Cupertino City Council
July 1, 2025

Tuesday, July 1, 2025
5:30 PM

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Special Meeting Non-Televised Closed Session (5:30) and Televised Regular Meeting (6:45)
10300 Torre Avenue and 10350 Torre Avenue and via Teleconference City Council

LIANG CHAO, MAYOR

KITTY MOORE, VICE MAYOR
J.R. FRUEN, COUNCILMEMBER

SHEILA MOHAN, COUNCILMEMBER
R "RAY" WANG, COUNCILMEMBER

IN PERSON AND TELECONFERENCE MEETING
For more information:
(408) 777-3200 | www.cupertino.gov
AGENDA
1 CC 07/01/2025
1 of 1130
City Council Agenda July 1, 2025

IN-PERSON AND TELECONFERENCE / PUBLIC PARTICIPATION INFORMATION Members of the public wishing to observe the meeting may do so in one of the following ways:
1) Attend in person at Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue. 2) Tune to Comcast Channel 26 and AT&T U-Verse Channel 99 on your TV. 3) The meeting will also be streamed live on and online at www.Cupertino.org/youtube and www.Cupertino.org/webcast
Members of the public wishing to comment on an item on the agenda may do so in the following ways:
1) Appear in person for Closed Session in City Hall, Conference Room C or for Open Session in Cupertino Community Hall.

Members of the public may provide oral public comments during the Open Session as follows:

Oral public comments will be accepted during the meeting. Comments may be made during “oral communications” for matters not on the agenda, and during the public comment period for each agenda item.

Members of the audience who address the City Council must come to the lectern/microphone, and are requested to complete a Speaker Card and identify themselves.

Completion of Speaker Cards and identifying yourself is voluntary and not required to attend the meeting or provide comments.
2) E-mail comments for Closed Session or Open Session by 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 1 to the Council at [email protected]. These e-mail comments will also be received by each City Councilmember, the City Manager, and the City Clerk’s Office. Comments on non-agenda items sent to any other email address will be included upon the sender's request.

Emailed comments received following the agenda publication, prior to or during the meeting, will be posted to the City’s website.

Members of the public may provide oral public comments during the Meeting as follows:

Oral public comments will be accepted during the meeting. Comments may be made during “oral communications” for matters not on the agenda, and during the public

2 CC 07/01/2025
2 of 1130
City Council Agenda July 1, 2025
comment period for each agenda item.

Oral public comments may be made during the public comment period for each agenda item.

Members of the audience who address the City Council must come to the lectern/microphone, and are requested to complete a Speaker Card and identify themselves.

Completion of Speaker Cards and identifying yourself is voluntary and not required to attend the meeting or provide comments.
3) Open Session Teleconferencing Instructions
To address the City Council, click on the link below to register in advance and access the meeting:

Online
Register in advance for this webinar:
https://cityofcupertino.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_N9FRcfU_TeCxok9sfoVzvQ Phone
Dial: 669-900-6833 and enter Webinar ID: 842 8009 9205 (Type *9 to raise hand to speak, *6 to unmute yourself). Unregistered participants will be called on by the last four digits of their phone number.

Join from an H.323/SIP room system:

H.323:
144.195.19.161 (US West)
206.247.11.121 (US East)
Meeting ID: 842 8009 9205
SIP: [email protected]
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.

Please read the following instructions carefully:

1. You can directly download the teleconference software or connect to the meeting in your internet browser. If you are using your browser, make sure you are using a current and up-to-date browser: Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers, including Internet Explorer.

3 CC 07/01/2025
3 of 1130
City Council Agenda July 1, 2025

2. You will be asked to enter an email address and a name, followed by an email with instructions on how to connect to the meeting. Your email address will not be disclosed to the public. If you wish to make an oral public comment but do not wish to provide your name, you may enter “Cupertino Resident” or similar designation.

3. When the Mayor calls for the item on which you wish to speak, click on “raise hand,” or, if you are calling in, press *9. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak.

