,#G$3),%'1'30GH B#,9)-)%N $//0''
to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database includes selective
information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste as
defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Non-Generators do not
presently generate hazardous waste.
A review of the RCRA NonGen / NLR list, as provided by EDR, and dated 03/25/2019 has
revealed that there are 4 RCRA NonGen / NLR sites within approximately 0.25 miles of the target
property.
RCRA NonGen / NLR
Equal/Higher Elevation
Equal/Higher Address Direction / Distance
LIFETIME DENTAL CARE 10011 N FOOTHILL BLV NW 0 - 1/8 (0.021 mi.)
CAMBRIDGE PROPERTY M 22731 STEVENS CREEK W 1/8 - 1/4 (0.174 mi.)
RCRA NonGen / NLR
Lower Elevation
Lower Address Direction / Distance
CUPERTINO AUTO CARE 22510 STEVENS CREEK E 0 - 1/8 (0.034 mi.)
DAVID RANNELLS 10073 AMADOR OAK COU NNW 1/8 - 1/4 (0.151 mi.)
CA Cortese: The sites for the list are designated by the State Water Resource Control Board
(LUST), the Integrated Waste Board (SWF/LS), and the Department of Toxic Substances Control
(Cal-Sites).
A review of the CA Cortese list, as provided by EDR, and dated 03/25/2019 has revealed that
there is 1 CA Cortese site within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property.
AEC Project No. 3940
July 29, 2019
15
CA Cortese
Lower Elevation
Lower Address Direction / Distance
CUPERTINO BEACON 22510 STEVENS CREEK E 0 - 1/8 (0.034 mi.)
K8 K]D8 ()'3)%N'S 8 6)'3)%N ,A ')30')%/6+-0-)%340 /,+%31!'K0#3)A)0-]%)A)0-D#,N#$G 8N0%/1
-$3$5$'07 K$6)A,#%)$!'20/#03$#1 A,#F%9)#,%G0%3al Protection established the unified hazardous
materials and hazardous waste regulatory program as required by chapter 6.11 of the California
Health and Safety Code. The Unified Program consolidates the administration, permits,
inspections, and enforcement activities.
A review of the CA CUPA Listings list, as provided by EDR, has revealed that there are 10 CA
CUPA Listings sites within approximately 0.25 miles of the target property.
CA CUPA
Equal/Higher Elevation
Equal/Higher Address Direction / Distance
DONNA COTNER DDS 10011 N FOOTHILL BL NW 0 - 1/8 (0.021 mi.)
GARFIELD FAMILY CHIR 10011 N FOOTHILL BL NW 0 - 1/8 (0.021 mi.)
LIFETIME DENTAL CARE 10011 N FOOTHILL BL NW 0 - 1/8 (0.021 mi.)
CA CUPA
Lower Elevation
Lower Address Direction / Distance
CUPERTINO BEACON 22510 STEVENS CREEK E 0 - 1/8 (0.034 mi.)
CUPERTINO AUTO CARE 22510 STEVENS CREEK E 0 - 1/8 (0.034 mi.)
ACADIA VETERINARY CL 10012 N FOOTHILL BL NE 0 - 1/8 (0.038 mi.)
FOOTHILL VALERO 10121 N FOOTHILL BL N 0 - 1/8 (0.119 mi.)
FREEMANS AUTO SERVIC 10121 N FOOTHILL BL N 0 - 1/8 (0.119 mi.)
FOOTHILL AUTO SERVIC 10121 N FOOTHILL BL N 0 - 1/8 (0.119 mi.)
AAA AUTO REPAIR AND 10121 N FOOTHILL BL N 0 - 1/8 (0.119 mi.)
CA HIST CORTESE: The sites for the list are designated by the State Water Resource Control
Board [LUST], the Integrated Waste Board [SWF/LS], and the Department of Toxic Substances
Control [CALSITES]. This listing is no longer updated by the state agency.
A review of the CA HIST CORTESE list, as provided by EDR, and dated 04/01/2001 has revealed
that there are 5 CA HIST CORTESE sites within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property.
CA HIST CORTESE
Equal/Higher Elevation
Equal/Higher Address Direction / Distance
SANTA CLARA COUNTY F 22620 STEVENS CREEK W 0 - 1/8 (0.063 mi.)
KAISER ALUMINUM AND 23333 STEVENS CREEK W 1/4 - 1/2 (0.366 mi.)
AEC Project No. 3940
July 29, 2019
16
CA HIST CORTESE
Lower Elevation
Lower Address Direction / Distance
CUPERTINO BEACON 22510 STEVENS CREEK E 0 - 1/8 (0.034 mi.)
ARCO #6182 10121 N FOOTHILL BLV N 0 - 1/8 (0.113 mi.)
FACCIOLA RESIDENCE 22371 CUPERTINO RD ENE 1/8 - 1/4 (0.189 mi.)
CA HWP: Detailed information on permitted hazardous waste facilities and corrective action
("clean ups") tracked in EnviroStor.
A review of the CA HWP list, as provided by EDR, and dated 05/20/2019 has revealed that there
is 1 CA HWP site within approximately 1 mile of the target property.
CA HWP
Lower Elevation
Lower Address Direction / Distance
ACRIAN INC 10131 BUBB RD E 1/2 - 1 (0.973 mi.)
CA Notify 65: Listings of all Proposition 65 incidents reported to counties by the State Water
Resources Control Board and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. This database is no
longer updated by the reporting agency.
A review of the CA Notify 65 list, as provided by EDR, and dated 03/18/2019 has revealed that
there is 1 CA Notify 65 site within approximately 1 mile of the target property.
CA HIST CORTESE
Lower Elevation
Lower Address Direction / Distance
ARCO SERVICE STA 10121 N FOOTHILL BLV N 0 - 1/8 (0.119 mi.)
4-2-9- EDR HIGH RISK HISTORICAL RECORDS
4-2-9-1- EDR Exclusive Records
EDR Hist Auto: EDR has searched selected national collections of business directories and has
collected listings of potential gas station/filling station/service station sites that were available to
EDR re'0$#/40#'7 FT@!'#09)0::$'6)G)30-3,34,'0 /$30N,#)0',A ',+#/0'34$3 G)N43H )%FT@!'
opinion, include gas station/filling station/service station establishments. The categories reviewed
included, but were not limited to gas, gas station, gasoline station, filling station, auto, automobile
repair, auto service station, service station, etc. This database falls within a category of
)%A,#G$3),%FT@ /6$'')A)0'$'^Z)N4 @)'&Z)'3,#)/$6 @0/,#-'^H ,#Z@Z@7 FT@!'Z@Z@ 0AA,#3
presents unique and sometimes proprietary data about past sites and operations that typically
create environmental concerns, but may not show up in current government records searches.
AEC Project No. 3940
July 29, 2019
17
A review of the EDR Hist Auto list, as provided by EDR, has revealed that there are 4 EDR Hist
Auto sites within approximately 0.125 miles of the target property.
Hist Auto list
Lower Elevation
Lower Address Direction / Distance
ACTION AUTO SERVICE 10010 FOOTHILL BLVD NE 0 - 1/8 (0.026 mi.)
JOHNS MOBIL SERVICE 22510 STEVENS CREEK E 0 - 1/8 (0.034 mi.)
FOOTHILL AUTO SERVIC 10121 N FOOTHILL BLV N 0 - 1/8 (0.119 mi.)
ACED ACRO SERVICE 10121 FOOTHILL N 0 - 1/8 (0.119 mi.)
4-2-10- Unmapped addresses
Due to poor or inadequate address information, the following sites were not mapped:
CA CDL
Kaiser Cement Corp Permanente Plan SEMS
1x Stevens Creek Quarry CA HAZNET
Stevens Creek Dam FINDS
Bridge 37c0571 Over Stevens Creek FINDS
Stevens Creek Quarry, Inc. US MINES
OTHER REGULATORY INFORMATION
In addition to the above referenced databases, EDR supplied information from numerous existing
government databases. The list of the databases is provided in the attached EDR report
(Appendix A).
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST
AEC has forwarded correspondences to Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health
(SCDEH) and Santa Clara Fire Department in compliance with the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA). The results of all inquiries will be documented in Appendix F. DTSC (Department of Toxic
Substances Control) Archives will also be consulted.
AEC Project No. 3940
July 29, 2019
18
5- PHYSICAL SETTING
TOPOGRAPHY
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) maps were reviewed. The topography of the subject
site is relatively flat and general topographic gradient is NNE. The site itself is at an approximate
average elevation of 386.0 feet above mean sea level. Elevation profiles are provided in Appendix
A under physical setting.
SOILS
The Soil Survey of the area, available from the United States Department of Agriculture-NRCS
was reviewed. It appears that the upper soil near the site is Urban Land, with unreported surface
texture and drainage class.
FLOOD PLAIN INFORMATION
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), through its National Flood Insurance
Program, has published Flood Insurance Rate Maps that delineate flood zones. Flood events of
a magnitude that are expected to be equaled or exceeded once on the average during any 100-
year, or 500-year period have been selected as having special significance for flood plain
management and for flood insurance rates. These events, commonly termed the 100- and 500-
year floods, have a 1 and 0.2 percent chance, respectively, of being equaled or exceeded during
any year. Although the recurrence interval represents the long-term average period between
floods of a specific magnitude, rare floods could occur at short intervals or even within the same
year. FEMA has made delineations based on whether a particular area experiences minimal
flooding, is within the boundary of the 100-year flood, or is within the boundary of the 500-year
flood. The Site is noted on FEMA Map Number 06085C0204H (FEMA firm Flood data). The site
is not located within 100- year but it is within 500-year flood zone.
GEOLOGY
The project site is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province. Local uplift of the Santa
Cruz Mountains within the last 2 to 3 million years has occurred due to a restraining bend of the
San Andreas Fault, producing transpressional forces across the plate boundary. Thrust faults
bound the San Andreas Fault are responsible for uplift of the range. The range is characterized
by rugged hills with moderate relief, steep valleys, and locally steep hillsides abutting drainages.
East-flowing drainages result in dissection of the mountain range and alluvial deposition within
the San Francisco Bay structural trough.
The site is located on SEARS POINT ASSEMBLAGE, TPc, Claystone_Massive to laminated
gray claystone.
Rock stratigraphic unit geologic age identification is as follows:
AEC Project No. 3940
July 29, 2019
19
Era: Cenozoic
Category: Continental Deposits
System: Tertiary
Series: Pliocene
Code: Tpc (decoded above as Era, System & Series)
SURFACE WATER/GROUND WATER HYDROLOGY
Groundwater flow direction for a particular site is best determined by a qualified environmental
professional using site-specific well data. Since ascertainable well data for the subject site is not
available, it is necessary to rely on EDR to determine ground water flow. EDR utilized the
information available from federal and state well databases from the nearest wells located near
to the subject site. The direction of the flow for the existing wells farther from the subject site that
can be helpful in deciding if the contamination can travel toward the subject site has been
presented in EDR, Appendix A, TC5722958.2s Page A-6 .The groundwater levels vary near the
subject site and has not been reported in EDR Report. The direction of flow, in the vicinity of the
site is also variable and it has not been reported in the report. Phase II Subsurface Investigation
Report for the subject site by EIS, May 2017, indicated that groundwater was observed at 21.6 to
29.0 ft. bgs in the two advanced borings.
AEC Project No. 3940
July 29, 2019
20
6- HISTORICAL REVIEW
PRESENT OWNER
The subject site is currently owned by Bateh Brothers Liquors and Mini Market (George and
Nahida Bateh)!
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
A review of historical aerial photographs for the years 1939, 1948,1950 1956, 1963, 1968, 1974,
1980, 1998, 2006, 2009, 2012 and 2016 was performed (Appendix C). Review of the historical
data available for the subject site reveals that most probably the development of the site as is
took place in 1953 (based on aerial photos).
HISTORICAL MAPS
Sanborn Fire Insurance maps were requested from EDR. EDR certified that the complete holdings
of the Sanborn Library, LLC collection have been searched based on the supplied target property
information and no map for the subject site was found (Appendix D).
The first city directory listing for this property belongs to 1975 :)34 340 %$G0 ,A "#$%&!'()*+,#$%-
grocery. Bateh Brothers Liquors has been listed since 1980. No building permit indicating any
other land-use was found in the searched records. Per aerial photos, in 1939 an orchard was in
the property that cannot be observed in 1950 aerial photo. Sometime between 1939 and 1950
the trees were gradually cleared, starting from north to south. The existence of fertilizers and
pesticides are possible in the soil due to this historical land use.
HISTORICAL CHAIN OF TITLE REPORT
Obtaining a Historical Chain of Title Report is beyond the scope of services of this Phase I ESA
report for the subject site.
ZONING AND LAND USE RECORDS
By reviewing Cupertino zoning map, the target property located at 22690 Stevens Creek
Boulevard in mixed use plan development (General Commercial) zone of Cupertino. (Refer to
Appendix I).
AEC Project No. 3940
July 29, 2019
21
7- SITE RECONNAISSANCE
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND CONTAINERS
During our site visit dated 27 July, 2109, no pools or sumps containing possible hazardous
substances or petroleum products were observed.
FACILITY STORAGE TANKS
Our observations did not reveal the presence of any tank on the subject site. In addition, no
evidence of underground pipelines bisecting the subject site was observed during the site visit
dated 27 July, 2109. No current evidence of above ground gasoline or diesel storage tanks was
observed at the subject site. The historical and regulatory record review revealed no evidence of
any USTs previously used at the property. The current business stored small quantities of
propane in a locked metal cabinet adjacent to the northeastern building exterior.
SOLID WASTE GENERATION AND DISPOSAL
The property is currently a liquor store and parking lot and no regulated solid waste is generated
at the property. A Dumpster for collecting domestic wastes exists at the property.
STORM WATER AND WASTE WATER SYSTEMS
Storm water from paved surface areas is sloped to a public drain. Observation of the storm water
system did not identify any abnormal accumulation of petroleum run-off or foreign material. No
unusual blockages of the storm water control system were observed. Public water and sewer
services are available to the area. During the ESA, no wastewater pretreatment or discharge
control devices were observed or reported. The subject site did not contain any pits, ponds, or
lagoons.
SURFACE AREAS
The subject property consists of three conjoined parcels that form an L-shaped area of
approximately 0.75-acres. One 3,025-SF commercial structure is developed on the northeastern
corner of the property. The building is currently occupied by Bateh Bros Liquors & Mini Mart.
Paved asphalt parking spaces are located on the eastern portion of the Site. The rest of the
property is currently an undeveloped dirt and gravel lot.
AEC Project No. 3940
July 29, 2019
22
AREA RECONNAISSANCE
During the site visit dated 27 July, 2109, observations were made of the adjacent properties.
These observations were made to identify recognized environmental conditions that have the
potential for impacting the subject site. No issues of environmental concern were obvious as the
site visit was conducted except existence of a Cupertino Beacon (Formerly Foothill Mobil) that is
within 180 ft .radius, but at a lower elevation of the subject site.
AEC Project No. 3940
July 29, 2019
23
8- ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
WETLANDS
Wetlands include freshwater marshes, wet meadows, bogs, shrub swamps, wooded swamps,
bottomland hardwood forests, shallow ponds, seepage areas, and springs. They range in size
from small isolated depressions surrounded by uplands to large complexes thousands of acres in
size on the flood plains of major rivers. Review of the available site information did not identify
any jurisdictional wetlands (State Wetlands or National Wetlands Inventory) at the subject site.
AIR EMISSIONS
No activity generating any air emission was recognized by the land use in the subject site.
AEC Project No. 3940
July 29, 2019
24
9- FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
AEC performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in conformance with the scope and
limitations of ASTM Practice E 1527-13 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process of the
property located at 22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, CA 95014, (Three parcels with
APNs 342-14-04, 342-14-05, and 342-14-66). Any exceptions to, or deletions from this practice
are described in Section 10.0 of this report. AEC has additionally made the following observations:
Based on the currently available information, the subject site is currently owned by Bateh Brothers
Liquors and Mini Mart (George and Nahida Bateh), located at 22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard,
Cupertino, CA 95014 within mixed use plan development (General Commercial) zone of
Cupertino. The site itself has not been listed in any data base searched.
In May 2017 EIS performed a limited Phase II investigation at this property to assess the impact
of neighboring site (Cupertino Beacon at 22510 Stevens Creek) at this property:
EIS advanced two exploratory soil borings on the subject property to collect soil, groundwater,
and oil vapor samples on May 2, 2017. EIS concluded as followed:
! Soils encountered during the investigation included interbedded gravelly sand, silty sand,
sandy gravel, clayey sand, and sandy silt to an explored depth of approximately 34 ft. bgs.
Groundwater was encountered in boreholes SB-1 and SB-2 at depths of 21.61 and 29.09
ft. bgs, respectively.
! There were no detectable concentrations of TPH-g, BTEX or MTBE in the soil or
groundwater samples.
! Soil sample SB-;`;a!H /,660/30-A#,G -)#0/361 3,340 0$'3 ,A 340 2)30 6)*+,#'3,#0H /,%3$)%0-
TPH-d at 1.9 mg/kg and TPH-o at 11 mg/kg. Both concentrations are below applicable
ESLs for residential and commercial/industrial uses.
! Groundwater sample SB-2, collected directly to the east of the Site liquor store, contained
TPH-d at 310 bN\($%-RDZ-,$3 I;<bN\(7 X,34 /,%/0%3#$3),%'0U/00-340 $BB6)/$560
ESL ,A =c<bN\(7 RDZ-d and TPH-o were not detected in the groundwater sample
collected from boring SB-2.
! Soil vapor sample SB-=`c!H /,660/30-A#,G 340 $'B4$63-paved parking lot in the
southeastern B,#3),%,A 340 2)30H /,%3$)%0-RDZ $3 ;<H<<<bN\Gd $%-50%[0%0 $3 Jd<
bN\Gd7 R40 50%[0%0 concentration exceeds the applicable ESLs for residential and
commercial/industrial uses. The TPH concentration is below the applicable TPH-g ESLs.
TPH and benzene were not detected above laboratory reporting limits in soil vapor sample
SB-;`c!/,660/30-0$'3 ,A 340 Site liquor store.
There is one site listed on various databases in the close proximity to and at higher elevation of
the subject site;
AEC Project No. 3940
July 29, 2019
25
1- Santa Clara County Fire Station (Also recorded as Monta Vista Fire station) at 22620
Stevens Creek Blvd., 332 ft., west of the subject site
This site is a closed clean up site. The leak (diesel) was reported in 1997 and the case reported
closed in 1998. The facility currently owns a UST, but no leakage or violation found in the record.
There are two sites in the close proximity of the site, but at lower elevations:
2- Cupertino Beacon at 22510 Stevens Creek, 180 ft. east of the subject property
This property located east across the street from the subject site, has historically been occupied
by multiple fuel service stations and auto repair businesses since 1968. Former occupants include
Cupertino Beacon service station and Cupertino Auto Care from at least 1995 to present, Foothill
Mobil in 1989, McElroy Mobil Service from 1981 to 1984, D&D Mobil Service in 1976, and Johns
Mobil Service from at least 1968 to 1971. There is currently an open regulatory LUST case at
22510 Stevens Creek Boulevard.
In 1999, the SCVWD advanced borings adjacent to the site within Stevens Creek and South
Foothill Boulevards. MTBE was detected in soil and groundwater samples collected from the
borings at concentrations of up to 0.8 ppm and 8.5 ppb, respectively. In December, a waste oil
UST was removed and the fuel piping was replaced. An estimated 275 tons of soil were removed
at this time. Prior to installation of the new piping and fuel dispensers, 3 horizontal vapor
extraction wells were installed parallel to the fuel dispenser islands.
January 2000 - 7 direct-push soil borings (GP1 through GP7) were advanced onsite to 15-34 feet
below the ground surface (ft bgs). Groundwater was not encountered in the borings. The highest
TPHg concentrations (2,200 ppm) were reported for borings in the central portion of the site.
MTBE was detected in all soil samples at concentrations up to 140 ppm.
April 2002 - 3 direct push soil borings (GP8 through GP10) and 6 vapor extraction wells were
advanced onsite. Grab groundwater samples were collected and reported to contain up to
120,000 ppb TPHg, 24,000 ppb Benzene, and 34,000 ppb MTBE. In December, 9 monitoring
wells (MW1 through MW9) and one vapor well were installed onsite. Periodic groundwater
monitoring began at the site.
Between January 2003 and December 2004, several extended soil vapor extraction (SVE) events
were conducted at the site.