4. When called, please limit your remarks to the time allotted and the specific agenda topic.

5. Members of the public that wish to share a document must email [email protected] prior to the meeting. These documents will be posted to the City’s website after the meeting.

NOTICE AND CALL FOR A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a special meeting of the Cupertino City Council is hereby called for Tuesday, July 01, 2025, commencing at 5:30 p.m. in City Hall, Conference Room C, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014. Said special meeting shall be for the purpose of conducting business on the subject matters listed below under the heading, “Special Meeting."

SPECIAL MEETING
ROLL CALL - 5:30 PM
10300 Torre Avenue, Conference Room C

CLOSED SESSION

1. Subject: Conference with legal counsel - existing litigation; California Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) and 54954.5(c): Lixin (Leon) Chen, et al. v. City of Cupertino, et al., Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 25CV462857 and Yes In My Back Yard, et al. v. City of Cupertino, et al., Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 25CV263924

2. Subject: Conference with legal counsel - anticipated litigation; California Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4) and 54954.5(c): (six cases)

ADJOURNMENT

REGULAR MEETING
CALL TO ORDER - 6:45 PM

4 CC 07/01/2025
4 of 1130
City Council Agenda July 1, 2025
10350 Torre Avenue, Community Hall and via Teleconference

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL

CLOSED SESSION REPORT

CEREMONIAL ITEMS

1. Subject: Proclamation recognizing July as Parks and Recreation Month Recommended Action: Recognize July as Parks and Recreation Month A - Proclamation

PRESENTATIONS

2. Subject: Project Update Presentation by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen) Board Member
Recommended Action: Receive Project Update Presentation by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen) Board Member

POSTPONEMENTS AND ORDERS OF THE DAY

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Council on any matter within the jurisdiction of the Council and not on the agenda for discussion. The total time for Oral Communications will ordinarily be limited to one hour. Individual speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. As necessary, the Chair may further limit the time allowed to individual speakers, or reschedule remaining comments to the end of the meeting on a first come first heard basis, with priority given to students. In most cases, State law will prohibit the Council from discussing or making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda. A councilmember may, however, briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by speakers. A councilmember may also ask a question for clarification, provide a reference for factual information, request staff to report back concerning a matter, or request that an item be added to a future City Council agenda in response to public comment.

CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 3-11)
Items appearing on the Consent Calendar are considered routine City business and may be approved by one motion. Typical items may include meeting minutes, awards of contracts, the ratification of accounts payable, and second readings of ordinances. Any member of the Council may request to have an item removed from the Consent Calendar based on the rules set forth in the City Council Procedures Manual. Members of the public may provide input on one or more consent calendar items when the Mayor asks for public comments on the Consent Calendar.

5 CC 07/01/2025
5 of 1130
City Council Agenda July 1, 2025

3. Subject: Approval of May 28, 2025 City Council meeting minutes Recommended Action: Approve the May 28, 2025 City Council meeting minutes A - Draft Minutes

4. Subject: Approval of May 29, 2025 City Council meeting minutes Recommended Action: Approve the May 29, 2025 City Council meeting minutes A - Draft Minutes

5. Subject: Approval of June 6, 2025 City Council meeting minutes Recommended Action: Approve the June 6, 2025 City Council meeting minutes A - Draft Minutes

6. Subject: Approval of June 17, 2025 City Council minutes Recommended Action: Approve the June 17, 2025 City Council minutes A - Draft Minutes

7. Subject: Approval of updated future agenda items requested by City Councilmembers ("TBD List") (Continued from April 15, 2025 and May 6, 2025) Recommended Action: Approve the updated future agenda items requested by City Councilmembers ("TBD List")
Staff Report
A - February 2025 TBD List with Adopted Motion
B - July 2025 TBD List

8. Subject: Appoint a negotiator for the potential purchase of 10480 Finch Avenue, owned by the Cupertino Unified School District, adjacent to Sedgwick Elementary School.

Recommended Action: Appoint the Interim City Attorney and Acting City Manager to negotiate with the Superintendent of the Cupertino Unified School District or her designee regarding the possible purchase of 10480 Finch Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014, Assessor’s Parcel Number 375-40-067, from Cupertino Unified School District on terms established by the City Council.

Staff Report
A - Preliminary Environmental Assessment (September 2015) B - Supplemental Site Investigation (November 2015)
C - School Cleanup Agreement with DTSC (June 2017)
D - Removal Action Workplan (January 2018)
E - Hazardous Materials Management Report (June 2018)
F - Report Action Certification (May 2019)

9. Subject: Award of a design professional services agreement to DIALOG Design LP for the City Annex Improvements project (420-99-248) for the renovation of an existing building located at 10455 Torre Avenue for a total not-to-exceed amount of $493,243.

6 CC 07/01/2025
6 of 1130
City Council Agenda July 1, 2025
Recommended Action: 1. Award a design professional services agreement to DIALOG Design LP for the City Hall Annex Project in the amount not to exceed $448,243; and

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute a Design Professional Services Agreement with DIALOG Design LP when all conditions have been met; and

3. Authorize the Director of Public Works to execute any necessary services or change orders, up to a contingency amount of $45,000 (approximately 10% of base services,) for a total contact amount of $493,243.

Staff Report
A - Draft Agreement-Dialog

10. Subject: Accept Ad-Hoc Legislative Review Committee (LRC) City Council Subcommittee recommendation regarding Assembly Bill (AB) 306 Recommended Action: Accept the Ad-Hoc LRC City Council Subcommittee recommendation to oppose AB 306 and authorize the Mayor to send position letters to the state legislature
A - Subcommittee Report
B - AB 306 Opposition Letter

11. Subject: Approve a budget adjustment for a new special project, in I&T Applications Division for Digital Accessibility services to evaluate Cupertino’s website, including a full Accessibility Audit with a comprehensive report, support for WCAG 2.1 AA compliance remediation, PDF accessibility remediation, and staff training.

Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 25-052 approving Budget Modification No. 2526-397, increasing appropriations by $50,687 in 100-32-308 750-282 Staff Report
A - Draft Resolution

PUBLIC HEARINGS
Government Code Section 65103.5 limits the distribution of copyrighted material associated with the review of development projects. Members of the public wishing to view plans that cannot otherwise be distributed under Govt. Code Section 65103.5 may make an appointment with the Planning Division to view them at City Hall by sending an email to [email protected]. Plans will also be made available digitally during the hearing to consider the proposal.

12. Subject: Public hearing to consider a Development Permit, Use Permit, Tentative Map, Architectural and Site Approval, and Tree Removal Permit to consider the construction of a 59-unit townhome condominium development. The project utilizes Senate Bill 330 and provisions of State Density Bonus law. (Application No(s): DP-2024-002, U-2024-007, TM-2024-001, ASA-2024-005, TR-2024-024; Applicant(s): SummerHill Homes, LLC; Location: 20770, 20830, and 20840 Stevens Creek Blvd; APNs: 359-08-025, -026, -027, and-028 (partial).)

7 CC 07/01/2025
7 of 1130
City Council Agenda July 1, 2025
Recommended Action: The Planning Commission considered this item at its regular meeting on June 10, 2025, and with a 5-0 vote that the City Council:

1. Find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);

2. Make the required findings of No Net Loss (SB 166); and

3. Approve the following permits:
a. Adopt Resolution No. 25-053 approving Development Permit (DP-2024-002) (Attachment A);
b. Adopt Resolution No. 25-054 approving Use Permit (U-2024-007) (Attachment B); c. Adopt Resolution No. 25-055 approving Architectural & Site Approval Permit (ASA-2024-005) (Attachment C);
d. Adopt Resolution No. 25-056 approving Tentative Final Map (TM-2024-001) (Attachment D); and
e. Adopt Resolution No. 25-057 approving Tree Removal Permit (TR-2024-024) (Attachment E).