February 2004 - offsite well MW10 was advanced to the north of the site across Stevens Creek
Blvd. to a depth of 40 ft bgs. In May, 5 direct-push borings (DP1 through DP5) were advanced
offsite. TPHg was not detected in any of the soil samples. Grab groundwater samples were
reported to contain up to 96 ppb TPHg; Benzene and MTBE were not reported to be present
above the laboratory reporting limits.
January 2007 - 3 additional offsite monitoring wells (MW11 through MW13), 3 onsite monitoring
wells (MW14 through MW16), 3 onsite vapor probe wells and 2 vapor extraction wells were
AEC Project No. 3940
July 29, 2019
26
installed. In April, vapor extraction and multi-phase extraction feasibility tests were conducted.
Dual phase extraction with air sparging has been proposed as the remedial alternative for this
site.
In April 2008 ? two monitoring wells (MW17 and MW18), 2 air sparging wells (AS1 and AS2) and
1 vapor extraction well (V1A) were installed onsite.
In April 2009 - 4 discrete-screened wells (DSW1 through DSW4) were advanced to depths of up
to 66 ft bgs to asses if higher permeability soils are present below the depth of 40 ft bgs. Initial
groundwater samples from these wells reported concentrations up to 409 ppb TPHg, 2.3 ppb
Benzene, and 695 ppb MTBE. These wells were incorporated into the groundwater monitoring
program.
The address is currently occupied by a Cupertino Beacon service station and Cupertino Auto
Care. The service station has one 6,000-gallon diesel UST and two gasoline USTs of 10,000 and
12,000-gallons, located on the northwestern section of the property.
3- Foothill Auto Services at 10121 N. Foothill, 620 ft., north of the subject property
This site is a closed LUST clean up site, its initial record going back to 1988.
The review of the aerial photos and historical use of the property as an orchard from at least 1938
to early 1950s indicate that there is a potential that metals and pesticides exist in shallow site soil.
Above-ESL benzene concentration in soil vapor was found in the borings at the subject site is a
recognized environmental conditions. Besides, the open LUST case and documented soil,
groundwater, and soil vapor contamination at neighboring property (Cupertino Beacon) 22510
Stevens Creek Boulevard represents an offsite controlled recognized environmental condition. To
assess the impacts of the neighboring site at the subject site, a limited Phase II investigation is
recommended.
No disturbed soil areas, discolored or polluted water, unusual or noxious, floor drains, PCB
containing transformers or nearby former railroad tracks was observed at the subject site.
AEC Project No. 3940
July 29, 2019
27
10- LIMITATIONS
The following limitations and exceptions are noted:
! AEC relied on Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) for regulatory review information
(i.e., NPL, CERCLIS, CERC, etc.) and the Directory listing, While it is believed that the third
party information contained in this report is reliable, AEC cannot guarantee the accuracy or
completeness of this information.
! The scope of this assessment does not include site testing of ASTM non-scope considerations
that include but are not limited to the following: asbestos-containing materials; radon; lead-
based paint; and lead in drinking water.
! The scope of this assessment does not include any testing or sampling of materials such as
soils, water, air, etc.
! The scope of this assessment does not include the evaluation of any subsurface conditions.
! Visual and physical observations were limited to accessible areas of the subject site and the
areas of the site that AEC is contractually obligated.
! Any additional limitations to the methodology has been used, is specifically addressed in the
relevant sections of this report and Appendices.
! This Phase I Environmental Site Assessment report has been prepared for the benefit of the
Tesla and may solely be relied upon by its employees and affiliates, and their counsel and
consultants.
APPENDIX A ! EDR REPORT
FORM-LBB-LMI
®kcehCoeG htiw tropeR ™paM suidaR RDE ehT
6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor
Shelton, CT 06484
Toll Free: 800.352.0050
www.edrnet.com
22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard
22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Cupertino, CA 95014
Inquiry Number: 5722958.2s
July 22, 2019
SECTION PAGE
Executive Summary ES1
Overview Map 2
Detail Map 3
Map Findings Summary 4
Map Findings 9
Orphan Summary 120
Government Records Searched/Data Currency Tracking GR-1
GEOCHECK ADDENDUM
Physical Setting Source Addendum A-1
Physical Setting Source Summary A-2
Physical Setting Source Map A-7
Physical Setting Source Map Findings A-8
Physical Setting Source Records Searched PSGR-1
TC5722958.2s Page 1
Thank you for your business.
Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050
with any questions or comments.
Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data
Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from
other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL
DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION,
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE,
ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY
LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings,
environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor
should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any
property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.
Copyright 2019 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole
or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other
trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC5722958.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
A search of available environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc (EDR).
The report was designed to assist parties seeking to meet the search requirements of EPA’s Standards
and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR Part 312), the ASTM Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessments (E 1527-13), the ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site
Assessments for Forestland or Rural Property (E 2247-16), the ASTM Standard Practice for Limited
Environmental Due Diligence: Transaction Screen Process (E 1528-14) or custom requirements developed
for the evaluation of environmental risk associated with a parcel of real estate.
TARGET PROPERTY INFORMATION
ADDRESS
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
CUPERTINO, CA 95014
COORDINATES
37.3217440 - 37˚ 19’ 18.27’’Latitude (North):
122.0689470 - 122˚ 4’ 8.20’’Longitude (West):
Zone 10Universal Tranverse Mercator:
582494.1UTM X (Meters):
4130767.8UTM Y (Meters):
386 ft. above sea levelElevation:
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH TARGET PROPERTY
5640178 CUPERTINO, CATarget Property Map:
2012Version Date:
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY IN THIS REPORT
20140606, 20140608Portions of Photo from:
USDASource:
5722958.2s Page 2
39 PRIVATE RESIDENCE PRIVATE RESIDENCE CA CPS-SLIC Higher 2615, 0.495, South
38 BLACKBERRY FARM PLAY 21979 SAN FERNANDO D CA ENVIROSTOR, CA VCP, CA CUPA Listings Lower 2560, 0.485, ESE
E37 KAISER ALUMINUM FOIL 23333 STEVENS CREEK SEMS-ARCHIVE, RCRA-SQG, NY MANIFEST Higher 1932, 0.366, West
E36 KAISER ALUMINUM AND 23333 STEVENS CREEK CA ENVIROSTOR, CA CPS-SLIC, CA EMI, CA HIST...Higher 1932, 0.366, West
35 MONTA VISTA SUBSTATI 10110 CALIFORNIA OAK CA LUST, CA NPDES, CA CIWQS, CA CERS Higher 1725, 0.327, NW
34 FACCIOLA RESIDENCE 22371 CUPERTINO RD CA LUST, CA HIST LUST, CA SWEEPS UST, CA HIST...Lower 999, 0.189, ENE
33 CAMBRIDGE PROPERTY M 22731 STEVENS CREEK RCRA NonGen / NLR Higher 920, 0.174, West
32 DAVID RANNELLS 10073 AMADOR OAK COU RCRA NonGen / NLR Lower 798, 0.151, NNW
D31 ACED ACRO SERVICE 10121 FOOTHILL EDR Hist Auto Lower 627, 0.119, North
D30 ARCO SERVICE STATION 10121 NORTH FOOTHILL CA Notify 65 Lower 626, 0.119, North
D29 FOOTHILL AUTO SERVIC 10121 N. FOOTHILL BO CA LUST, CA SWEEPS UST, CA HIST UST, CA CERS Lower 626, 0.119, North
D28 ARCO SERVICE STATION 10121 N FOOTHILL BL CA UST Lower 626, 0.119, North
D27 AAA AUTO REPAIR AND 10121 N FOOTHILL BL CA CUPA Listings Lower 626, 0.119, North
D26 G. JENSEN’S INC.10121 N FOOTHILL BLV CA HIST UST Lower 626, 0.119, North
D25 FOOTHILL AUTO SERVIC 10121 N FOOTHILL BL CA CUPA Listings Lower 626, 0.119, North
D24 G JENSENS INC 10121 NORTH FOOTHILL CA HIST UST, CA HAZNET Lower 626, 0.119, North
D23 ARCO #6182 10121 N FOOTHILL BLV CA LUST, CA HIST LUST, CA CERS Lower 626, 0.119, North
D22 FREEMANS AUTO SERVIC 10121 N FOOTHILL BL CA CUPA Listings Lower 626, 0.119, North
D21 FOOTHILL VALERO 10121 N FOOTHILL BL CA CUPA Listings Lower 626, 0.119, North
D20 FOOTHILL AUTO SERVIC 10121 N FOOTHILL BLV EDR Hist Auto Lower 626, 0.119, North
D19 ARCO 10121 FOOTHILL CA HIST CORTESE Lower 597, 0.113, North
C18 SANTA CLARA COUNTY F 22620 STEVENS CREEK CA LUST, CA HIST LUST, CA SWEEPS UST, CA EMI, CA...Higher 332, 0.063, West
C17 MONTA VISTA FIRE STA 22620 STEVENS CREEK CA UST Higher 332, 0.063, West
C16 MONTA VISTA FIRE STA 22620 STEVENS CREEK CA CERS TANKS, CA CERS Higher 332, 0.063, West
B15 ACADIA VETERINARY CL 10012 N FOOTHILL BL CA CERS HAZ WASTE, CA CUPA Listings Lower 202, 0.038, NE
B14 CUPERTINO AUTO REPAI 22510 STEVENS CREEK CA CERS HAZ WASTE, CA CUPA Listings, CA CERS Lower 180, 0.034, East
B13 BEACON SERVICE STATI 22510 STEVENS CREEK CA UST Lower 180, 0.034, East
B12 JOHNS MOBIL SERVICE 22510 STEVENS CREEK EDR Hist Auto Lower 180, 0.034, East
B11 CUPERTINO BEACON 22510 STEVENS CREEK CA UST Lower 180, 0.034, East
B10 CUPERTINO BEACON 22510 STEVENS CREEK CA LUST, CA CERS HAZ WASTE, CA CERS TANKS, CA...Lower 180, 0.034, East
B9 CUPERTINO AUTO CARE 22510 STEVENS CREEK RCRA NonGen / NLR Lower 180, 0.034, East
B8 CUPERTINO BEACON 22510 STEVENS CREEK CA LUST, CA HIST LUST Lower 180, 0.034, East
B7 MOBIL SERVICE STATIO 22510 STEVENS CREEK CA HIST UST Lower 180, 0.034, East
B6 BEACON SERVICE STATI 22510 STEVENS CREEK CA SWEEPS UST, CA FID UST Lower 180, 0.034, East
A5 ACTION AUTO SERVICE 10010 FOOTHILL BLVD EDR Hist Auto Lower 135, 0.026, NE
A4 LIFETIME DENTAL CARE 10011 N FOOTHILL BL CA CUPA Listings Higher 111, 0.021, NW
A3 LIFETIME DENTAL CARE 10011 N FOOTHILL BLV RCRA NonGen / NLR Higher 111, 0.021, NW
A2 GARFIELD FAMILY CHIR 10011 N FOOTHILL BL CA CUPA Listings Higher 111, 0.021, NW
A1 DONNA COTNER DDS 10011 N FOOTHILL BL CA CERS HAZ WASTE, CA CUPA Listings Higher 111, 0.021, NW
MAPPED SITES SUMMARY
Target Property Address:
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
CUPERTINO, CA 95014
Click on Map ID to see full detail.
MAP RELATIVE DIST (ft. & mi.)
ID DATABASE ACRONYMS ELEVATION DIRECTIONSITE NAME ADDRESS
5722958.2s Page 3
41 KAISER CEMENT CORP, 2401 STEVENS CREEK B CA ENVIROSTOR, CA HIST CORTESE Higher 5250, 0.994, West
40 ACRIAN INC 10131 BUBB RD SEMS-ARCHIVE, CA ENVIROSTOR, CA HIST UST, RCRA...Lower 5138, 0.973, East
MAPPED SITES SUMMARY
Target Property Address:
22690 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
CUPERTINO, CA 95014
Click on Map ID to see full detail.
MAP RELATIVE DIST (ft. & mi.)
ID DATABASE ACRONYMS ELEVATION DIRECTIONSITE NAME ADDRESS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC5722958.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4
TARGET PROPERTY SEARCH RESULTS
The target property was not listed in any of the databases searched by EDR.
DATABASES WITH NO MAPPED SITES
No mapped sites were found in EDR’s search of available ("reasonably ascertainable ") government
records either on the target property or within the search radius around the target property for the
following databases:
STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Federal NPL site list
NPL National Priority List
Proposed NPL Proposed National Priority List Sites
NPL LIENS Federal Superfund Liens
Federal Delisted NPL site list
Delisted NPL National Priority List Deletions
Federal CERCLIS list
FEDERAL FACILITY Federal Facility Site Information listing
SEMS Superfund Enterprise Management System
Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list
CORRACTS Corrective Action Report
Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list
RCRA-TSDF RCRA - Treatment, Storage and Disposal
Federal RCRA generators list
RCRA-LQG RCRA - Large Quantity Generators
RCRA-CESQG RCRA - Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator
Federal institutional controls / engineering controls registries
LUCIS Land Use Control Information System
US ENG CONTROLS Engineering Controls Sites List
US INST CONTROL Sites with Institutional Controls
Federal ERNS list
ERNS Emergency Response Notification System
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC5722958.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5
State- and tribal - equivalent NPL
CA RESPONSE State Response Sites
State and tribal landfill and/or solid waste disposal site lists
CA SWF/LF Solid Waste Information System
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
INDIAN LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
State and tribal registered storage tank lists
FEMA UST Underground Storage Tank Listing
CA AST Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tank Facilities
INDIAN UST Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites
INDIAN VCP Voluntary Cleanup Priority Listing
State and tribal Brownfields sites
CA BROWNFIELDS Considered Brownfieds Sites Listing
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Local Brownfield lists
US BROWNFIELDS A Listing of Brownfields Sites
Local Lists of Landfill / Solid Waste Disposal Sites
CA WMUDS/SWAT Waste Management Unit Database
CA SWRCY Recycler Database
CA HAULERS Registered Waste Tire Haulers Listing
INDIAN ODI Report on the Status of Open Dumps on Indian Lands
DEBRIS REGION 9 Torres Martinez Reservation Illegal Dump Site Locations
ODI Open Dump Inventory
IHS OPEN DUMPS Open Dumps on Indian Land
Local Lists of Hazardous waste / Contaminated Sites
US HIST CDL Delisted National Clandestine Laboratory Register
CA HIST Cal-Sites Historical Calsites Database
CA SCH School Property Evaluation Program
CA CDL Clandestine Drug Labs
CA Toxic Pits Toxic Pits Cleanup Act Sites
US CDL National Clandestine Laboratory Register
CA PFAS PFAS Contamination Site Location Listing
Local Land Records
CA LIENS Environmental Liens Listing
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC5722958.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6
LIENS 2 CERCLA Lien Information
CA DEED Deed Restriction Listing
Records of Emergency Release Reports
HMIRS Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System
CA CHMIRS California Hazardous Material Incident Report System
CA LDS Land Disposal Sites Listing
CA MCS Military Cleanup Sites Listing
CA SPILLS 90 SPILLS 90 data from FirstSearch
Other Ascertainable Records
FUDS Formerly Used Defense Sites
DOD Department of Defense Sites
SCRD DRYCLEANERS State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Listing
US FIN ASSUR Financial Assurance Information
EPA WATCH LIST EPA WATCH LIST
2020 COR ACTION 2020 Corrective Action Program List
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
TRIS Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System
SSTS Section 7 Tracking Systems
ROD Records Of Decision
RMP Risk Management Plans
RAATS RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
PRP Potentially Responsible Parties
PADS PCB Activity Database System
ICIS Integrated Compliance Information System
FTTS FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide
Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act)
MLTS Material Licensing Tracking System
COAL ASH DOE Steam-Electric Plant Operation Data
COAL ASH EPA Coal Combustion Residues Surface Impoundments List
PCB TRANSFORMER PCB Transformer Registration Database
RADINFO Radiation Information Database
HIST FTTS FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Administrative Case Listing
DOT OPS Incident and Accident Data
CONSENT Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees
INDIAN RESERV Indian Reservations
FUSRAP Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
UMTRA Uranium Mill Tailings Sites
LEAD SMELTERS Lead Smelter Sites
US AIRS Aerometric Information Retrieval System Facility Subsystem
US MINES Mines Master Index File
ABANDONED MINES Abandoned Mines
UXO Unexploded Ordnance Sites
DOCKET HWC Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket Listing
FUELS PROGRAM EPA Fuels Program Registered Listing
CA BOND EXP. PLAN Bond Expenditure Plan
CA DRYCLEANERS Cleaner Facilities
CA ENF Enforcement Action Listing
CA Financial Assurance Financial Assurance Information Listing
CA ICE ICE
CA HWT Registered Hazardous Waste Transporter Database
CA MINES Mines Site Location Listing
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC5722958.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7
CA MWMP Medical Waste Management Program Listing
CA PEST LIC Pesticide Regulation Licenses Listing
CA PROC Certified Processors Database
CA HAZMAT Hazardous Material Facilities
CA UIC UIC Listing
CA UIC GEO UIC GEO (GEOTRACKER)
CA WASTEWATER PITS Oil Wastewater Pits Listing
CA WDS Waste Discharge System
CA WIP Well Investigation Program Case List
CA MILITARY PRIV SITES MILITARY PRIV SITES (GEOTRACKER)
CA PROJECT PROJECT (GEOTRACKER)
CA WDR Waste Discharge Requirements Listing
CA OTHER OIL GAS OTHER OIL & GAS (GEOTRACKER)
CA PROD WATER PONDS PROD WATER PONDS (GEOTRACKER)
CA SAMPLING POINT SAMPLING POINT (GEOTRACKER)
CA WELL STIM PROJ Well Stimulation Project (GEOTRACKER)
EDR HIGH RISK HISTORICAL RECORDS
EDR Exclusive Records
EDR MGP EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plants
EDR Hist Cleaner EDR Exclusive Historical Cleaners
EDR RECOVERED GOVERNMENT ARCHIVES
Exclusive Recovered Govt. Archives
CA RGA LF Recovered Government Archive Solid Waste Facilities List
CA RGA LUST Recovered Government Archive Leaking Underground Storage Tank
SURROUNDING SITES: SEARCH RESULTS
Surrounding sites were identified in the following databases.
Elevations have been determined from the USGS Digital Elevation Model and should be evaluated on
a relative (not an absolute) basis. Relative elevation information between sites of close proximity
should be field verified. Sites with an elevation equal to or higher than the target property have been
differentiated below from sites with an elevation lower than the target property.
Page numbers and map identification numbers refer to the EDR Radius Map report where detailed
data on individual sites can be reviewed.
Sites listed in bold italics are in multiple databases.
Unmappable (orphan) sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis.
STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site list
SEMS-ARCHIVE: SEMS-ARCHIVE (Superfund Enterprise Management System Archive) tracks sites that have no
further interest under the Federal Superfund Program based on available information. The list was formerly
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC5722958.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8
known as the CERCLIS-NFRAP, renamed to SEMS ARCHIVE by the EPA in 2015. EPA may perform a minimal level of
assessment work at a site while it is archived if site conditions change and/or new information becomes
available. Archived sites have been removed and archived from the inventory of SEMS sites. Archived status
indicates that, to the best of EPA’s knowledge, assessment at a site has been completed and that EPA has
determined no further steps will be taken to list the site on the National Priorities List (NPL), unless
information indicates this decision was not appropriate or other considerations require a recommendation for
listing at a later time. The decision does not necessarily mean that there is no hazard associated with a
given site; it only means that. based upon available information, the location is not judged to be potential
NPL site.
A review of the SEMS-ARCHIVE list, as provided by EDR, and dated 04/11/2019 has revealed that there
is 1 SEMS-ARCHIVE site within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property.
PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Equal/Higher Elevation ____________________ ________ _____________________________
KAISER ALUMINUM FOIL 23333 STEVENS CREEK W 1/4 - 1/2 (0.366 mi.)E37 103
Site ID: 0901179
EPA Id: CAD009155284
State- and tribal - equivalent CERCLIS
CA ENVIROSTOR: The Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC’s) Site Mitigation and Brownfields
Reuse Program’s (SMBRP’s) EnviroStor database identifes sites that have known contamination or sites for which
there may be reasons to investigate further. The database includes the following site types: Federal
Superfund sites (National Priorities List (NPL)); State Response, including Military Facilities and State
Superfund; Voluntary Cleanup; and School sites. EnviroStor provides similar information to the information
that was available in CalSites, and provides additional site information, including, but not limited to,
identification of formerly-contaminated properties that have been released for reuse, properties where
environmental deed restrictions have been recorded to prevent inappropriate land uses, and risk
characterization information that is used to assess potential impacts to public health and the environment at
contaminated sites.
A review of the CA ENVIROSTOR list, as provided by EDR, and dated 04/29/2019 has revealed that there
are 4 CA ENVIROSTOR sites within approximately 1 mile of the target property.
PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Equal/Higher Elevation ____________________ ________ _____________________________
KAISER ALUMINUM AND 23333 STEVENS CREEK W 1/4 - 1/2 (0.366 mi.)E36 100
Facility Id: 43330001
Status: Refer: RWQCB
KAISER CEMENT CORP, 2401 STEVENS CREEK B W 1/2 - 1 (0.994 mi.)41 117
Facility Id: 43350079
Status: Refer: Other Agency
PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Lower Elevation ____________________ ________ _____________________________
BLACKBERRY FARM PLAY 21979 SAN FERNANDO D ESE 1/4 - 1/2 (0.485 mi.)38 108
Facility Id: 60001205
Status: No Further Action
ACRIAN INC 10131 BUBB RD E 1/2 - 1 (0.973 mi.)40 111
Facility Id: 80001710
Status: Inactive - Needs Evaluation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC5722958.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
CA LUST: Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Sites included in GeoTracker. GeoTracker is the
Water Boards data management system for sites that impact, or have the potential to impact, water quality in
California, with emphasis on groundwater.
A review of the CA LUST list, as provided by EDR, has revealed that there are 7 CA LUST sites within
approximately 0.5 miles of the target property.
PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Equal/Higher Elevation ____________________ ________ _____________________________
SANTA CLARA COUNTY F 22620 STEVENS CREEK W 0 - 1/8 (0.063 mi.)C18 70
Database: LUST, Date of Government Version: 12/10/2018
Database: LUST REG 2, Date of Government Version: 09/30/2004
Database: LUST SANTA CLARA, Date of Government Version: 03/03/2014
Status: Completed - Case Closed
Facility Status: Case Closed
Date Closed: 03/30/1998
Global Id: T0608502037
SCVWD ID: 07S2W15F02F
date9: 3/30/1998
MONTA VISTA SUBSTATI 10110 CALIFORNIA OAK NW 1/4 - 1/2 (0.327 mi.)35 96
Database: LUST, Date of Government Version: 12/10/2018
Database: LUST SANTA CLARA, Date of Government Version: 03/03/2014
Status: Completed - Case Closed
Date Closed: 11/20/2006
Global Id: T0608594350
SCVWD ID: 07S2W15F03F
PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Lower Elevation ____________________ ________ _____________________________
CUPERTINO BEACON 22510 STEVENS CREEK E 0 - 1/8 (0.034 mi.)B8 16
Database: LUST REG 2, Date of Government Version: 09/30/2004
Facility Status: Pollution Characterization
CUPERTINO BEACON 22510 STEVENS CREEK E 0 - 1/8 (0.034 mi.)B10 18
Database: LUST, Date of Government Version: 12/10/2018
Database: LUST SANTA CLARA, Date of Government Version: 03/03/2014
Status: Open - Verification Monitoring
Global Id: T0608548766
SCVWD ID: 07S2W15K01F
ARCO #6182 10121 N FOOTHILL BLV N 0 - 1/8 (0.119 mi.)D23 77
Database: LUST REG 2, Date of Government Version: 09/30/2004
Facility Status: Case Closed
date9: 7/29/1996
FOOTHILL AUTO SERVIC 10121 N. FOOTHILL BO N 0 - 1/8 (0.119 mi.)D29 82
Database: LUST, Date of Government Version: 12/10/2018
Database: LUST SANTA CLARA, Date of Government Version: 03/03/2014
Status: Completed - Case Closed
Date Closed: 07/29/1996
Global Id: T10000004993
Global Id: T0608500152
SCVWD ID: 07S2W15F04F
SCVWD ID: 07S2W15F01F
FACCIOLA RESIDENCE 22371 CUPERTINO RD ENE 1/8 - 1/4 (0.189 mi.)34 95
Database: LUST REG 2, Date of Government Version: 09/30/2004
Database: LUST SANTA CLARA, Date of Government Version: 03/03/2014
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC5722958.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 10
Facility Status: Case Closed
Date Closed: 01/09/1995
SCVWD ID: 07S2W15G01F
date9: 1/9/1995
CA CPS-SLIC: Cleanup Program Sites (CPS; also known as Site Cleanups [SC] and formerly known as Spills,
Leaks, Investigations, and Cleanups [SLIC] sites) included in GeoTracker. GeoTracker is the Water Boards data
management system for sites that impact, or have the potential to impact, water quality in California, with
emphasis on groundwater.
A review of the CA CPS-SLIC list, as provided by EDR, has revealed that there are 2 CA CPS-SLIC sites
within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property.
PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Equal/Higher Elevation ____________________ ________ _____________________________
KAISER ALUMINUM AND 23333 STEVENS CREEK W 1/4 - 1/2 (0.366 mi.)E36 100
Database: SLIC REG 2, Date of Government Version: 09/30/2004
Facility Id: 43S0663
PRIVATE RESIDENCE PRIVATE RESIDENCE S 1/4 - 1/2 (0.495 mi.)39 110
Database: CPS-SLIC, Date of Government Version: 12/10/2018
Facility Status: Completed - Case Closed
Global Id: T10000003039
CA HIST LUST: A listing of open and closed leaking underground storage tanks. This listing is no longer
updated by the county. Leaking underground storage tanks are now handled by the Department of Environmental
Health.
A review of the CA HIST LUST list, as provided by EDR, and dated 03/29/2005 has revealed that there
are 4 CA HIST LUST sites within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property.
PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Equal/Higher Elevation ____________________ ________ _____________________________
SANTA CLARA COUNTY F 22620 STEVENS CREEK W 0 - 1/8 (0.063 mi.)C18 70
SCVWD ID: 07S2W15F02
PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Lower Elevation ____________________ ________ _____________________________
CUPERTINO BEACON 22510 STEVENS CREEK E 0 - 1/8 (0.034 mi.)B8 16
SCVWD ID: 07S2W15K01
ARCO #6182 10121 N FOOTHILL BLV N 0 - 1/8 (0.119 mi.)D23 77
SCVWD ID: 07S2W15F01
FACCIOLA RESIDENCE 22371 CUPERTINO RD ENE 1/8 - 1/4 (0.189 mi.)34 95
SCVWD ID: 07S2W15G01
State and tribal registered storage tank lists
CA UST: The Underground Storage Tank database contains registered USTs. USTs are regulated under
Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The data come from the State Water Resources
Control Board’s Hazardous Substance Storage Container Database.
A review of the CA UST list, as provided by EDR, has revealed that there are 4 CA UST sites within
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC5722958.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 11
approximately 0.25 miles of the target property.
PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Equal/Higher Elevation ____________________ ________ _____________________________
MONTA VISTA FIRE STA 22620 STEVENS CREEK W 0 - 1/8 (0.063 mi.)C17 69
Database: UST, Date of Government Version: 12/10/2018
Facility Id: 45
PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Lower Elevation ____________________ ________ _____________________________
CUPERTINO BEACON 22510 STEVENS CREEK E 0 - 1/8 (0.034 mi.)B11 46
Database: UST, Date of Government Version: 12/10/2018
BEACON SERVICE STATI 22510 STEVENS CREEK E 0 - 1/8 (0.034 mi.)B13 48
Database: UST, Date of Government Version: 12/10/2018
Facility Id: 44
ARCO SERVICE STATION 10121 N FOOTHILL BL N 0 - 1/8 (0.119 mi.)D28 82
Database: UST, Date of Government Version: 12/10/2018
Facility Id: 35
State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites
CA VCP: Contains low threat level properties with either confirmed or unconfirmed releases and the
project proponents have request that DTSC oversee investigation and/or cleanup activities and have agreed to
provide coverage for DTSC’s costs.
A review of the CA VCP list, as provided by EDR, and dated 04/29/2019 has revealed that there is 1 CA
VCP site within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property.
PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Lower Elevation ____________________ ________ _____________________________
BLACKBERRY FARM PLAY 21979 SAN FERNANDO D ESE 1/4 - 1/2 (0.485 mi.)38 108
Status: No Further Action
Facility Id: 60001205
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Local Lists of Hazardous waste / Contaminated Sites
CA CERS HAZ WASTE: List of sites in the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) Regulated Site
Portal which fall under the Hazardous Chemical Management, Hazardous Waste Onsite Treatment, Household
Hazardous Waste Collection, Hazardous Waste Generator, and RCRA LQ HW Generator programs.
A review of the CA CERS HAZ WASTE list, as provided by EDR, and dated 04/09/2019 has revealed that
there are 4 CA CERS HAZ WASTE sites within approximately 0.25 miles of the target property.
PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Equal/Higher Elevation ____________________ ________ _____________________________
DONNA COTNER DDS 10011 N FOOTHILL BL NW 0 - 1/8 (0.021 mi.)A1 9
PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Lower Elevation ____________________ ________ _____________________________
CUPERTINO BEACON 22510 STEVENS CREEK E 0 - 1/8 (0.034 mi.)B10 18
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC5722958.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 12
PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Lower Elevation ____________________ ________ _____________________________
CUPERTINO AUTO REPAI 22510 STEVENS CREEK E 0 - 1/8 (0.034 mi.)B14 48
ACADIA VETERINARY CL 10012 N FOOTHILL BL NE 0 - 1/8 (0.038 mi.)B15 57
Local Lists of Registered Storage Tanks
CA SWEEPS UST: Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System. This underground storage tank
listing was updated and maintained by a company contacted by the SWRCB in the early 1990’s. The listing is no
longer updated or maintained. The local agency is the contact for more information on a site on the SWEEPS
list.
A review of the CA SWEEPS UST list, as provided by EDR, and dated 06/01/1994 has revealed that there
are 4 CA SWEEPS UST sites within approximately 0.25 miles of the target property.
PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Equal/Higher Elevation ____________________ ________ _____________________________
SANTA CLARA COUNTY F 22620 STEVENS CREEK W 0 - 1/8 (0.063 mi.)C18 70
Status: A
Tank Status: A
Comp Number: 298
PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Lower Elevation ____________________ ________ _____________________________
BEACON SERVICE STATI 22510 STEVENS CREEK E 0 - 1/8 (0.034 mi.)B6 13
Status: A
Tank Status: A
Comp Number: 39475
FOOTHILL AUTO SERVIC 10121 N. FOOTHILL BO N 0 - 1/8 (0.119 mi.)D29 82
Status: A
Tank Status: A
Comp Number: 27102
FACCIOLA RESIDENCE 22371 CUPERTINO RD ENE 1/8 - 1/4 (0.189 mi.)34 95
Comp Number: 337
CA HIST UST: Historical UST Registered Database.
A review of the CA HIST UST list, as provided by EDR, and dated 10/15/1990 has revealed that there
are 4 CA HIST UST sites within approximately 0.25 miles of the target property.
PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Lower Elevation ____________________ ________ _____________________________
MOBIL SERVICE STATIO 22510 STEVENS CREEK E 0 - 1/8 (0.034 mi.)B7 15
Facility Id: 00000039475
G JENSENS INC 10121 NORTH FOOTHILL N 0 - 1/8 (0.119 mi.)D24 78
G. JENSEN’S INC. 10121 N FOOTHILL BLV N 0 - 1/8 (0.119 mi.)D26 80
Facility Id: 00000060177
FOOTHILL AUTO SERVIC 10121 N. FOOTHILL BO N 0 - 1/8 (0.119 mi.)D29 82
Facility Id: 00000027102
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC5722958.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 13
CA FID UST: The Facility Inventory Database contains active and inactive underground storage tank
locations. The source is the State Water Resource Control Board.
A review of the CA FID UST list, as provided by EDR, and dated 10/31/1994 has revealed that there is
1 CA FID UST site within approximately 0.25 miles of the target property.
PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Lower Elevation ____________________ ________ _____________________________
BEACON SERVICE STATI 22510 STEVENS CREEK E 0 - 1/8 (0.034 mi.)B6 13
Facility Id: 43001931
Status: A
CA CERS TANKS: List of sites in the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) Regulated Site
Portal which fall under the Aboveground Petroleum Storage and Underground Storage Tank regulatory programs.
A review of the CA CERS TANKS list, as provided by EDR, and dated 04/09/2019 has revealed that there
are 2 CA CERS TANKS sites within approximately 0.25 miles of the target property.
PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Equal/Higher Elevation ____________________ ________ _____________________________
MONTA VISTA FIRE STA 22620 STEVENS CREEK W 0 - 1/8 (0.063 mi.)C16 61
PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Lower Elevation ____________________ ________ _____________________________
CUPERTINO BEACON 22510 STEVENS CREEK E 0 - 1/8 (0.034 mi.)B10 18
Other Ascertainable Records
RCRA NonGen / NLR: RCRAInfo is EPA’s comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA)
of 1984. The database includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or
dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Non-Generators do
not presently generate hazardous waste.
A review of the RCRA NonGen / NLR list, as provided by EDR, and dated 03/25/2019 has revealed that
there are 4 RCRA NonGen / NLR sites within approximately 0.25 miles of the target property.
PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Equal/Higher Elevation ____________________ ________ _____________________________
LIFETIME DENTAL CARE 10011 N FOOTHILL BLV NW 0 - 1/8 (0.021 mi.)A3 11
EPA ID:: CAL000441261
CAMBRIDGE PROPERTY M 22731 STEVENS CREEK W 1/8 - 1/4 (0.174 mi.)33 93
EPA ID:: CAC002981476
PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Lower Elevation ____________________ ________ _____________________________
CUPERTINO AUTO CARE 22510 STEVENS CREEK E 0 - 1/8 (0.034 mi.)B9 16
EPA ID:: CAL000419408
DAVID RANNELLS 10073 AMADOR OAK COU NNW 1/8 - 1/4 (0.151 mi.)32 92
EPA ID:: CAC002974544
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC5722958.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 14
CA Cortese: The sites for the list are designated by the State Water Resource Control Board (LUST),
the Integrated Waste Board (SWF/LS), and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (Cal-Sites).
A review of the CA Cortese list, as provided by EDR, and dated 03/25/2019 has revealed that there is
1 CA Cortese site within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property.
PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Lower Elevation ____________________ ________ _____________________________
CUPERTINO BEACON 22510 STEVENS CREEK E 0 - 1/8 (0.034 mi.)B10 18
Cleanup Status: OPEN - VERIFICATION MONITORING
CA CUPA Listings: A listing of sites included in the county’s Certified Unified Program Agency database.
California’s Secretary for Environmental Protection established the unified hazardous materials and hazardous
waste regulatory program as required by chapter 6.11 of the California Health and Safety Code. The Unified
Program consolidates the administration, permits, inspections, and enforcement activities.
A review of the CA CUPA Listings list, as provided by EDR, has revealed that there are 10 CA CUPA
Listings sites within approximately 0.25 miles of the target property.
PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Equal/Higher Elevation ____________________ ________ _____________________________
DONNA COTNER DDS 10011 N FOOTHILL BL NW 0 - 1/8 (0.021 mi.)A1 9
Database: CUPA SANTA CLARA, Date of Government Version: 05/16/2019
GARFIELD FAMILY CHIR 10011 N FOOTHILL BL NW 0 - 1/8 (0.021 mi.)A2 11
Database: CUPA SANTA CLARA, Date of Government Version: 05/16/2019
LIFETIME DENTAL CARE 10011 N FOOTHILL BL NW 0 - 1/8 (0.021 mi.)A4 12
Database: CUPA SANTA CLARA, Date of Government Version: 05/16/2019
PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Lower Elevation ____________________ ________ _____________________________
CUPERTINO BEACON 22510 STEVENS CREEK E 0 - 1/8 (0.034 mi.)B10 18
Database: CUPA SANTA CLARA, Date of Government Version: 05/16/2019
CUPERTINO AUTO REPAI 22510 STEVENS CREEK E 0 - 1/8 (0.034 mi.)B14 48
Database: CUPA SANTA CLARA, Date of Government Version: 05/16/2019
ACADIA VETERINARY CL 10012 N FOOTHILL BL NE 0 - 1/8 (0.038 mi.)B15 57
Database: CUPA SANTA CLARA, Date of Government Version: 05/16/2019
FOOTHILL VALERO 10121 N FOOTHILL BL N 0 - 1/8 (0.119 mi.)D21 76
Database: CUPA SANTA CLARA, Date of Government Version: 05/16/2019
FREEMANS AUTO SERVIC 10121 N FOOTHILL BL N 0 - 1/8 (0.119 mi.)D22 76
Database: CUPA SANTA CLARA, Date of Government Version: 05/16/2019
FOOTHILL AUTO SERVIC 10121 N FOOTHILL BL N 0 - 1/8 (0.119 mi.)D25 80
Database: CUPA SANTA CLARA, Date of Government Version: 05/16/2019
AAA AUTO REPAIR AND 10121 N FOOTHILL BL N 0 - 1/8 (0.119 mi.)D27 81
Database: CUPA SANTA CLARA, Date of Government Version: 05/16/2019
CA HIST CORTESE: The sites for the list are designated by the State Water Resource Control Board [LUST],
the Integrated Waste Board [SWF/LS], and the Department of Toxic Substances Control [CALSITES]. This
listing is no longer updated by the state agency.
A review of the CA HIST CORTESE list, as provided by EDR, and dated 04/01/2001 has revealed that
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC5722958.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 15
there are 5 CA HIST CORTESE sites within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property.
PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Equal/Higher Elevation ____________________ ________ _____________________________
SANTA CLARA COUNTY F 22620 STEVENS CREEK W 0 - 1/8 (0.063 mi.)C18 70
Reg Id: 43-2219
KAISER ALUMINUM AND 23333 STEVENS CREEK W 1/4 - 1/2 (0.366 mi.)E36 100
Reg Id: 43-0770
PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Lower Elevation ____________________ ________ _____________________________
CUPERTINO BEACON 22510 STEVENS CREEK E 0 - 1/8 (0.034 mi.)B10 18
Reg Id: 43-0455
ARCO 10121 FOOTHILL N 0 - 1/8 (0.113 mi.)D19 75
Reg Id: 43-0084
FACCIOLA RESIDENCE 22371 CUPERTINO RD ENE 1/8 - 1/4 (0.189 mi.)34 95
Reg Id: 43-1785
CA HWP: Detailed information on permitted hazardous waste facilities and corrective action
("cleanups") tracked in EnviroStor.
A review of the CA HWP list, as provided by EDR, and dated 05/20/2019 has revealed that there is 1 CA
HWP site within approximately 1 mile of the target property.
PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Lower Elevation ____________________ ________ _____________________________
ACRIAN INC 10131 BUBB RD E 1/2 - 1 (0.973 mi.)40 111
EPA Id: CAD092205889
Cleanup Status: CLOSED
CA Notify 65: Listings of all Proposition 65 incidents reported to counties by the State Water Resources
Control Board and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. This database is no longer updated by the
reporting agency.
A review of the CA Notify 65 list, as provided by EDR, and dated 03/18/2019 has revealed that there
is 1 CA Notify 65 site within approximately 1 mile of the target property.
PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Lower Elevation ____________________ ________ _____________________________
ARCO SERVICE STATION 10121 NORTH FOOTHILL N 0 - 1/8 (0.119 mi.)D30 92
EDR HIGH RISK HISTORICAL RECORDS
EDR Exclusive Records
EDR Hist Auto: EDR has searched selected national collections of business directories and has collected
listings of potential gas station/filling station/service station sites that were available to EDR
researchers. EDR’s review was limited to those categories of sources that might, in EDR’s opinion, include
gas station/filling station/service station establishments. The categories reviewed included, but were not
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC5722958.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 16
limited to gas, gas station, gasoline station, filling station, auto, automobile repair, auto service station,
service station, etc. This database falls within a category of information EDR classifies as "High Risk
Historical Records", or HRHR. EDR’s HRHR effort presents unique and sometimes proprietary data about past
sites and operations that typically create environmental concerns, but may not show up in current government
records searches.
A review of the EDR Hist Auto list, as provided by EDR, has revealed that there are 4 EDR Hist Auto
sites within approximately 0.125 miles of the target property.
PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Lower Elevation ____________________ ________ _____________________________
ACTION AUTO SERVICE 10010 FOOTHILL BLVD NE 0 - 1/8 (0.026 mi.)A5 13
JOHNS MOBIL SERVICE 22510 STEVENS CREEK E 0 - 1/8 (0.034 mi.)B12 46
FOOTHILL AUTO SERVIC 10121 N FOOTHILL BLV N 0 - 1/8 (0.119 mi.)D20 75
ACED ACRO SERVICE 10121 FOOTHILL N 0 - 1/8 (0.119 mi.)D31 92
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TC5722958.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 17
Due to poor or inadequate address information, the following sites were not mapped. Count: 6 records.
Site Name Database(s)____________ ____________
CA CDL
KAISER CEMENT CORP PERMANENTE PLAN SEMS
1X STEVENS CREEK QUARRY CA HAZNET
STEVENS CREEK DAM FINDS
BRIDGE 37C0571 OVER STEVENS CREEK FINDS
STEVENS CREEK QUARRY, INC. US MINES
........................................................................................................................
A PPENDIX E :
P HASE I I E NVIRONMENTAL S ITE
A SSESSMENT
........................................................................................................................
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report
Prepared for
Alan Enterprise LLC.
22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard,
Cupertino, California 95014
(Three parcels with APNs 342-14-04, 342-14-05, and 342-14-66)
By
Achievement Engineering Corp.
2455 Autumnvale Drive, Unit E
San Jose, California, 95134
Project Number: 3974
Date: October 17, 2019
Project Number: 3974
Date: October 17, 2019
Alan Enterprise LLC.
Mr. Ali Mozafari
Subject: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report
22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard,
Cupertino, California 95014
(Three parcels with APNs 342-14-04, 342-14-05, and 342-14-66)
Dear Sir,
Achievement Engineering Corp. (AEC) is pleased to submit this Phase II Environmental Site
Assessment Report for the above-referenced project. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the
subsurface conditions at the subject site and for the proposed development. The subject site is
currently owned by Bateh Brothers Liquors and Mini Mart (George and Nahida Bateh) and is a land
totaling of three parcels, approximately 0.75 acre located on the west south corner of Stevens Creek
Blvd. and Foothill Blvd. intersection, at 22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California
95014, within mixed-use plan development (General Commercial) zone of Cupertino. The site itself
has not been listed in any searched data bases (Please refer to reference 1).
In May 2017, EIS performed a limited Phase II investigation to assess the impact of the neighboring
site (Cupertino Beacon at 22510 Stevens Creek Blvd.) at this property. Above-ESL benzene
concentration in soil vapor was found in the borings at the subject site at that time.
There is one site listed on various databases in the close proximity to and at higher elevation of the
subject site;
Santa Clara County Fire Station (Also recorded as Monta Vista Fire station) at 22620 Stevens
Creek Blvd., 332 ft. west of the subject site.
There are two sites in the close proximity of the site, but at lower elevations:
Cupertino Beacon at 22510 Stevens Creek Blvd., 180 ft. east of the subject property.
Foothill Auto Services at 10121 N. Foothill Blvd., 620 ft., north of the subject property.
The review of the aerial photos and historical use of the property as an orchard, from at least 1939 to
1950, indicate that there is also a potential of metals and pesticides existing in shallow site soil.
Above-ESL benzene concentration in soil vapor was found in the borings at the subject site is also a
recognized environmental conditions. Besides, the open LUST case and documented soil,
groundwater, and soil vapor contamination at neighboring property 22510 Stevens Creek Blvd.
(Cupertino Beacon) represents an offsite controlled recognized environmental condition. To assess
the impacts of the neighboring site at the subject site, conducting a limited Phase II investigation was
recommended. This subsurface investigation program was designed to evaluate the soil and water
conditions regarding the above mentioned contaminants.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project and would be happy to discuss
our findings with you. We look forward to serving as your geotechnical/ environmental engineer on
the future projects.
Respectfully Submitted,
Achievement Engineering Corp.
Sadaf Safaai, PE
Project Engineer
Copies: Alan Enterprise LLC.
Mr. Ali Mozafari
ii
Achievement Engineering
Table of Contents
1- INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1
2- SCOPE OF WORK ............................................................................................................................ 2
3- PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................ 2
3-1- Topography and Geological Setting ............................................................................................. 3
4- PROJECT INVESTIGATION .......................................................................................................... 3
4-1- Field Investigation and Exploratory Boreholes ............................................................................ 4
4-2- Laboratory Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 4
5- ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING LEVELS................................................................................. 5
6- INVESTIGATION RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................... 6
6-1- Soil and Water: Organics .............................................................................................................. 6
6-2- Soil and Water: Heavy Metals ...................................................................................................... 7
6-3- Soil Vapor ..................................................................................................................................... 7
6-4- Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 9
7- LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................... 9
8- REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................. 10
Exhibit I – Site Location Plan
Exhibit II – Environmental
Screening Levels and STLC and
TTLC Regulatory Limits Tables
Exhibit III – Analytical Test
Results
1
Achievement Engineering
1- INTRODUCTION
Achievement Engineering Corp. (AEC) was retained by Alan Enterprise LLC. to conduct a Phase II
Environmental Site Assessment (Phase II ESA) for 22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino,
California 95014, (three parcels with APNs 342-14-04, 342-14-05, and 342-14-66).
The attached Figure M01, Exhibit I shows the general location of the subject property. Providing
technical assistance to Alan Enterprise LLC, AEC is contracted to assess the subject property for
potential contaminants of concern, namely total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline, diesel, and
motor oil (TPH-g/-d/-o), the aromatic hydrocarbons benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene total xylenes
(BTEX) and MTBE. Soil vapor samples were analyzed for TPH and benzene. The samples at B3
have been tested for the presence of the pesticides and heavy metals. The Phase II ESA was
performed in conformance with the scope and limitations of the American Society of Testing and
Materials (ASTM) Standard Designation E1903-11, Standard Practice for Environmental Site
Assessments: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Process. Any limitations have been practiced,
is summarized in section7.
The Phase II ESA activities consisted of the drilling of three (3) exploratory borings and the
collection of soil samples for submittal to an analytical lab for analyses for potential contaminants of
concern.
Soil vapor sampling was also performed during this project following the guidelines of the
Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC) “Guidance for the Evaluation and Mitigation of
Subsurface Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air” (DTSC, 2011) and “Advisory – Active Soil Gas
Investigations” (DTSC et al, 2015). Temporary soil vapor probes were installed in borings B-1, B-2
and B-3 at a depth of 5.0 ft. bgs. The samples were taken on September 18, 2019. Utilizing 1 L
Summa Canisters at negative pressure. Three (3) samples were taken from each of the three (3)
boreholes. A purge canister was used to purge the tubes first to minimize contamination from above
layers.
This report documents the activities and results of the environmental investigation conducted by
AEC on September 11, 2019 and September 18, 2019.
The following report highlights the significant findings and conclusions representing our best
professional judgment based on the information and data available to us during the course of this
investigation.
2
Achievement Engineering
2- SCOPE OF WORK
The Phase II ESA was performed in general accordance with the scope of work in AEC Fee
Proposal, Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, f22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino,
California 95014 (three parcels with APNs 342-14-04, 342-14-05, and 342-14-66). The scope of
work was to evaluate shallow subsurface soil conditions of the subject site (at specific new
development location) with respect to potential contaminants of concern.
The scope of work for this investigation included the following:
The drilling on 11 September, 2019 of three (3) exploratory borings to collect soil samples
for laboratory analyses.
Installing micro soil vapor probe on 11 September, 2019.
Collecting soil vapor samples in canisters on 18 September 2019.
Laboratory analysis of the soil samples for potential contaminants of concern, namely TPH
gasoline, TPH diesel, TPH motor oil, MTBE, BTEX, heavy metals and pesticides.
Laboratory analysis of soil vapor samples for TPH and benzene.
Preparation of this technical report documenting the investigation activities and results.
3- PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The subject site is currently owned by Bateh Brothers Liquors and Mini Mart (George and Nahida
Bateh) and is a land totaling 0.75 acre (combined three parcels) located on the west south corner of
Stevens Creek Blvd. and Foothill Blvd. intersection at 22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino,
California 95014, within mixed use plan development (General Commercial) zone of Cupertino.
The site itself has not been listed in any data bases. Review of the historical data available for the
subject site reveals that most probably the development of the site, as is, took place between 1950
and 1956 (based on aerial photos), the first city directory listing for this property belongs to 1975,
before that, this address does not exist in 1970 and 1968 listings. Bateh Brothers Liquors and Mini
Mart has been listed in 2014 back to 1980 listings. In 1975 directory, a Frank’s Liquor and Grocery
Store has been listed. Also an interview conducted by others in 2017 reveals that before 1976, the
place was used as a bar. No building permit was found indicating any other use for this property.
Per aerial photos, in 1939 an orchard was in the property that cannot be observed in 1950 aerial
photo. Sometime between 1939 and 1950 the trees were gradually cleared, starting from north to
south. The existence of fertilizers, pesticides and metals are possible in the shallow soil due to this
historical land use.
3
Achievement Engineering
Also, rev reveals that for the most part, uses were mixed residential and commercial (a veterinary
clinic has existed since, at least 1989, at 10012 N. Foothill Blvd. and Beacon Service Station has
been in service under different names as follows:
1995- to Present -Cupertino Beacon Service Station, Cupertino Auto Care
1989- Foothill Mobil
1981-1984 -McElroy Mobil Service
1976 -D&D Mobil Service
1971 -Johns Mobil Service, Mobil Oil Corporation
1968 -Johns Mobil
3-1- Topography and Geological Setting
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) maps were reviewed. The topography of the subject
site is relatively flat and general topographic gradient is NNE. The site itself is at an approximate
average elevation of 386.0 feet above mean sea level.
The project site is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province. Local uplift of the Santa
Cruz Mountains within the last 2 to 3 million years has occurred due to a restraining bend of the San
Andreas Fault, producing transpressional forces across the plate boundary. Thrust faults bound the
San Andreas Fault are responsible for uplift of the range. The range is characterized by rugged hills
with moderate relief, steep valleys, and locally steep hillsides abutting drainages. East-flowing
drainages result in dissection of the mountain range and alluvial deposition within the San Francisco
Bay structural trough.
Soils encountered during the investigation included interbedded gravelly sand, silty sand, sandy
gravel, clayey sand, and sandy silt to an explored depth of approximately 40ft bgs. Groundwater was
not encountered during this investigation, however in previous explorations by others, groundwater
had been encountered between 20 and 30 ft. bgs.
4- PROJECT INVESTIGATION
Prior to the field activities, AEC attempted to secure a Soil Boring Permit from the Santa Clara
Department of Environmental Health. No need for permitting was confirmed by the DEH.
The proposed boring locations were marked on the ground with white paint. Underground
Service Alert (USA) was notified to provide the required utility clearance. The boring locations
were cleared of underground utilities. A health and safety plan was prepared to govern and
control the field work by AEC staff and subcontractors.
4
Achievement Engineering
4-1- Field Investigation and Exploratory Boreholes
Three (3) exploratory borings, designated B-1, B-2 and B-3, were completed by AEC on September
11, 2019. Isotech Environmental Corp., a C57 licensed drilling contractor (C57 #799951 B), drilled
the borings under the direction of a geologist from AEC. The drilling was accomplished with the use
of direct push drilling equipment providing continuous soil sampling capability. B1 and B2 were
advanced into approximately forty (40) feet below ground surface (bgs.), B3 was advanced into ten
(10) feet. Bgs. DPT drives or pushes small- diameter rods (2 in.) tools into the subsurface by
hydraulic or percussive methods. Closed piston, single-tube samplers provided high integrity
samples. Dual tube samplers utilize concentric casings to advance the boring. The outer casing
remains in place as the inner casing is used to trip out the sample as the boring is advanced
incrementally. The outer casing prevents borehole collapse and generally reduces the potential for
cross contamination between sampling intervals.
The geologist collected soil samples from each boring for potential laboratory analyses. Sampling
consisted of sealing the samples and then labeling and placing the sample in an ice chest for cold
storage. Following the protocol provided by the laboratory and manufacturer, Torrent Laboratory
Inc. sampling was also performed as follows. A dedicated syringe was driven into freshly exposed
soil to retrieve approximately five (5) grams of soil. The extracted soil was then transferred into
laboratory-supplied, 40-milliliter volatile organic analysis vials (40 mL VOAs). The VOAs were
promptly sealed with Teflon caps provided, labeled with identification information, and placed in the
ice chest. AEC followed chain of custody protocol in the transfer of the soil samples to the
laboratory, as presented in Exhibit III.
The soil vapor samples were taken on September 19, 2019, using 1L Summa Canisters at negative
pressure. Three samples were taken from each of three boreholes. A purge canister was used to
purge the tubes first to minimize contamination from above layers.
All down-hole drilling and sampling equipment was cleaned with environmental detergent and
rinsed between uses to prevent cross-contamination.
4-2- Laboratory Analysis
The soil samples were submitted with chain of custody documentation to Torrent Laboratory Inc., of
Milpitas, California. Torrent Laboratory Inc. is certified for chemical analyses by the Department of
Health Services, Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP No. 1991).
The samples were subjected to the following laboratory analytical methods:
TPH gasoline, Test Method 8260TPH
TPH motor oil, Test Method USEPA Method 8015B
5
Achievement Engineering
TPH as Diesel, Test Method SW8015B
MTBE, Test Method SW8260B
BTEX, Test Method SW8260B
Pesticides (Organochlorine Pesticides by Method 8081B) and heavy metals (CAM 17, heavy metals)
The latter tests were just performed for samples from B-3.
Soil vapor samples were analyzed for TPH and benzene by USEPA method TO-15.
Please note that it is our understanding that the new development is residential. Laboratory analytical
testings have been performed on selected soil samples at 25.0 and 35.0 ft. for B1, 25.0 ft. for B2 and
5.0 ft. for B3 and the rest of the samples were put on hold in case further investigations required (per
page 20 of Exhibit III, Analytical Test Results).
The laboratories reported that the samples were received in good condition and with appropriate
chain of custody documentation. The analytical results were laboratory certified with no significant
anomalies reported in the data. The laboratory analytical reports are provided in Exhibit III.
5- ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING LEVELS
The Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region (RWQCB, February 2016-
REV 3.0) guidance, Screening for Environmental Concerns at Sites with Contaminated Soil and
Groundwater, presents environmental screening levels (ESLs) for soil and groundwater that address
human health exposure risk, ecological habitat protection, and groundwater protection. For
carcinogens, the human health screening levels for carcinogens are based on a target cancer risk of
one-in-a-million (10-6). A hazard quotient of 0.2 is the basis for non-carcinogenic risk.
The RWQCB (February 2016) considers two (2) groundwater use scenarios: one where groundwater
IS a potential source of drinking water resource, and the other where groundwater IS NOT a
potential drinking water resource.
The role of environmental screening levels is to screen sites and help identify areas, contaminants
and conditions that may require further attention and risk assessment. In general, at sites where
contaminants are below screening levels, no further action is warranted provided that the exposure
assumptions match or approximate those used in developing the screening levels. Furthermore,
contaminants above screening levels, does not automatically trigger or require remedial action.
According to RWQCB (February 2016), chemical concentrations in soil and groundwater above
ESLs could pose negligible risk.
6
Achievement Engineering
Factors, such as background levels, have to be considered in evaluating sample data and the need for
remedial action or risk management. Remedial action is generally not warranted for naturally-
occurring metals in soil and groundwater.
6- INVESTIGATION RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Three (3) exploratory borings were completed on September 11, 2019 at the subject site and the
result of the investigation is as follows.
6-1- Soil and Water: Organics
Soil samples from 25.0 and 35.0 feet depths for B1 and from 25.0 feet depth for B2 were
analyzed for TPH (Gasoline), TPH (Diesel), TPH (Motor oil) MTBE and BTEX. Soil sample
from 5.0 feet depth for B3 was analyzed for heavy metals and Organochlorine Pesticides. The
soil analytical results for organics are compared with Tier 1 ESL values (that are conservative) as
well as Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) Regulatory Levels as attached in the
Exhibit II, Environmental Screening Levels and STLC and TTLC Regulatory Limits
Tables.
Analytical Results
B1- 25 ft.: TPH diesel: 16.2 mg/Kg, TPH motor oil: 141 mg/Kg, Pentacosane: 72.6 %4,
(S)4 Bromofluorobenzene: 104 %
(S) Dibromofluoromethane: 106 %
(S) Toluene-d8: 94.7 %
(S) 4-Bromofluorobenzene: 84.6 %
B1-35 ft.: All compounds were non-detectable for this sample.
Pentacosane: 67.1 %4,
(S)4 Bromofluorobenzene: 107 %
(S) Dibromofluoromethane: 106 %
(S) Toluene-d8: 95.4 %
(S) 4-Bromofluorobenzene: 84.7 %
B2- 25 ft.: All compounds were non-detectable for this sample.
Pentacosane (S): 63.8 %
(S)4 Bromofluorobenzene: 102 %
(S) Dibromofluoromethane: 109 %
(S) Toluene-d8: 94.4 %
(S) 4-Bromofluorobenzene: 84.9 %
7
Achievement Engineering
B3- 5 ft.:
TPH as Diesel: 2.04 mg/Kg, Pentacosane (S): 70.3 %,
(S) 4-Bromofluorobenzene: 99.2 %
(S) Dibromofluoromethane: 107 %
(S) Toluene-d8: 98.1 %
(S) 4-Bromofluorobenzene: 88.4 %
TCMX (S): 58.5 %
DCBP (S): 64.5 %
Groundwater was not encountered or tested at any borings.
6-2- Soil and Water: Heavy Metals
B3- 5 ft.:
Arsenic: 2.50 mg/Kg
Barium: 150 mg/Kg
Chromium: 56.6 mg/Kg
Cobalt: 14.7 mg/Kg
Copper: 26.0 mg/Kg
Lead: 4.92 mg/Kg
Nickel: 41.3 mg/Kg
Vanadium: 72.1 mg/Kg
Zinc: 52.8 mg/Kg
6-3- Soil Vapor
Soil vapor samples collected from 5. ft. bgs and were analyzed for TPH and benzene by USEPA
method TO-15.
8
Achievement Engineering
SP1-B1
Environmental Screening Results
The soil analytical results for organics meet the RWQCB (February 2016) ESLs for a residential
land use (the most conservative scenario) for soil and heavy metal concentrations does not
exceed TTLC values.
However, Arsenic in the soil sample is higher than 6.7 x 10 -2 mg/Kg of Tier 1 screening level.
For the case of Chromium since the concentration was 50 mg/Kg, per code recommendation a
WET extraction test has been conducted. No Chromium was detected (STLC) as indicated in
page (17 of 33) of Exhibit III.
Based on these national studies and the regional data presented (Reference 2), it is apparent that
arsenic concentrations across much of the United States are elevated with respect to residential
RBSLs. Several states have recognized the importance of background with regards to
remediation involving arsenic in soil:
California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) Department of Toxic Substances Control
(DTSC) has set an arsenic background concentration of 6 mg/kg to be used at Los Angeles
Unified District school sites (CalEPA, 2005).
9
Achievement Engineering
6-4- Recommendations
There are no drinking water supply wells on the subject property and vicinity, and the subject
property is in the service area of the municipal potable water supply system.
Although the recent investigation results indicate no-risk or insignificant levels of TPH
(Gasoline), TPH (Diesel), TPH (Motor Oils), MTBE, BETEX, Organochlorine Pesticides and
heavy metals in the soil, above the regulatory values, AEC recommends the following in the
event the subject property is to be redeveloped:
• A routine health and safety plan to ensure the safety and protection of the public and
construction workers during construction.
• Installation of a vapor barrier beneath the concrete foundation slab of the proposed building at
the site to mitigate potential odor risks associated with concentration of vapors (such as
propanol).
The soil of the site may be hauled to any landfill.
7- LIMITATIONS
This Report was prepared pursuant to an Agreement dated 8 August 2019 between Alan Enterprise
LLC. and AEC. All uses of this Report are subject to, and deemed acceptance of, the conditions and
restrictions contained in the Agreement. The observations and conclusions described in this Report
are based solely on the Scope of Services provided pursuant to the Agreement. AEC has not
performed any additional observations, investigations, studies or other testing not specified in the
Agreement and the Report. AEC shall not be liable for the existence of any condition the discovery
of which would have required the performance of services not authorized under the Agreement.
This Report is prepared for the exclusive use of Alan Enterprise LLC. and its sub-contractors in
connection with the design and construction of the development. There are no intended beneficiaries
other than Alan Enterprise LLC. and its sub-contractors. AEC shall owe no duty, whatsoever, to any
other person or entity on account of the Agreement or the Report. Use of this Report by any person
or entity other than Alan Enterprise LLC. and its sub-contractors for any purpose whatsoever is
expressly forbidden unless such other person or entity obtains written authorization from Alan
Enterprise LLC. and AEC. Use of this Report by such other person or entity without the written
authorization of Alan Enterprise LLC. and AEC shall be at such other person's or entities sole risk,
and shall be without legal exposure or liability to AEC.
Use of this Report by any person or entity, including by Alan Enterprise LLC. and its sub-
contractors, for a purpose other than for the design and construction of the proposed development is
expressly prohibited unless such person or entity obtains written authorization from AEC indicating
10
Achievement Engineering
that the Report is adequate for such other use. Use of this Report by any person or entity for such
other purpose without written authorization by AEC shall be at such person's or entities sole risk and
shall be without legal exposure or liability to AEC.
This report reflects site conditions observed and described by records available to AEC as of the date
of report preparation. The passage of time may result in significant changes in site conditions,
technology, or economic conditions which could alter the findings and/or recommendations of the
report. Accordingly, Alan Enterprise LLC. and any other party to whom the report is provided
recognize and agree that AEC shall bear no liability for deviations from observed conditions or
available records after the time of report preparation.
Use of this Report by any person or entity in violation of the restrictions expressed in this R eport
shall be deemed and accepted by the user as conclusive evidence that such use and the reliance
placed on this Report, or any portions thereof, is unreasonable, and that the user accepts full and
exclusive responsibility and liability for any losses, damages or other liability which may result.
8- REFERENCES
1- Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report for 22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard,
Cupertino, California 95014 (Three parcels with APNs 342-14-04, 342-14-05, and 342-14-
66), AEC Project No. 3940, July 29, 2019.
2- Background Versus Risk-Based Screening Levels -An Examination Of Arsenic Background
Soil Concentrations In Seven States, Kelly A.S. Vosnakis, Elizabeth Perry, Karen Madsen,
Lisa J.N. Bradley, AECOM, Proceedings of the Annual International Conference on Soils,
Sediments, Water and Energy, Volume 14, Article 10, January 2010.
Exhibit I
Project Number:Project Title:
0
1
2
3
4
MM/DD/YY
09/26/19
_ _ /_ _ /_ _
_ _ /_ _ /_ _
_ _ /_ _ /_ _
_ _ /_ _ /_ _
REVISIONS
REMARKS
...
...
...
...
M3974Ali Mozafari - Phase II - Exhibit III
Vicinity Map 01
Project Number:Project Title:
0
1
2
3
4
MM/DD/YY
09/26/19
_ _ /_ _ /_ _
_ _ /_ _ /_ _
_ _ /_ _ /_ _
_ _ /_ _ /_ _
REVISIONS
REMARKS
...
...
...
...
M3974Ali Mozafari - Phase II - Exhibit III
Boring Location 02
Project Number:Project Title:
0
1
2
3
4
MM/DD/YY
09/26/19
_ _ /_ _ /_ _
_ _ /_ _ /_ _
_ _ /_ _ /_ _
_ _ /_ _ /_ _
REVISIONS
REMARKS
...
...
...
...
M3974Ali Mozafari - Phase II - Exhibit III
Site Location on Cupertino quadrangle 7.5' Series
Topographic Map by USGS
03
Project Number:Project Title:
0
1
2
3
4
MM/DD/YY
09/26/19
_ _ /_ _ /_ _
_ _ /_ _ /_ _
_ _ /_ _ /_ _
_ _ /_ _ /_ _
REVISIONS
REMARKS
...
...
...
...
M3974Ali Mozafari - Phase II - Exhibit III
Site Location on Cupertino and San Jose West quadrangles
7.5' Series Geologic Map by T. W. Dibblee and J.A. Minch 2007
04
Exhibit II
Boring Sample
Depth (ft)
TPH
gasoline
(mg/Kg)
TPH
Diesel
(mg/Kg)
TPH
motor oil
(mg/Kg)
MTBE
(mg/Kg)
Benzene
(mg/Kg)
OCPs
(mg/Kg)
Aresenic
(mg/Kg)
Barium
(mg/Kg)
Chromium
(mg/Kg)
Cobalt
(mg/Kg)
Copper
(mg/Kg)
Lead
(mg/Kg)
Nickel
(mg/Kg)
B-1 35.0 ND 16.2 141 ND ND N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
B-1 25.0 ND ND ND ND ND N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
B-2 25.0 ND ND ND ND ND N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
B-3 10.0 ND 2.04 ND ND ND ND 2.5 150 56.6 14.7 26 4.92 41.3
Tier 1 ESL (Soil) mg/Kg
100 230 5100 2.3 *10^-2 4.4 *10^-2 *6.7 *10^-2 3000 0.3 230 3100 80 86
TTLC (mg/Kg)500.0 10000.0 500.0 8000.0 2500.0 1000.0 2000.0
Boring Sample
Depth (ft)
Carbon
Disulfide
ug/m3
Hexane
ug/m3
tert-
Butanol
ug/m3
Chloroform
ug/m3
Toluene
ug/m3
Tetrachloro
ethylene
ug/m3
Ethyl
Benzene
ug/m3
m,p-
Xylene
ug/m3
4-Ethyl
Toluene
ug/m3
1,2,4-
Trimethyl
benzene
ug/m3
Naphthalene
ug/m3
2-
Propanol
(Isopropyl
Alcohol)
ug/m3
Aceton
ug/m3
B-1 5.0 36 2.6 1.9 3.1 5.2 26 2.6 7.5 9.1 10 2.6 320
B-2 5.0 ND ND ND ND 24
B-3 5.0 ND 1.9 ND ND 26 13
***61 1.6 *10^5 240 560 5.2*10^4 **41 *1.5*10^7Tier 1 ESL (Vapor) ug/m3
Concentration in soil samples
Concentrations in the vapor samples
Exhibit III
Arsh Firouzjaei
Achievement Engineering Corp
2455 Autumnvale Dr.
San Jose, California 95131
Tel: 408 217 9174
Fax: 408 217 9632
Email: arash@achieveng.com
RE: Alan Enterprise
Torrent Laboratory, Inc. received 9 sample(s) on September 11, 2019 for the analyses
presented in the following Report.
Dear Arash Firouzjaei:
Work Order No.: 1909078 Rev: 1
As requested on the Chain of Custody, five samples were placed on hold.
All data for associated QC met EPA or laboratory specification(s) except where noted in the
case narrative.
Torrent Laboratory, Inc. is certified by the State of California, ELAP #1991. If you have any
questions regarding these test results, please feel free to contact the Project Management
Team at (408)263-5258; ext 204.
Date
September 18, 2019
Kathie Evans
Project Manager
Page 1 of 33Total Page Count: 33
Date:9/18/2019
Client:Achievement Engineering Corp
Project:Alan Enterprise
Work Order:1909078
CASE NARRATIVE
Unless otherwise indicated in the following narrative, no issues encountered with the receiving,
preparation, analysis or reporting of the results associated with this work order.
Unless otherwise indicated in the following narrative, no results have been method and/or field
blank corrected.
Reported results relate only to the items/samples tested by the laboratory.
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of Torrent
Analytical, Inc.
REVISIONS
Report revised to include STLC data.
STLC
Note: Extraction of 50 g sample / 500g 0.2M Sodium Citrate Solution was performed according
to wet extraction procedure (WET) which was rotated in a rotary shaker for 48 hours (+/- 4
hours).
Date Prepared: 10/8/19 at 5:15 PM to 10/10/19 at 1:50 PM
Rev. 1 (10/16/19)
Page 2 of 33Total Page Count: 33
Report prepared for:Arash Firouzjaei
Achievement Engineering Corp
Date Received: 09/11/19
Date Reported: 09/18/19
Sample Result Summary
1909078-003B1-25'
Parameters: PQLMDL UnitResultsDFAnalysis
Method
TPH as Diesel mg/Kg16.28.03.44SW8015B
TPH as Motor Oil mg/Kg14140134SW8015B
1909078-004B1-35'
Parameters: PQLMDL UnitResultsDFAnalysis
Method
All compounds were non-detectable for this sample.
1909078-007B2-25'
Parameters: PQLMDL UnitResultsDFAnalysis
Method
All compounds were non-detectable for this sample.
1909078-008B3-5'
Parameters: PQLMDL UnitResultsDFAnalysis
Method
Arsenic mg/Kg2.501.300.151SW6010B
Barium mg/Kg1505.000.0551SW6010B
Chromium mg/Kg56.65.000.0751SW6010B
Cobalt mg/Kg14.75.000.0701SW6010B
Copper mg/Kg26.05.000.201SW6010B
Lead mg/Kg4.923.000.101SW6010B
Nickel mg/Kg41.35.000.501SW6010B
Vanadium mg/Kg72.15.000.101SW6010B
Zinc mg/Kg52.85.000.301SW6010B
TPH as Diesel mg/Kg2.042.00.851SW8015B
Page 3 of 33Total Page Count: 33
SAMPLE RESULTS
Report prepared for:
Date Reported:09/18/19
Date/Time Received:09/11/19, 1:10 pm
Achievement Engineering Corp
Arash Firouzjaei
Client Sample ID:
Date/Time Sampled:
Project Number:
Project Name/Location:
09/10/19 / 11:58
3974
Alan Enterprise
B1-25'
SoilSample Matrix:
Lab Sample ID: 1909078-003A
SDG:
Prep Batch ID: 1116592
Prep Batch Date/Time:9/13/19 12:50:00PM
Prep Analyst:EDORR
Prep Method: 3546_TPH
Parameters:
Analytical
BatchUnitsQ
ResultsPQLMDLDF
Analyzed
Analysis
Method Time By
x16.2TPH as Diesel 09/16/193.4 8.04 mg/Kg 442459SW8015B15:54 MK
141TPH as Motor Oil 09/16/1913 404 mg/Kg 442459SW8015B15:54 MK
Acceptance Limits
72.6Pentacosane (S) 09/16/19% 442459SW8015B15:54 MK59 - 129
NOTE:x-not typical of Diesel ref. std: peaks within Diesel range quantified as diesel
Page 4 of 33Total Page Count: 33
SAMPLE RESULTS
Report prepared for:
Date Reported:09/18/19
Date/Time Received:09/11/19, 1:10 pm
Achievement Engineering Corp
Arash Firouzjaei
Client Sample ID:
Date/Time Sampled:
Project Number:
Project Name/Location:
09/10/19 / 11:58
3974
Alan Enterprise
B1-25'
SoilSample Matrix:
Lab Sample ID: 1909078-003A
SDG:
Prep Batch ID: 1116690
Prep Batch Date/Time:9/16/19 9:43:00AM
Prep Analyst:BPATEL
Prep Method: 5035GRO
Parameters:
Analytical
BatchUnitsQ
ResultsPQLMDLDF
Analyzed
Analysis
Method Time By
NDTPH(Gasoline) 09/16/1943 1001 ug/Kg 4424418260TPH17:03 BP
104(S) 4-Bromofluorobenzene 09/16/19%4424418260TPH17:03 BP43.9 - 127
Page 5 of 33Total Page Count: 33
SAMPLE RESULTS
Report prepared for:
Date Reported:09/18/19
Date/Time Received:09/11/19, 1:10 pm
Achievement Engineering Corp
Arash Firouzjaei
Client Sample ID:
Date/Time Sampled:
Project Number:
Project Name/Location:
09/10/19 / 11:58
3974
Alan Enterprise
B1-25'
SoilSample Matrix:
Lab Sample ID: 1909078-003A
SDG:
Prep Batch ID: 1116658
Prep Batch Date/Time:9/16/19 9:43:00AM
Prep Analyst:BPATEL
Prep Method: 5035
Parameters:
Analytical
BatchUnitsQ
ResultsPQLMDLDF
Analyzed
Analysis
Method Time By
NDMTBE 09/16/192.3 101 ug/Kg 442441SW8260B17:03 BP
NDBenzene 09/16/192.2 101 ug/Kg 442441SW8260B17:03 BP
NDToluene 09/16/191.8 101 ug/Kg 442441SW8260B17:03 BP
NDEthylbenzene 09/16/191.7 101 ug/Kg 442441SW8260B17:03 BP
NDm,p-Xylene 09/16/193.2 101 ug/Kg 442441SW8260B17:03 BP
NDo-Xylene 09/16/191.7 101 ug/Kg 442441SW8260B17:03 BP
106(S) Dibromofluoromethane 09/16/19%442441SW8260B17:03 BP59.8 - 148
94.7(S) Toluene-d8 09/16/19%442441SW8260B17:03 BP55.2 - 133
84.6(S) 4-Bromofluorobenzene 09/16/19%442441SW8260B17:03 BP55.8 - 141
Page 6 of 33Total Page Count: 33
SAMPLE RESULTS
Report prepared for:
Date Reported:09/18/19
Date/Time Received:09/11/19, 1:10 pm
Achievement Engineering Corp
Arash Firouzjaei
Client Sample ID:
Date/Time Sampled:
Project Number:
Project Name/Location:
09/10/19 / 12:10
3974
Alan Enterprise
B1-35'
SoilSample Matrix:
Lab Sample ID: 1909078-004A
SDG:
Prep Batch ID: 1116592
Prep Batch Date/Time:9/13/19 12:50:00PM
Prep Analyst:EDORR
Prep Method: 3546_TPH
Parameters:
Analytical
BatchUnitsQ
ResultsPQLMDLDF
Analyzed
Analysis
Method Time By
NDTPH as Diesel 09/14/190.85 2.01 mg/Kg 442459SW8015B13:56 MK
NDTPH as Motor Oil 09/14/193.2 101 mg/Kg 442459SW8015B13:56 MK
Acceptance Limits
67.1Pentacosane (S) 09/14/19% 442459SW8015B13:56 MK59 - 129
Page 7 of 33Total Page Count: 33
SAMPLE RESULTS
Report prepared for:
Date Reported:09/18/19
Date/Time Received:09/11/19, 1:10 pm
Achievement Engineering Corp
Arash Firouzjaei
Client Sample ID:
Date/Time Sampled:
Project Number:
Project Name/Location:
09/10/19 / 12:10
3974
Alan Enterprise
B1-35'
SoilSample Matrix:
Lab Sample ID: 1909078-004A
SDG:
Prep Batch ID: 1116690
Prep Batch Date/Time:9/16/19 9:43:00AM
Prep Analyst:BPATEL
Prep Method: 5035GRO
Parameters:
Analytical
BatchUnitsQ
ResultsPQLMDLDF
Analyzed
Analysis
Method Time By
NDTPH(Gasoline) 09/16/1943 1001 ug/Kg 4424418260TPH17:32 BP
107(S) 4-Bromofluorobenzene 09/16/19%4424418260TPH17:32 BP43.9 - 127
Page 8 of 33Total Page Count: 33
SAMPLE RESULTS
Report prepared for:
Date Reported:09/18/19
Date/Time Received:09/11/19, 1:10 pm
Achievement Engineering Corp
Arash Firouzjaei
Client Sample ID:
Date/Time Sampled:
Project Number:
Project Name/Location:
09/10/19 / 12:10
3974
Alan Enterprise
B1-35'
SoilSample Matrix:
Lab Sample ID: 1909078-004A
SDG:
Prep Batch ID: 1116658
Prep Batch Date/Time:9/16/19 9:43:00AM
Prep Analyst:BPATEL
Prep Method: 5035
Parameters:
Analytical
BatchUnitsQ
ResultsPQLMDLDF
Analyzed
Analysis
Method Time By
NDMTBE 09/16/192.3 101 ug/Kg 442441SW8260B17:32 BP
NDBenzene 09/16/192.2 101 ug/Kg 442441SW8260B17:32 BP
NDToluene 09/16/191.8 101 ug/Kg 442441SW8260B17:32 BP
NDEthylbenzene 09/16/191.7 101 ug/Kg 442441SW8260B17:32 BP
NDm,p-Xylene 09/16/193.2 101 ug/Kg 442441SW8260B17:32 BP
NDo-Xylene 09/16/191.7 101 ug/Kg 442441SW8260B17:32 BP
106(S) Dibromofluoromethane 09/16/19%442441SW8260B17:32 BP59.8 - 148
95.4(S) Toluene-d8 09/16/19%442441SW8260B17:32 BP55.2 - 133
84.7(S) 4-Bromofluorobenzene 09/16/19%442441SW8260B17:32 BP55.8 - 141
Page 9 of 33Total Page Count: 33
SAMPLE RESULTS
Report prepared for:
Date Reported:09/18/19
Date/Time Received:09/11/19, 1:10 pm
Achievement Engineering Corp
Arash Firouzjaei
Client Sample ID:
Date/Time Sampled:
Project Number:
Project Name/Location:
09/10/19 / 12:30
3974
Alan Enterprise
B2-25'
SoilSample Matrix:
Lab Sample ID: 1909078-007A
SDG:
Prep Batch ID: 1116592
Prep Batch Date/Time:9/13/19 12:50:00PM
Prep Analyst:EDORR
Prep Method: 3546_TPH
Parameters:
Analytical
BatchUnitsQ
ResultsPQLMDLDF
Analyzed
Analysis
Method Time By
NDTPH as Diesel 09/14/190.85 2.01 mg/Kg 442459SW8015B14:20 MK
NDTPH as Motor Oil 09/14/193.2 101 mg/Kg 442459SW8015B14:20 MK
Acceptance Limits
63.8Pentacosane (S) 09/14/19% 442459SW8015B14:20 MK59 - 129
Page 10 of 33Total Page Count: 33
SAMPLE RESULTS
Report prepared for:
Date Reported:09/18/19
Date/Time Received:09/11/19, 1:10 pm
Achievement Engineering Corp
Arash Firouzjaei
Client Sample ID:
Date/Time Sampled:
Project Number:
Project Name/Location:
09/10/19 / 12:30
3974
Alan Enterprise
B2-25'
SoilSample Matrix:
Lab Sample ID: 1909078-007A
SDG:
Prep Batch ID: 1116690
Prep Batch Date/Time:9/16/19 9:43:00AM
Prep Analyst:BPATEL
Prep Method: 5035GRO
Parameters:
Analytical
BatchUnitsQ
ResultsPQLMDLDF
Analyzed
Analysis
Method Time By
NDTPH(Gasoline) 09/16/1943 1001 ug/Kg 4424418260TPH18:00 BP
102(S) 4-Bromofluorobenzene 09/16/19%4424418260TPH18:00 BP43.9 - 127
Page 11 of 33Total Page Count: 33
SAMPLE RESULTS
Report prepared for:
Date Reported:09/18/19
Date/Time Received:09/11/19, 1:10 pm
Achievement Engineering Corp
Arash Firouzjaei
Client Sample ID:
Date/Time Sampled:
Project Number:
Project Name/Location:
09/10/19 / 12:30
3974
Alan Enterprise
B2-25'
SoilSample Matrix:
Lab Sample ID: 1909078-007A
SDG:
Prep Batch ID: 1116658
Prep Batch Date/Time:9/16/19 9:43:00AM
Prep Analyst:BPATEL
Prep Method: 5035
Parameters:
Analytical
BatchUnitsQ
ResultsPQLMDLDF
Analyzed
Analysis
Method Time By
NDMTBE 09/16/192.3 101 ug/Kg 442441SW8260B18:00 BP
NDBenzene 09/16/192.2 101 ug/Kg 442441SW8260B18:00 BP
NDToluene 09/16/191.8 101 ug/Kg 442441SW8260B18:00 BP
NDEthylbenzene 09/16/191.7 101 ug/Kg 442441SW8260B18:00 BP
NDm,p-Xylene 09/16/193.2 101 ug/Kg 442441SW8260B18:00 BP
NDo-Xylene 09/16/191.7 101 ug/Kg 442441SW8260B18:00 BP
109(S) Dibromofluoromethane 09/16/19%442441SW8260B18:00 BP59.8 - 148
94.4(S) Toluene-d8 09/16/19%442441SW8260B18:00 BP55.2 - 133
84.9(S) 4-Bromofluorobenzene 09/16/19%442441SW8260B18:00 BP55.8 - 141
Page 12 of 33Total Page Count: 33
SAMPLE RESULTS
Report prepared for:
Date Reported:09/18/19
Date/Time Received:09/11/19, 1:10 pm
Achievement Engineering Corp
Arash Firouzjaei
Client Sample ID:
Date/Time Sampled:
Project Number:
Project Name/Location:
09/10/19 / 14:00
3974
Alan Enterprise
B3-5'
SoilSample Matrix:
Lab Sample ID: 1909078-008A
SDG:
Prep Batch ID: 1116656
Prep Batch Date/Time:9/16/19 4:15:00PM
Prep Analyst:BJAY
Prep Method: 7471BP
Parameters:
Analytical
BatchUnitsQ
ResultsPQLMDLDF
Analyzed
Analysis
Method Time By
NDMercury 09/17/190.083 0.501 mg/Kg 442463SW7471B10:53 BJAY
Page 13 of 33Total Page Count: 33
SAMPLE RESULTS
Report prepared for:
Date Reported:09/18/19
Date/Time Received:09/11/19, 1:10 pm
Achievement Engineering Corp
Arash Firouzjaei
Client Sample ID:
Date/Time Sampled:
Project Number:
Project Name/Location:
09/10/19 / 14:00
3974
Alan Enterprise
B3-5'
SoilSample Matrix:
Lab Sample ID: 1909078-008A
SDG:
Prep Batch ID: 1116655
Prep Batch Date/Time:9/16/19 4:15:00PM
Prep Analyst:BJAY
Prep Method: 3050B
Parameters:
Analytical
BatchUnitsQ
ResultsPQLMDLDF
Analyzed
Analysis
Method Time By
NDAntimony 09/17/190.050 5.001 mg/Kg 442461SW6010B13:25 PPATEL
2.50Arsenic 09/17/190.15 1.301 mg/Kg 442461SW6010B13:25 PPATEL
150Barium 09/17/190.055 5.001 mg/Kg 442461SW6010B13:25 PPATEL
NDBeryllium 09/17/190.055 5.001 mg/Kg 442461SW6010B13:25 PPATEL
NDCadmium 09/17/190.10 5.001 mg/Kg 442461SW6010B13:25 PPATEL
56.6Chromium 09/17/190.075 5.001 mg/Kg 442461SW6010B13:25 PPATEL
14.7Cobalt 09/17/190.070 5.001 mg/Kg 442461SW6010B13:25 PPATEL
26.0Copper 09/17/190.20 5.001 mg/Kg 442461SW6010B13:25 PPATEL
4.92Lead 09/17/190.10 3.001 mg/Kg 442461SW6010B13:25 PPATEL
NDMolybdenum 09/17/190.050 5.001 mg/Kg 442461SW6010B13:25 PPATEL
41.3Nickel 09/17/190.50 5.001 mg/Kg 442461SW6010B13:25 PPATEL
NDSilver 09/17/190.15 5.001 mg/Kg 442461SW6010B13:25 PPATEL
72.1Vanadium 09/17/190.10 5.001 mg/Kg 442461SW6010B13:25 PPATEL
Page 14 of 33Total Page Count: 33
SAMPLE RESULTS
Report prepared for:
Date Reported:09/18/19
Date/Time Received:09/11/19, 1:10 pm
Achievement Engineering Corp
Arash Firouzjaei
Client Sample ID:
Date/Time Sampled:
Project Number:
Project Name/Location:
09/10/19 / 14:00
3974
Alan Enterprise
B3-5'
SoilSample Matrix:
Lab Sample ID: 1909078-008A
SDG:
Prep Batch ID: 1116655
Prep Batch Date/Time:9/16/19 4:15:00PM
Prep Analyst:BJAY
Prep Method: 3050B
Parameters:
Analytical
BatchUnitsQ
ResultsPQLMDLDF
Analyzed
Analysis
Method Time By
NDSelenium 09/17/190.22 5.001 mg/Kg 442473SW6010B16:09 PPATEL
52.8Zinc 09/17/190.30 5.001 mg/Kg 442473SW6010B16:09 PPATEL
Page 15 of 33Total Page Count: 33
SAMPLE RESULTS
Report prepared for:
Date Reported:09/18/19
Date/Time Received:09/11/19, 1:10 pm
Achievement Engineering Corp
Arash Firouzjaei
Client Sample ID:
Date/Time Sampled:
Project Number:
Project Name/Location:
09/10/19 / 14:00
3974
Alan Enterprise
B3-5'
SoilSample Matrix:
Lab Sample ID: 1909078-008A
SDG:
Prep Batch ID: 1116655
Prep Batch Date/Time:9/16/19 4:15:00PM
Prep Analyst:BJAY
Prep Method: 3050B
Parameters:
Analytical
BatchUnitsQ
ResultsPQLMDLDF
Analyzed
Analysis
Method Time By
The results shown below are reported using their MDL.
NDThallium 09/17/195.5 50.010 mg/Kg 442461SW6010B13:32 PPATEL
NOTE:Diluted due to suppression of the spectral signal in undiluted run
Page 16 of 33Total Page Count: 33
SAMPLE RESULTS
Report prepared for:
Date Reported:09/18/19
Date/Time Received:09/11/19, 1:10 pm
Achievement Engineering Corp
Arash Firouzjaei
Client Sample ID:
Date/Time Sampled:
Project Number:
Project Name/Location:
09/10/19 / 14:00
3974
Alan Enterprise
B3-5'
SoilSample Matrix:
Lab Sample ID: 1909078-008A
SDG:
Prep Batch ID: 1117290
Prep Batch Date/Time:10/10/19 3:50:00PM
Prep Analyst:BJAY
Prep Method: WET/3010B
Parameters:
Analytical
BatchUnitsQ
ResultsPQLMDLDF
Analyzed
Analysis
Method Time By
NDChromium (STLC)10/10/190.010 0.201 mg/L 443035SW6010B20:00 PPATEL
Page 17 of 33Total Page Count: 33
SAMPLE RESULTS
Report prepared for:
Date Reported:09/18/19
Date/Time Received:09/11/19, 1:10 pm
Achievement Engineering Corp
Arash Firouzjaei
Client Sample ID:
Date/Time Sampled:
Project Number:
Project Name/Location:
09/10/19 / 14:00
3974
Alan Enterprise
B3-5'
SoilSample Matrix:
Lab Sample ID: 1909078-008A
SDG:
Prep Batch ID: 1116553
Prep Batch Date/Time:9/12/19 2:43:00PM
Prep Analyst:EDORR
Prep Method: 3546_OCP
Parameters:
Analytical
BatchUnitsQ
ResultsPQLMDLDF
Analyzed
Analysis
Method Time By
NDalpha-BHC 09/13/190.13 2.01 ug/Kg 442401SW8081B15:25 LA
NDgamma-BHC (Lindane)09/13/190.16 2.01 ug/Kg 442401SW8081B15:25 LA
NDbeta-BHC 09/13/190.32 2.01 ug/Kg 442401SW8081B15:25 LA
NDdelta-BHC 09/13/190.16 2.01 ug/Kg 442401SW8081B15:25 LA
NDHeptachlor 09/13/190.11 2.01 ug/Kg 442401SW8081B15:25 LA
NDAldrin 09/13/190.20 2.01 ug/Kg 442401SW8081B15:25 LA
NDHeptachlor Epoxide 09/13/190.078 2.01 ug/Kg 442401SW8081B15:25 LA
NDgamma-Chlordane 09/13/190.16 2.01 ug/Kg 442401SW8081B15:25 LA
NDalpha-Chlordane 09/13/190.17 2.01 ug/Kg 442401SW8081B15:25 LA
ND4,4'-DDE 09/13/190.19 2.01 ug/Kg 442401SW8081B15:25 LA
NDEndosulfan I 09/13/190.18 2.01 ug/Kg 442401SW8081B15:25 LA
NDDieldrin 09/13/190.15 2.01 ug/Kg 442401SW8081B15:25 LA
NDEndrin 09/13/190.19 2.01 ug/Kg 442401SW8081B15:25 LA
ND4,4'-DDD 09/13/190.57 2.01 ug/Kg 442401SW8081B15:25 LA
NDEndosulfan II 09/13/190.58 2.01 ug/Kg 442401SW8081B15:25 LA
ND4,4'-DDT 09/13/190.13 2.01 ug/Kg 442401SW8081B15:25 LA
NDEndrin Aldehyde 09/13/190.15 2.01 ug/Kg 442401SW8081B15:25 LA
NDMethoxychlor 09/13/190.20 2.01 ug/Kg 442401SW8081B15:25 LA
NDEndosulfan Sulfate 09/13/190.12 2.01 ug/Kg 442401SW8081B15:25 LA
NDEndrin Ketone 09/13/190.094 2.01 ug/Kg 442401SW8081B15:25 LA
NDChlordane 09/13/192.1 201 ug/Kg 442401SW8081B15:25 LA
NDToxaphene 09/13/198.5 501 ug/Kg 442401SW8081B15:25 LA
Acceptance Limits
58.5TCMX (S) 09/13/19% 442401SW8081B15:25 LA48 - 125
64.5DCBP (S) 09/13/19% 442401SW8081B15:25 LA38 - 135
Page 18 of 33Total Page Count: 33
SAMPLE RESULTS
Report prepared for:
Date Reported:09/18/19
Date/Time Received:09/11/19, 1:10 pm
Achievement Engineering Corp
Arash Firouzjaei
Client Sample ID:
Date/Time Sampled:
Project Number:
Project Name/Location:
09/10/19 / 14:00
3974
Alan Enterprise
B3-5'
SoilSample Matrix:
Lab Sample ID: 1909078-008A
SDG:
Prep Batch ID: 1116592
Prep Batch Date/Time:9/13/19 12:50:00PM
Prep Analyst:EDORR
Prep Method: 3546_TPH
Parameters:
Analytical
BatchUnitsQ
ResultsPQLMDLDF
Analyzed
Analysis
Method Time By
x2.04TPH as Diesel 09/17/190.85 2.01 mg/Kg 442459SW8015B14:48 MK
NDTPH as Motor Oil 09/17/193.2 101 mg/Kg 442459SW8015B14:48 MK
Acceptance Limits
70.3Pentacosane (S) 09/17/19% 442459SW8015B14:48 MK59 - 129
NOTE:x-not typical of Diesel ref. std: peaks within Diesel range quantified as diesel
Page 19 of 33Total Page Count: 33
SAMPLE RESULTS
Report prepared for:
Date Reported:09/18/19
Date/Time Received:09/11/19, 1:10 pm
Achievement Engineering Corp
Arash Firouzjaei
Client Sample ID:
Date/Time Sampled:
Project Number:
Project Name/Location:
09/10/19 / 14:00
3974
Alan Enterprise
B3-5'
SoilSample Matrix:
Lab Sample ID: 1909078-008A
SDG:
Prep Batch ID: 1116690
Prep Batch Date/Time:9/16/19 9:43:00AM
Prep Analyst:BPATEL
Prep Method: 5035GRO
Parameters:
Analytical
BatchUnitsQ
ResultsPQLMDLDF
Analyzed
Analysis
Method Time By
NDTPH(Gasoline) 09/16/1943 1001 ug/Kg 4424418260TPH18:30 BP
99.2(S) 4-Bromofluorobenzene 09/16/19%4424418260TPH18:30 BP43.9 - 127
Page 20 of 33Total Page Count: 33
SAMPLE RESULTS
Report prepared for:
Date Reported:09/18/19
Date/Time Received:09/11/19, 1:10 pm
Achievement Engineering Corp
Arash Firouzjaei
Client Sample ID:
Date/Time Sampled:
Project Number:
Project Name/Location:
09/10/19 / 14:00
3974
Alan Enterprise
B3-5'
SoilSample Matrix:
Lab Sample ID: 1909078-008A
SDG:
Prep Batch ID: 1116658
Prep Batch Date/Time:9/16/19 9:43:00AM
Prep Analyst:BPATEL
Prep Method: 5035
Parameters:
Analytical
BatchUnitsQ
ResultsPQLMDLDF
Analyzed
Analysis
Method Time By
NDMTBE 09/16/192.3 101 ug/Kg 442441SW8260B18:30 BP
NDBenzene 09/16/192.2 101 ug/Kg 442441SW8260B18:30 BP
NDToluene 09/16/191.8 101 ug/Kg 442441SW8260B18:30 BP
NDEthylbenzene 09/16/191.7 101 ug/Kg 442441SW8260B18:30 BP
NDm,p-Xylene 09/16/193.2 101 ug/Kg 442441SW8260B18:30 BP
NDo-Xylene 09/16/191.7 101 ug/Kg 442441SW8260B18:30 BP
107(S) Dibromofluoromethane 09/16/19%442441SW8260B18:30 BP59.8 - 148
98.1(S) Toluene-d8 09/16/19%442441SW8260B18:30 BP55.2 - 133
88.4(S) 4-Bromofluorobenzene 09/16/19%442441SW8260B18:30 BP55.8 - 141
Page 21 of 33Total Page Count: 33
MB Summary Report
Work Order:
Matrix:
Units:
Prep Method:
SW8081BAnalytical
Method:
Prep Date:
Analyzed Date:
09/12/19 Prep Batch:
Analytical
Batch:ug/Kg
11165533546_OCP
Soil 442401
1909078
9/13/2019
Parameters
Method
Blank
Conc.
PQL MDL
Lab
Qualifier
0.13 2.0alpha-BHC ND
0.16 2.0gamma-BHC (Lindane)ND
0.32 2.0beta-BHC ND
0.16 2.0delta-BHC ND
0.11 2.0Heptachlor ND
0.20 2.0Aldrin ND
0.078 2.0Heptachlor Epoxide ND
0.16 2.0gamma-Chlordane ND
0.17 2.0alpha-Chlordane ND
0.19 2.04,4'-DDE ND
0.18 2.0Endosulfan I ND
0.15 2.0Dieldrin ND
0.19 2.0Endrin ND
0.57 2.04,4'-DDD ND
0.58 2.0Endosulfan II ND
0.13 2.04,4'-DDT ND
0.15 2.0Endrin Aldehyde ND
0.20 2.0Methoxychlor ND
0.12 2.0Endosulfan Sulfate ND
0.094 2.0Endrin Ketone ND
2.1 20Chlordane ND
8.5 50Toxaphene ND
TCMX (S) 89.1
DCBP (S) 100
Work Order:
Matrix:
Units:
Prep Method:
SW8015BAnalytical
Method:
Prep Date:
Analyzed Date:
09/13/19 Prep Batch:
Analytical
Batch:mg/Kg
11165923546_TPH
Soil 442459
1909078
9/14/2019
Parameters
Method
Blank
Conc.
PQL MDL
Lab
Qualifier
0.85 2.0TPH as Diesel 0.941
3.2 10TPH as Motor Oil ND
Pentacosane (S) 89.2
Page 22 of 33Total Page Count: 33
MB Summary Report
Work Order:
Matrix:
Units:
Prep Method:
SW6010BAnalytical
Method:
Prep Date:
Analyzed Date:
09/16/19 Prep Batch:
Analytical
Batch:mg/Kg
11166553050B
Soil 442461
1909078
9/17/2019
Parameters
Method
Blank
Conc.
PQL MDL
Lab
Qualifier
0.050 5.00Antimony ND
0.15 1.30Arsenic ND
0.055 5.00Barium 0.055
0.055 5.00Beryllium ND
0.10 5.00Cadmium ND
0.075 5.00Chromium ND
0.070 5.00Cobalt ND
0.20 5.00Copper 0.99
0.10 1.30Lead ND
0.050 5.00Molybdenum 0.050
0.50 5.00Nickel ND
0.15 5.00Silver ND
0.55 5.00Thallium ND
0.10 5.00Vanadium ND
Work Order:
Matrix:
Units:
Prep Method:
SW7471BAnalytical
Method:
Prep Date:
Analyzed Date:
09/16/19 Prep Batch:
Analytical
Batch:mg/Kg
11166567471BP
Soil 442463
1909078
9/17/2019
Parameters
Method
Blank
Conc.
PQL MDL
Lab
Qualifier
0.083 0.50Mercury ND
Page 23 of 33Total Page Count: 33
MB Summary Report
Work Order:
Matrix:
Units:
Prep Method:
SW8260BAnalytical
Method:
Prep Date:
Analyzed Date:
09/16/19 Prep Batch:
Analytical
Batch:ug/Kg
11166585035
Soil 442441
1909078
9/16/2019
Parameters
Method
Blank
Conc.
PQL MDL
Lab
Qualifier
1.2 10Dichlorodifluoromethane ND
1.8 10Chloromethane ND
2.0 10Vinyl Chloride ND
2.7 10Bromomethane ND
3.0 10Chloroethane ND
2.1 10Trichlorofluoromethane ND
2.0 101,1-Dichloroethene ND
1.9 10Freon 113 ND
7.1 10Methylene Chloride ND
2.1 10trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND
2.3 10MTBE ND
12 50TBA ND
2.3 10Diisopropyl ether ND
2.2 101,1-Dichloroethane ND
2.3 10Ethyl tert-Butyl ether ND
2.2 10cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND
1.9 102,2-Dichloropropane ND
2.3 10Bromochloromethane ND
2.4 10Chloroform ND
2.1 10Carbon Tetrachloride ND
2.1 101,1,1-Trichloroethane ND
2.0 101,1-Dichloropropene ND
2.2 10Benzene ND
2.3 10TAME ND
2.3 101,2-Dichloroethane ND
1.8 10Trichloroethylene ND
1.8 10Dibromomethane ND
1.9 101,2-Dichloropropane ND
2.0 10Bromodichloromethane ND
1.6 10cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND
1.8 10Toluene ND
1.7 10Tetrachloroethylene ND
1.6 10trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND
1.8 101,1,2-Trichloroethane ND
1.9 10Dibromochloromethane ND
1.8 101,3-Dichloropropane ND
1.8 101,2-Dibromoethane ND
1.8 10Chlorobenzene ND
1.7 10Ethylbenzene ND
1.9 101,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND
3.2 10m,p-Xylene ND
Page 24 of 33Total Page Count: 33
MB Summary Report
Work Order:
Matrix:
Units:
Prep Method:
SW8260BAnalytical
Method:
Prep Date:
Analyzed Date:
09/16/19 Prep Batch:
Analytical
Batch:ug/Kg
11166585035
Soil 442441
1909078
9/16/2019
Parameters
Method
Blank
Conc.
PQL MDL
Lab
Qualifier
1.7 10o-Xylene ND
1.6 10Styrene ND
1.7 10Bromoform ND
1.6 10Isopropyl Benzene ND
1.6 10n-Propylbenzene ND
1.8 10Bromobenzene ND
1.9 101,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND
1.8 102-Chlorotoluene ND
1.6 101,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND
1.9 101,2,3-Trichloropropane ND
1.6 104-Chlorotoluene ND
1.6 10tert-Butylbenzene ND
1.4 101,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND
1.6 10sec-Butyl Benzene ND
1.5 10p-Isopropyltoluene ND
1.7 101,3-Dichlorobenzene ND
1.7 101,4-Dichlorobenzene ND
1.5 10n-Butylbenzene ND
1.8 101,2-Dichlorobenzene ND
1.8 101,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane 3.7
1.4 10Hexachlorobutadiene 2.8
1.5 101,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND
1.7 10Naphthalene 4.0
1.7 101,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND
2.3 102-Butanone 2.9
2.0 104-Methyl-2-Pentanone ND
(S) Dibromofluoromethane 101
(S) Toluene-d8 93.8
(S) 4-Bromofluorobenzene 82.8
Work Order:
Matrix:
Units:
Prep Method:
SW8260BAnalytical
Method:
Prep Date:
Analyzed Date:
09/16/19 Prep Batch:
Analytical
Batch:mg/Kg
11166905035GRO
Soil 442441
1909078
9/16/2019
Parameters
Method
Blank
Conc.
PQL MDL
Lab
Qualifier
0.043 0.10TPH(Gasoline) 0.089
(S) 4-Bromofluorobenzene 112
Page 25 of 33Total Page Count: 33
MB Summary Report
Work Order:
Matrix:
Units:
Prep Method:
SW6010BAnalytical
Method:
Prep Date:
Analyzed Date:
10/10/19 Prep Batch:
Analytical
Batch:mg/L
1117290WET/3010B
Soil 443035
1909078
10/10/2019
Parameters
Method
Blank
Conc.
PQL MDL
Lab
Qualifier
0.010 0.20Chromium (STLC) 0.033
0.050 0.20Lead (STLC) 0.054
0.010 0.20Nickel (STLC) ND
Page 26 of 33Total Page Count: 33
LCS/LCSD Summary Report
Raw values are used in quality control assessment.
Work Order:
Matrix:
Units:
Prep Method:
Analytical
Method:
Prep Date:
Analyzed Date:
09/12/19 Prep Batch:
Analytical
Batch:
3546_OCP 1116553
9/13/2019SW8081B 442401
ug/Kg
1909078
Soil
Parameters MDL PQL
Method
Blank
Conc.
Spike
Conc.
LCS %
Recovery
LCSD %
Recovery
LCS/LCSD
% RPD
%
Recovery
Limits
% RPD
Limits
Lab
Qualifier
2.0 400.16 0.532 3025 - 135gamma-BHC (Lindane) 94.1 93.7ND
2.0 400.11 1.77 3040 - 130Heptachlor99.4 97.8ND
2.0 400.20 1.07 3025 - 140Aldrin 94.2 93.1ND
2.0 400.15 1.35 3060 - 130Dieldrin 93.0 91.7ND
2.0 400.19 3.08 3055 - 135Endrin 98.6 95.7ND
2.0 400.13 1.72 3045 - 1404,4'-DDT 102 101ND
100 48 - 125TCMX (S) 94.2 88.5
100 38 - 135DCBP (S) 108 98.5
Work Order:
Matrix:
Units:
Prep Method:
Analytical
Method:
Prep Date:
Analyzed Date:
09/13/19 Prep Batch:
Analytical
Batch:
3546_TPH 1116592
9/14/2019SW8015B 442459
mg/Kg
1909078
Soil
Parameters MDL PQL
Method
Blank
Conc.
Spike
Conc.
LCS %
Recovery
LCSD %
Recovery
LCS/LCSD
% RPD
%
Recovery
Limits
% RPD
Limits
Lab
Qualifier
2.0 25.00.85 7.16 3052 - 115TPH as Diesel 75.0 70.00.941
200 59 - 129Pentacosane (S) 81.1 77.2
Work Order:
Matrix:
Units:
Prep Method:
Analytical
Method:
Prep Date:
Analyzed Date:
09/16/19 Prep Batch:
Analytical
Batch:
3050B 1116655
9/17/2019SW6010B 442461
mg/Kg
1909078
Soil
Parameters MDL PQL
Method
Blank
Conc.
Spike
Conc.
LCS %
Recovery
LCSD %
Recovery
LCS/LCSD
% RPD
%
Recovery
Limits
% RPD
Limits
Lab
Qualifier
5.00 500.050 4.02 3080 - 120Antimony87.8 91.4ND
1.30 500.15 5.51 3080 - 120Arsenic88.3 93.3ND
5.00 500.055 4.97 3080 - 120Barium94.1 99.10.055
5.00 500.055 3.04 3080 - 120Beryllium90.8 93.6ND
5.00 500.10 4.54 3080 - 120Cadmium90.4 94.6ND
5.00 500.075 5.06 3080 - 120Chromium92.4 97.2ND
5.00 500.070 3.98 3080 - 120Cobalt88.6 92.1ND
5.00 500.20 4.10 3080 - 120Copper100 1050.99
3.00 500.10 5.54 3080 - 120Lead87.9 92.9ND
5.00 500.050 3.93 3080 - 120Molybdenum 94.7 98.50.050
5.00 500.50 4.01 3080 - 120Nickel87.9 91.6ND
5.00 500.15 2.37 3080 - 120Silver91.7 94.1ND
5.00 500.20 5.69 3080 - 120Thallium92.2 97.6ND
5.00 500.10 4.67 3080 - 120Vanadium96.2 101ND
Page 27 of 33Total Page Count: 33
LCS/LCSD Summary Report
Raw values are used in quality control assessment .
Work Order:
Matrix:
Units:
Prep Method:
Analytical
Method:
Prep Date:
Analyzed Date:
09/16/19 Prep Batch:
Analytical
Batch:
7471BP 1116656
9/17/2019SW7471B 442463
mg/Kg
1909078
Soil
Parameters MDL PQL
Method
Blank
Conc.
Spike
Conc.
LCS %
Recovery
LCSD %
Recovery
LCS/LCSD
% RPD
%
Recovery
Limits
% RPD
Limits
Lab
Qualifier
0.50 1.250.047 6.70 3080 - 120Mercury86.4 80.7ND
Work Order:
Matrix:
Units:
Prep Method:
Analytical
Method:
Prep Date:
Analyzed Date:
09/16/19 Prep Batch:
Analytical
Batch:
5035 1116658
9/16/2019SW8260B 442441
ug/Kg
1909078
Soil
Parameters MDL PQL
Method
Blank
Conc.
Spike
Conc.
LCS %
Recovery
LCSD %
Recovery
LCS/LCSD
% RPD
%
Recovery
Limits
% RPD
Limits
Lab
Qualifier
10 50.02.0 0.000 3053.7 - 1391,1-Dichloroethene 81.5 81.5ND
10 50.02.2 0.202 3066.5 - 135Benzene 98.9 98.7ND
10 50.01.8 1.16 3057.5 - 150Trichloroethylene 104 103ND
10 50.01.8 1.96 3056.8 - 134Toluene 101 103ND
10 50.01.8 1.18 3057.4 - 134Chlorobenzene 101 103ND
50.0 59.8 - 148(S) Dibromofluoromethane 108 105
50.0 55.2 - 133(S) Toluene-d8 100 99.0
50.0 55.8 - 141(S) 4-Bromofluorobenzene 96.7 95.7
Work Order:
Matrix:
Units:
Prep Method:
Analytical
Method:
Prep Date:
Analyzed Date:
09/16/19 Prep Batch:
Analytical
Batch:
5035GRO 1116690
9/16/2019SW8260B 442441
mg/Kg
1909078
Soil
Parameters MDL PQL
Method
Blank
Conc.
Spike
Conc.
LCS %
Recovery
LCSD %
Recovery
LCS/LCSD
% RPD
%
Recovery
Limits
% RPD
Limits
Lab
Qualifier
0.10 10.043 10.7 3048.2 - 132TPH(Gasoline) 106 1180.089
50 43.9 - 127(S) 4-Bromofluorobenzene 125 104
Work Order:
Matrix:
Units:
Prep Method:
Analytical
Method:
Prep Date:
Analyzed Date:
10/10/19 Prep Batch:
Analytical
Batch:
WET/3010B 1117290
10/10/2019SW6010B 443035
mg/L
1909078
Soil
Parameters MDL PQL
Method
Blank
Conc.
Spike
Conc.
LCS %
Recovery
LCSD %
Recovery
LCS/LCSD
% RPD
%
Recovery
Limits
% RPD
Limits
Lab
Qualifier
0.20 100.010 0.338 2080 - 120Chromium (STLC) 88.5 88.80.033
0.20 100.050 0.417 2080 - 120Lead (STLC) 95.7 96.10.054
0.20 100.010 0.240 2080 - 120Nickel (STLC) 83.3 83.5ND
Page 28 of 33Total Page Count: 33
MS/MSD Summary Report
Raw values are used in quality control assessment.
Work Order:1909078
Analyzed Date:
Prep Date:
Matrix:
Prep Method:09/13/19
1909078-008ASpiked Sample:
Analytical
Method:
Prep Batch:
Units:
Analytical
Batch:
11165923546_TPH
Soil 442459
mg/Kg
SW8015B 9/17/2019
Parameters MDL PQL Sample
Conc.
Spike
Conc.
MS %
Recovery
MSD %
Recovery
MS/MSD
% RPD
%
Recovery
Limits
% RPD
Limits
Lab
Qualifier
25.0 52 - 1150.850 2.00 9.32 30TPH as Diesel 71.3 75.4ND
200 59 - 129Pentacosane (S) 86.0 84.5
Page 29 of 33Total Page Count: 33
Laboratory Qualifiers and Definitions
Method Detection Limit (MDL)- the minimum concentration of a substance that can be measured and reported with a 99% confidence that the analyte
concentration is greater than zero
Matrix Spike (MS/MSD)- Client sample spiked with identical concentrations of target analyte (s). The spiking occurs prior to the sample preparation and
analysis. They are used to document the precision and bias of a method in a given sample matrix.
Matrix - the component or substrate that contains the analyte of interest (e.g., -groundwater, sediment, soil,waste water,etc)
Laboratory Control Sample (LCS ad LCSD)- A known matrix spiked with compounds representative of the target analyte(s). This is used to document
laboratory performance.
Duplicate - a field sample and/or laboratory QC sample prepared in duplicate following all of the same processes and procedures used on the original sample
(sample duplicate, LCSD, MSD)
Blank (Method/Preparation Blank)-MB/PB -An analyte-free matrix to which all reagents are added in the same volumes/proportions as used in sample
processing. The method blank is used to document contamination resulting from the analytical process.
Practical Quantitation Limit/Reporting Limit/Limit of Quantitation (PQL/RL/LOQ)- a laboratory determined value at 2 to 5 times above the MDL that can
be reproduced in a manner that results in a 99% confidence level that the result is both accurate and precise. PQLs/RLs/LODs reflect all preparation factors
and/or dilution factors that have been applied to the sample during the preparation and/or analytical processes.
Precision (%RPD)- The agreement among a set of replicate/duplicate measurements without regard to known value of the replicates
Surrogate (S) or (Surr)-An organic compound which is similar to the target analyte(s) in chemical composition and behavior in the analytical process, but
which is not normally found in environmental samples. Surrogates are used in most organic analysis to demonstrate matrix compatibility with the chosen method
of analysis
Tentatively Identified Compound (TIC) -A compound not contained within the analytical calibration standards but present in the GCMS library of defined
compounds. When the library is searched for an unknown compound, it can frequently give a tentative identification to the compound based on retention time
and primary and secondary ion match. TICs are reported as estimates and are candidates for further investigation.
Units:the unit of measure used to express the reported result -mg/L and mg/Kg (equivalent to PPM - parts per million in liquid and solid ),ug/L and ug/Kg
(equivalent to PPB - parts per billion in liquid and solid ),ug/m3,mg/m3,ppbv and ppmv (all units of measure for reporting concentrations in air),%(
equivalent to 10000 ppm or 1,000,000 ppb),ug/Wipe ( concentration found on the surface of a single Wipe usually taken over a 100cm2 surface)
B - Indicates when the analyte is found in the associated method or preparation blank
D - Surrogate is not recoverable due to the necessary dilution of the sample
E - Indicates the reportable value is outside of the calibration range of the instrument but within the linear range of the instrument (unless otherwise noted)
Values reported with an E qualifier should be considered as estimated.
H- Indicates that the recommended holding time for the analyte or compound has been exceeded
J- Indicates a value between the method MDL and PQL and that the reported concentration should be considered as estimated rather the quantitative
NA - Not Analyzed
N/A - Not Applicable
ND - Not Detected at a concentration greater than the PQL/RL or, if reported to the MDL, at greater than the MDL.
NR - Not recoverable - a matrix spike concentration is not recoverable due to a concentration within the original sample that is greater than four times the
spike concentration added
R- The % RPD between a duplicate set of samples is outside of the absolute values established by laboratory control charts
S- Spike recovery is outside of established method and/or laboratory control limits. Further explanation of the use of this qualifier should be included within a
case narrative
X -Used to indicate that a value based on pattern identification is within the pattern range but not typical of the pattern found in standards.
Further explanation may or may not be provided within the sample footnote and/or the case narrative.
DEFINITIONS:
Accuracy/Bias (% Recovery)- The closeness of agreement between an observed value and an accepted reference value.
LABORATORY QUALIFIERS:
Page 30 of 33Total Page Count: 33
Sample Receipt Checklist
Client Name: Achievement Engineering Corp
Project Name: Alan Enterprise
Work Order No.: 1909078
Date and Time Received: 9/11/2019 1:10:00PM
Received By: Helena Ueng
Physically Logged By: Helena Ueng
Carrier Name: Client Drop Off
Checklist Completed By: Helena Ueng
Samples transported on ice
Comments:
Chain of Custody (COC) Information
Shipping Container/Cooler In Good Condition?
Custody seals intact on shipping container/cooler?
Custody seals intact on sample bottles?
Chain of custody present?
Chain of custody signed when relinquished and received?
Chain of custody agrees with sample labels?
Samples in proper container/bottle?
Sufficient sample volume for indicated test?
All samples received within holding time?
Container/Temp Blank temperature in compliance?
Water-VOA vials have zero headspace?
Water-pH acceptable upon receipt?
Temperature:
Yes
Not Present
Not Present
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No VOA vials submitted
N/A
Samples containers intact?Yes
°C
Sample Receipt Information
Sample Preservation and Hold Time (HT) Information
pH Checked by: N/A pH Adjusted by: N/A
13.0
Page 31 of 33Total Page Count: 33
Login Summary Report
Report Due Date:
9/11/2019
IIAchievement Engineering CorpTL6309
Alan Enterprise
3974
9/18/2019
TAT Requested:
Date Received:
Time Received:
QC Level:
Project Name:
Project # :
Comments:
Client ID:
5+ day:5
1:10 pm
1909078Work Order # :
SubbedRequested
Tests
Test
On Hold
Sample
On Hold
Scheduled
Disposal
MatrixCollection
Date/Time
Client
Sample ID
WO Sample ID
B1-5'1909078-001A Soil 03/08/2009/10/19 10:38
Hold Samples
B1-15'1909078-002A Soil 03/08/2009/10/19 11:14
Hold Samples
B1-25'1909078-003A Soil 03/08/2009/10/19 11:58
TPHDO_S_8015(Mod
)
VOC_S_MBTEX
VOC_S_GRO
B1-35'1909078-004A Soil 03/08/2009/10/19 12:10
TPHDO_S_8015(Mod
)
VOC_S_MBTEX
VOC_S_GRO
B2-5'1909078-005A Soil 03/08/2009/10/19 11:30
Hold Samples
B2-15'1909078-006A Soil 03/08/2009/10/19 13:00
Hold Samples
B2-25'1909078-007A Soil 03/08/2009/10/19 12:30
TPHDO_S_8015(Mod
)
VOC_S_MBTEX
VOC_S_GRO
B3-5'1909078-008A Soil 03/08/2009/10/19 14:00
TPHDO_S_8015(Mod
)
Met_S_CAM17STLC
Pest_S_8081OCP
Met_S_6010B CAM17
Hg_S_7471B
VOC_S_MBTEX
VOC_S_GRO
B3-10'1909078-009A Soil 03/08/2009/10/19 15:00
Hold Samples
Page 32 of 33Total Page Count: 33
Page 33 of 33Total Page Count: 33
........................................................................................................................
A PPENDIX F :
N OISE D ATA
........................................................................................................................
Fundamentals of Noise
NOISE
Noise is most often defined as unwanted sound; whether it is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or otherwise
undesirable. Although sound can be easily measured, the perception of noise and the physical response to
sound complicate the analysis of its impact on people. People judge the relative magnitude of sound sensation
in subjective terms such as “noisiness” or “loudness.”
Noise Descriptors
The following are brief definitions of terminology used in this chapter:
Sound. A disturbance created by a vibrating object, which, when transmitted by pressure waves through
a medium such as air, is capable of being detected by a receiving mechanism, such as the human ear or a
microphone.
Noise. Sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or otherwise undesirable.
Decibel (dB). A unitless measure of sound, expressed on a logarithmic scale and with respect to a
defined reference sound pressure. The standard reference pressure is 20 micropascals (20 µPa).
A-Weighted Decibel (dBA). An overall frequency-weighted sound level in decibels that approximates
the frequency response of the human ear.
Equivalent Continuous Noise Level (Leq); also called the Energy-Equivalent Noise Level. The
value of an equivalent, steady sound level which, in a stated time period (often over an hour) and at a
stated location, has the same A-weighted sound energy as the time-varying sound. Thus, the Leq metric is
a single numerical value that represents the equivalent amount of variable sound energy received by a
receptor over the specified duration.
Statistical Sound Level (Ln). The sound level that is exceeded “n” percent of time during a given
sample period. For example, the L50 level is the statistical indicator of the time-varying noise signal that is
exceeded 50 percent of the time (during each sampling period); that is, half of the sampling time, the
changing noise levels are above this value and half of the time they are below it. This is called the
“median sound level.” The L10 level, likewise, is the value that is exceeded 10 percent of the time (i.e.,
near the maximum) and this is often known as the “intrusive sound level.” The L90 is the sound level
exceeded 90 percent of the time and is often considered the “effective background level” or “residual
noise level.”
Maximum Sound Level (Lmax). The highest RMS sound level measured during the measurement
period.
Root Mean Square Sound Level (RMS). The square root of the average of the square of the sound
pressure over the measurement period.
Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn or DNL). The energy-average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring
during a 24-hour period, with 10 dB added to the sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00
PM to 7:00 AM.
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The energy average of the A-weighted sound levels
occurring during a 24-hour period, with 5 dB added from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and 10 dB from 10:00
PM to 7:00 AM. NOTE: For general community/environmental noise, CNEL and Ldn values rarely differ
by more than 1 dB (with the CNEL being only slightly more restrictive – that is, higher than the Ldn
value). As a matter of practice, Ldn and CNEL values are interchangeable and are treated as equivalent in
this assessment.
Peak Particle Velocity (PPV). The peak rate of speed at which soil particles move (e.g., inches per
second) due to ground vibration.
Sensitive Receptor. Noise- and vibration-sensitive receptors include land uses where quiet environments
are necessary for enjoyment and public health and safety. Residences, schools, motels and hotels, libraries,
religious institutions, hospitals, and nursing homes are examples.
Characteristics of Sound
When an object vibrates, it radiates part of its energy in the form of a pressure wave. Sound is that pressure
wave transmitted through the air. Technically, airborne sound is a rapid fluctuation or oscillation of air
pressure above and below atmospheric pressure that creates sound waves.
Sound can be described in terms of amplitude (loudness), frequency (pitch), or duration (time). Loudness or
amplitude is measured in dB, frequency or pitch is measured in Hertz [Hz] or cycles per second, and duration
or time variations is measured in seconds or minutes.
Amplitude
Unlike linear units such as inches or pounds, decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale. Because of the
physical characteristics of noise transmission and perception, the relative loudness of sound does not closely
match the actual amounts of sound energy. Table 1 presents the subjective effect of changes in sound
pressure levels. Ambient sounds generally range from 30 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Chang es
of 1 to 3 dB are detectable under quiet, controlled conditions, and changes of less than 1 dB are usually not
discernible (even under ideal conditions). A 3 dB change in noise levels is considered the minimum change
that is detectable with human hearing in outside environments. A change of 5 dB is readily discernible to
most people in an exterior environment, and a 10 dB change is perceived as a doubling (or halving) of the
sound.
Table 1 Noise Perceptibility
Change in dB Noise Level
± 3 dB Barely perceptible increase
± 5 dB Readily perceptible increase
± 10 dB Twice or half as loud
± 20 dB Four times or one-quarter as loud
Source: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013, September. Technical Noise Supplement (“TeNS”).
Frequency
The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies. Sound waves below 16 Hz are not heard at all, but
are “felt” more as a vibration. Similarly, though people with extremely sensitive hearing can hear sounds as
high as 20,000 Hz, most people cannot hear above 15,000 Hz. In all cases, hearing acuity falls off rapidly
above about 10,000 Hz and below about 200 Hz.
When describing sound and its effect on a human population, A-weighted (dBA) sound levels are typically
used to approximate the response of the human ear. The A-weighted noise level has been found to correlate
well with people’s judgments of the “noisiness” of different sounds and has been used for many years as a
measure of community and industrial noise. Although the A-weighted scale and the energy-equivalent metric
are commonly used to quantify the range of human response to individual events or general community
sound levels, the degree of annoyance or other response also depends on several other perceptibility factors,
including:
Ambient (background) sound level
General nature of the existing conditions (e.g., quiet rural or busy urban)
Difference between the magnitude of the sound event level and the ambient condition
Duration of the sound event
Number of event occurrences and their repetitiveness
Time of day that the event occurs
Duration
Time variation in noise exposure is typically expressed in terms of a steady-state energy level equal to the
energy content of the time varying period (called Leq), or alternately, as a statistical description of the sound
level that is exceeded over some fraction of a given observation period. For example, the L50 noise level
represents the noise level that is exceeded 50 percent of the time; half the time the noise level exceeds this
level and half the time the noise level is less than this level. This level is also representative of the level that is
exceeded 30 minutes in an hour. Similarly, the L2, L8 and L25 values represent the noise levels that are
exceeded 2, 8, and 25 percent of the time or 1, 5, and 15 minutes per hour, respectively. These “n” values are
typically used to demonstrate compliance for stationary noise sources with many cities’ noise ordinances.
Other values typically noted during a noise survey are the Lmin and Lmax. These values represent the minimum
and maximum root-mean -square noise levels obtained over the measurement period, respectively.
Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night,
state law and many local jurisdictions use an adjusted 24-hour noise descriptor called the Community Noise
Equivalent Level (CNEL) or Day-Night Noise Level (Ldn). The CNEL descriptor requires that an artificial
increment (or “penalty”) of 5 dBA be added to the actual noise level for the hours from 7:00 PM to 10:00
PM and 10 dBA for the hours from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. The Ldn descriptor uses the same methodology
except that there is no artificial increment added to the hours between 7:00 PM and 10:00 PM. Both
descriptors give roughly the same 24-hour level, with the CNEL being only slightly more restrictive (i.e.,
higher). The CNEL or Ldn metrics are commonly applied to the assessment of roadway and airport-related
noise sources.
Sound Propagation
Sound dissipates exponentially with distance from the noise source. This phenomenon is known as
“spreading loss.” For a single-point source, sound levels decrease by approximately 6 dB for each doubling of
distance from the source (conservatively neglecting ground attenuation effects, air absorption factors, and
barrier shielding). For example, if a backhoe at 50 feet generates 84 dBA, at 100 feet the noise level would be
79 dBA, and at 200 feet it would be 73 dBA. This drop-off rate is appropriate for noise generated by on-site
operations from stationary equipment or activity at a project site. If noise is produced by a line source, such
as highway traffic, the sound decreases by 3 dB for each doubling of distance over a reflective (“hard site”)
surface such as concrete or asphalt. Line source noise in a relatively flat environment with ground-level
absorptive vegetation decreases by an additional 1.5 dB for each doubling of distance.
Psychological and Physiological Effects of Noise
Physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to noise levels higher than 85 dBA.
Exposure to high noise levels affects the entire system, with prolonged noise exposure in excess of 75 dBA
increasing body tensions, thereby affecting blood pressure and functions of the heart and the nervous system.
Extended periods of noise exposure above 90 dBA results in permanent cell damage, which is the main driver
for employee hearing protection regulations in the workplace. For community environments, the ambient or
background noise problem is widespread, through generally worse in urban areas than in outlying, less-
developed areas. Elevated ambient noise levels can result in noise interference (e.g., speech
interruption/masking, sleep disturbance, disturbance of concentration) and cause annoyance. Since most
people do not routinely work with decibels or A-weighted sound levels, it is often difficult to appreciate what
a given sound pressure level number means. To help relate noise level values to common experience, Table 2
shows typical noise levels from familiar sources.
Table 2 Typical Noise Levels
Common Outdoor Activities
Noise Level
(dBA) Common Indoor Activities
Onset of physical discomfort 120+
110 Rock Band (near amplification system)
Jet Flyover at 1,000 feet
100
Gas Lawn Mower at three feet
90
Diesel Truck at 50 feet, at 50 mph Food Blender at 3 feet
80 Garbage Disposal at 3 feet
Noisy Urban Area, Daytime
70 Vacuum Cleaner at 10 feet
Commercial Area Normal speech at 3 feet
Heavy Traffic at 300 feet 60
Large Business Office
Quiet Urban Daytime 50 Dishwasher Next Room
Quiet Urban Nighttime 40 Theater, Large Conference Room (background)
Quiet Suburban Nighttime
30 Library
Quiet Rural Nighttime Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (background)
20
Broadcast/Recording Studio
10
Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing 0 Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing
Source: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013, September. Technical Noise Supplement (“TeNS”).
Vibration Fundamentals
Vibration is an oscillatory motion through a solid medium in which the motion’s amplitude can be described
in terms of displacement, velocity, or acceleration. Vibration is normally associated with activities stemming
from operations of railroads or vibration-intensive stationary sources, but can also be associated with
construction equipment such as jackhammers, pile drivers, and hydraulic hammers. As with noise, vibration
can be described by both its amplitude and frequency. Vibration displacement is the distance that a point on a
surface moves away from its original static position; velocity is the instantaneous speed that a point on a
surface moves; and acceleration is the rate of change of the speed. Each of these descriptors can be used to
correlate vibration to human response, building damage, and acceptable equipment vibration levels. During
construction, the operation of construction equipment can cause groundborne vibration. During the
operational phase of a project, receptors may be subject to levels of vibration that can cause annoyance due
to noise generated from vibration of a structure or items within a structure.
Vibration amplitudes are usually described in terms of either the peak particle velocity (PPV) or the root
mean square (RMS) velocity. PPV is the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal and RMS is the
square root of the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. PPV is more appropriate for evaluating
potential building damage and RMS is typically more suitable for evaluating human response.
As with airborne sound, annoyance with vibrational energy is a subjective measure, depending on the level of
activity and the sensitivity of the individual. To sensitive individuals, vibrations approaching the threshold of
perception can be annoying. Persons accustomed to elevated ambient vibration levels, such as in an urban
environment, may tolerate higher vibration levels. Table 3 displays the human response and the effects on
buildings resulting from continuous vibration (in terms of various levels of PPV).
Table 3 Human Reaction to Typical Vibration Levels
Vibration Level,
PPV (in/sec) Human Reaction Effect on Buildings
0.006–0.019 Threshold of perception, possibility of intrusion Vibrations unlikely to cause damage of any type
0.08 Vibrations readily perceptible Recommended upper level of vibration to which ruins
and ancient monuments should be subjected
0.10 Level at which continuous vibration begins to annoy
people
Virtually no risk of “architectural” (i.e. not structural)
damage to normal buildings
0.20 Vibrations annoying to people in buildings
Threshold at which there is a risk to “architectural”
damage to normal dwelling – houses with plastered
walls and ceilings
0.4–0.6
Vibrations considered unpleasant by people
subjected to continuous vibrations and unacceptable
to some people walking on bridges
Vibrations at a greater level than normally expected
from traffic, but would cause “architectural” damage
and possibly minor structural damage
Source: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013, September. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual.
LOCAL REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
CONSTRUCTION NOISE MODELING
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 06/10/2020
Case Description: COCU-18
**** Receptor #1 ****
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
----------- -------- ------- ------- -----
Building Construction Residential 65.0 60.0 55.0
Equipment
---------
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device (%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
----------- ------ ----- ----- ----- -------- ---------
Crane No 16 80.6 50.0 0.0
Generator No 50 80.6 50.0 0.0
Tractor No 40 84.0 50.0 0.0
Results
-------
Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
---------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------
Calculated (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
---------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
Equipment Lmax L10 Lmax L10 Lmax L10 Lmax L10 Lmax L10 Lmax L10
Lmax L10
---------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Crane 80.6 75.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Generator 80.6 80.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Tractor 84.0 83.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Total 84.0 85.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 06/10/2020
Case Description: COCU-18
**** Receptor #1 ****
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
----------- -------- ------- ------- -----
Demolition Residential 65.0 60.0 55.0
Equipment
---------
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device (%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
----------- ------ ----- ----- ----- -------- ---------
Concrete Saw No 20 89.6 50.0 0.0
Dozer No 40 81.7 50.0 0.0
Tractor No 40 84.0 50.0 0.0
Results
-------
Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
---------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------
Calculated (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
---------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
Equipment Lmax L10 Lmax L10 Lmax L10 Lmax L10 Lmax L10 Lmax L10
Lmax L10
---------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Concrete Saw 89.6 85.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Dozer 81.7 80.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Tractor 84.0 83.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Total 89.6 88.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 06/10/2020
Case Description: COCU-18
**** Receptor #1 ****
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
----------- -------- ------- ------- -----
Grading Residential 65.0 60.0 55.0
Equipment
---------
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device (%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
----------- ------ ----- ----- ----- -------- ---------
Grader No 40 85.0 50.0 0.0
Dozer No 40 81.7 50.0 0.0
Tractor No 40 84.0 50.0 0.0
Results
-------
Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
---------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------
Calculated (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
---------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
Equipment Lmax L10 Lmax L10 Lmax L10 Lmax L10 Lmax L10 Lmax L10
Lmax L10
---------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Grader 85.0 84.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Dozer 81.7 80.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Tractor 84.0 83.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Total 85.0 87.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 06/10/2020
Case Description: COCU-18
**** Receptor #1 ****
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
----------- -------- ------- ------- -----
Paving/Arch Coating Residential 65.0 60.0 55.0
Equipment
---------
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device (%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
----------- ------ ----- ----- ----- -------- ---------
Pavement Scarafier No 20 89.5 50.0 0.0
Roller No 20 80.0 50.0 0.0
Tractor No 40 84.0 50.0 0.0
Results
-------
Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
---------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------
Calculated (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
---------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
Equipment Lmax L10 Lmax L10 Lmax L10 Lmax L10 Lmax L10 Lmax L10
Lmax L10
---------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Pavement Scarafier 89.5 85.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Roller 80.0 76.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Tractor 84.0 83.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Total 89.5 87.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 06/10/2020
Case Description: COCU-18
**** Receptor #1 ****
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
----------- -------- ------- ------- -----
Site Preperation Residential 65.0 60.0 55.0
Equipment
---------
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device (%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
----------- ------ ----- ----- ----- -------- ---------
Grader No 40 85.0 50.0 0.0
Scraper No 40 83.6 50.0 0.0
Tractor No 40 84.0 50.0 0.0
Results
-------
Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
---------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------
Calculated (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
---------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
Equipment Lmax L10 Lmax L10 Lmax L10 Lmax L10 Lmax L10 Lmax L10
Lmax L10
---------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Grader 85.0 84.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Scraper 83.6 82.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Tractor 84.0 83.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Total 85.0 88.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 06/10/2020
Case Description: COCU-18
**** Receptor #1 ****
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
----------- -------- ------- ------- -----
Building Construction Residential 65.0 60.0 55.0
Equipment
---------
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device (%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
----------- ------ ----- ----- ----- -------- ---------
Crane No 16 80.6 50.0 0.0
Generator No 50 80.6 50.0 0.0
Tractor No 40 84.0 50.0 0.0
Results
-------
Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
---------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------
Calculated (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
---------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
Equipment Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Lmax Leq
---------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Crane 80.6 72.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Generator 80.6 77.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Tractor 84.0 80.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Total 84.0 82.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 06/10/2020
Case Description: COCU-18
**** Receptor #1 ****
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
----------- -------- ------- ------- -----
Demolition Residential 65.0 60.0 55.0
Equipment
---------
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device (%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
----------- ------ ----- ----- ----- -------- ---------
Concrete Saw No 20 89.6 50.0 0.0
Dozer No 40 81.7 50.0 0.0
Tractor No 40 84.0 50.0 0.0
Results
-------
Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
---------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------
Calculated (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
---------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
Equipment Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Lmax Leq
---------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Concrete Saw 89.6 82.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Dozer 81.7 77.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Tractor 84.0 80.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Total 89.6 85.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 06/10/2020
Case Description: COCU-18
**** Receptor #1 ****
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
----------- -------- ------- ------- -----
Grading Residential 65.0 60.0 55.0
Equipment
---------
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device (%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
----------- ------ ----- ----- ----- -------- ---------
Grader No 40 85.0 50.0 0.0
Dozer No 40 81.7 50.0 0.0
Tractor No 40 84.0 50.0 0.0
Results
-------
Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
---------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------
Calculated (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
---------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
Equipment Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Lmax Leq
---------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Grader 85.0 81.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Dozer 81.7 77.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Tractor 84.0 80.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Total 85.0 84.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Paving&ArchCoating
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 07/07/2020
Case Description: COCU‐18
**** Receptor #1 ****
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐
Paving/Arch Coating Residential 65.0 60.0 55.0
Equipment
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device (%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Pavement Scarafier No 20 89.5 50.0 0.0
Roller No 20 80.0 50.0 0.0
Tractor No 40 84.0 50.0 0.0
Results
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Noise Limits (dBA)
Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Calculated (dBA) Day Evening
Night Day Evening Night
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Equipment Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax
Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐
‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐
Pavement Scarafier 89.5 82.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Roller 80.0 73.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Tractor 84.0 80.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 89.5 84.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Page 1
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 06/10/2020
Case Description: COCU-18
**** Receptor #1 ****
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
----------- -------- ------- ------- -----
Site Preperation Residential 65.0 60.0 55.0
Equipment
---------
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device (%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
----------- ------ ----- ----- ----- -------- ---------
Grader No 40 85.0 50.0 0.0
Scraper No 40 83.6 50.0 0.0
Tractor No 40 84.0 50.0 0.0
Results
-------
Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
---------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------
Calculated (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
---------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
Equipment Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Lmax Leq
---------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Grader 85.0 81.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Scraper 83.6 79.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Tractor 84.0 80.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Total 85.0 85.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Construction Activities dBA L10 distance (ft)dBA L10 distance (ft)
Demolition 88.3 85.4
Site Preparation 88.0 85.1
Grading 87.6 84.7
Building Construction 85.5 82.6
Construction Activities dBA L10 distance (ft)dBA L10 distance (ft)
Demolition 85.4 79.7
Site Preparation 85.1 79.4
Grading 84.7 79.0
Building Construction 82.6 76.9
Paving 87.8 50 78.3 150
Construction Activities dBA L10 distance (ft)dBA L10 distance (ft)
Demolition 85.4 76.9
Site Preparation 85.1 76.6
Grading 84.7 76.2
Building Construction 82.6 74.1
Paving 87.8 50 76.9 175
Construction Activities dBA L10 distance (ft)dBA L10 distance (ft)
Demolition 85.4 74.3
Site Preparation 85.1 74.0
Grading 84.7 73.6
Building Construction 82.6 71.5
Paving 87.8 50 74.2 240
Attenuation calculated through Inverse Square Law: Lp(R2) = Lp(R1) - 20Log(R2/R1)
70 135
RCNM Reference Senstive Receptors to South
50 70
Attenuation Calculation, L10
Senstive Receptors to South Senstive Receptors to North
Senstive Receptors to South Sensitive Receptors to Southeast
70 185
Senstive Receptors to South Sensistive Receptors to West
70 250
Construction Activities dBA Leq
distance (ft)dBA Leq distance (ft)
Demolition 85.3 82.4
Site Preparation 85 82.1
Grading 84.6 81.7
Building Construction 82.5 79.6
Construction Activities dBA Leq distance (ft)dBA Leq distance (ft)
Demolition 82.4 76.7
Site Preparation 82.1 76.4
Grading 81.7 76.0
Building Construction 79.6 73.9
Paving 84.8 50 75.3 150
Construction Activities dBA Leq distance (ft)dBA Leq distance (ft)
Demolition 82.4 73.9
Site Preparation 82.1 73.6
Grading 81.7 73.2
Building Construction 79.6 71.1
Paving 84.8 50 73.9 175
Construction Activities dBA Leq distance (ft)dBA Leq distance (ft)
Demolition 82.4 71.3
Site Preparation 82.1 71.0
Grading 81.7 70.6
Building Construction 79.6 68.5
Paving 84.8 50 71.2 240
Attenuation calculated through Inverse Square Law: Lp(R2) = Lp(R1) - 20Log(R2/R1)
Senstive Receptors to South Sensistive Receptors to West
70 250
Senstive Receptors to South Sensitive Receptors to Southeast
70 185
Attenuation Calculation, Leq
Senstive Receptors to South Senstive Receptors to North
70 135
RCNM Reference Senstive Receptors to South
50 70
........................................................................................................................
A PPENDIX G :
T RANSPORTATION D ATA
........................................................................................................................
Memorandum
Date: January 10, 2020
To: Mr. Ali Mozaffari, Alan Enterprise, LLC
From: Brian Jackson
Subject: Trip Generation Study for a Residential Project on Stevens Creek Bl in Cupertino, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has completed a trip generation study for a proposed
residential development at 22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino, California. As proposed,
the project would demolish an existing convenience market/liquor store and construct 9 three-story
residential units. Each single-family residential unit would have a two-car garage. Eight additional
parking spaces would be provided on-site.
The purpose of this trip generation study is to document the projected number of net new AM and
PM peak hour vehicle trips generated by the proposed residential project. The City of Cupertino
typically does not require preparation of a comprehensive transportation impact analysis, including
an evaluation of intersection level of service, for projects deemed “small”. For small projects, a trip
generation analysis usually is sufficient. Based on a preliminary evaluation of the proposed project
and the previous use to be replaced, City of Cupertino staff have indicated that a trip generation
study will suffice. Additionally, City of Cupertino staff have requested that vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) be reported for existing and project conditions for informational purposes.
Project Trip Generation
Hexagon prepared project trip estimates based on trip generation rates obtained from the ITE Trip
Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017). The average weekday daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak
hour trip generation rates for Single-Family Housing (Land Use 210) were applied to the proposed
project. Single-family detached units have the highest trip generation rate per dwelling unit of all
residential uses because they are the largest units in size and have more residents and more
vehicles per unit than other residential land uses. Based on the ITE rates for Single-Family
Housing, the proposed project would be expected to generate 85 gross daily vehicle trips, with 7
gross trips occurring during the weekday AM peak hour of traffic (one-hour period between 7:00 AM
and 9:00 AM) and 9 gross trips occurring during the weekday PM peak hour of traffic (one-hour
period between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM).
Trip credits associated with the existing liquor store/convenience market to be removed can be
applied to the project trip generation estimates. The weekday daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak
hour vehicular trips generated by the existing building were estimated using standard ITE trip rates
for Convenience Market (Land Use 851) because the store closed in December of 2019. The
Convenience Market category is defined as markets that are open between 15 and 24 hours per
day and that sell convenience foods, newspapers, magazines, and often beer and wine, but do not
provide gasoline pumps. Based on the ITE rates for a 2,400 square foot (s.f.) Convenience Market,
the previous use is estimated to have generated 1,829 gross daily vehicle trips, with 150 gross trips
occurring during the weekday AM peak hour and 118 gross trips occurring during the weekday PM
peak hour.
Trip Generation Study for the 22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard Residential Project January 10, 2020
P a g e | 2
After applying the estimated trip credits associated with the previous use on the site, the 9-unit
residential project would be expected to generate 1,744 fewer daily vehicle trips than the previous
use, with 143 fewer trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 109 fewer trips occurring during
the PM peak hour (see Table 1).
Table 1
Project Trip Generation Estimates
Transportation Policy Change
Historically, traffic impact analysis has focused on the identification of traffic impacts and potential
roadway improvements based on auto delay to relieve traffic congestion that may result due to
planned growth. However, with the adoption of the State of California Senate Bill 743 (SB 743), all
public agencies will be required by July 2020 to base transportation impacts on vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) rather than level of service (LOS). The change in measurement is intended to better
evaluate the effects on the state’s goals for climate change and multi-modal transportation. In
adherence with SB 743 legislation, the City of Cupertino intends to adopt a new Transportation
Analysis Policy prior to July 2020. The new City Policy ultimately will establish the thresholds for
transportation impacts under CEQA based on VMT rather than intersection LOS. The intent of this
change is to shift the focus of transportation analysis under CEQA from vehicle delay and roadway
auto capacity to a reduction in vehicle emissions, and the creation of robust multimodal networks
that support integrated land uses. Starting in July 2020, all new projects in the City of Cupertino will
be required to analyze transportation impacts using the VMT metric. In the interim, automobile
delay is still considered the standard metric in determining a significant impact, and the City of
Cupertino will continue to apply the current LOS criteria.
VMT Evaluation
VMT is the total miles of travel by personal motorized vehicles a project is expected to generate in a
day. VMT measures the full distance of personal motorized vehicle-trips with one end within the
project and is a useful metric in understanding the overall effects of a project on the transportation
system. Many factors affect travel behavior and trip lengths such as density of land use, diversity of
land uses, design of the transportation network, distance to high-quality transit, and demographics.
Low-density development separated from other land uses and located in areas with poor access to
transit generates more automobile travel and higher VMT compared to development located in
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Daily Daily
Land Use Rate
Trips Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total
Proposed Use
Attached Residential 1 9 DU 9.44 85 0.74 2 5 7 0.99 6 3 9
Existing Use
Convenience Market 2 2,400 SF 762.28 1,829 62.54 75 75 150 49.11 60 58 118
Net Project Trips: (1,744) (73) (70) (143) (54) (55) (109)
Size
Notes:
1 Trip generation based on average rates contained in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, for Single-Family Housing (Land Use
210), located in a General Urban/Suburban setting. Rates are expressed in trips per dwelling unit (DU).
2 Convenience Market (Land Use 851) average rates from ITE Trip Generation, 10th Edition (2017) were used for the existing building (Bateh
Bros. Liquors & MiniMart). The size of the existing building was estimated using the Existing Conditions plan prepared by BKF Engineers.
Trip Generation Study for the 22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard Residential Project January 10, 2020
P a g e | 3
urban areas with more access to transit. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod)
was used to estimate the VMT for existing and project conditions for informational purposes.
Based on the CalEEMod tool, the existing retail use on the site (a 2,400 s.f. convenience market)
has an approximate daily VMT of 3,800 miles. The proposed 9-unit residential project would
produce an approximate daily VMT of 538 miles based on the CalEEMod calculations. This equates
to a daily reduction of 3,262 VMT for the site with the project.