Environmental Recommendation: Subject to Government Code section 65759(a) and exempt from CEQA under Section 15332.

Staff Report
A - CC Draft Resolution for DP-2024-002
B - CC Draft Resolution for U-2024-007
C - CC Draft Resolution for ASA-2024-005
D - CC Draft Resolution for TM-2024-001
E - CC Draft Resolution for TR-2024-024
F - Applicable Standards Matrix
G – Categorical Exemption Memorandum
H - Public Comment
I - Planning Commission Written Communications
J - Project Site Plan
K - Peer Review of Fiscal Impact Analysis

13. Subject: Approval of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26 Fee Schedule Update (Continued from May 6, 2025)
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 25-058 approving FY 2025-26 Fee Schedules A, B, C, and D. If adopted, new fees will be effective by September 1, 2025.

8 CC 07/01/2025
8 of 1130
City Council Agenda July 1, 2025
Staff Report
A - FY 2025-26 Fee Schedule A - General Fees (Redline)
B - FY 2025-26 Fee Schedule B - Engineering Fees (Redline) C - FY 2025-26 Fee Schedule C - Planning Fees (Redline) D - FY 2025-26 Fee Schedule D - Building Fees (Redline) E -FY 2025-26 Fee Schedule A - General Fees (CLEAN)
F - FY 2025-26 Fee Schedule B - Engineering Fees (CLEAN) G - FY 2025-26 Fee Schedule C - Planning Fees (CLEAN)
H - FY 2025-26 Fee Schedule D - Building Fees (CLEAN)
I – Draft Resolution approving FY 2025-26 Fee Schedules A, B, C, D, and E J - User Fee Cost Recovery Policy
K – Info Memo - Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26 Fee Schedule Update CC 05-06-2025 Item No. 10 Approval of Fiscal 2025-26 Fee Schedule_Written Communications (Added 5-5-25)
CC 05-06-2025 Item No. 10. FY 2025-26 Fee Schedule_Staff Presentation (Added 5-5-25) CC 05-06-2025 Item No. 10 Approval of Fiscal 2025-26 Fee Schedule_Written Communications (added 5-6-25)

ACTION CALENDAR

14. Subject: Acceptance of FY 2025-26 Internal Audit Work Plan Recommended Action: Accept the FY 2025-26 Internal Audit Work Plan Staff Report
A - FY 25-26 Internal Audit Program

15. Subject: Introduce Municipal Code amendments to Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 2, Chapter 2.96, Sections 2.96.010 Established-Composition and 2.96.020 Terms of Office, pertaining to the Economic Development Committee.

Recommended Action: 1. Conduct the first reading of Ordinance 25-2273 “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending City Code Title 2 Chapter 2.96 Economic Development Committee, Section 2.96.010 Established-Composition and Section 2.96.020 Terms of Office.”

2. Find that the proposed actions are exempt from CEQA.

Staff Report
A - Draft Ordinance - Redline
B - Draft Ordinance - Clean

STUDY SESSION

16. Subject: Study Session regarding possible updates to oversized vehicle parking restrictions in the public right-of-way

9 CC 07/01/2025
9 of 1130
City Council Agenda July 1, 2025
Recommended Action: Recommend that the City Council consider the Planning Commission’s recommendations to amend Sections 11.24.130 (72-hour parking limit), Section 11.24.200 (removal of vehicles), Section 11.28.010 (definition of oversized vehicles), and Section 11.28.020 (vehicle parking regulations) of the Municipal Code, to enhance the current prohibition on parking oversized vehicles for more than seventy-two (72) hours on any public street
Staff Report

ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR

CITY MANAGER REPORT

17. Subject: City Manager Report
A - City Manager Report

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - CONTINUED

COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS

18. Subject: Councilmember Reports
A - Councilmember Report, Fruen
B - Councilmember Report, Mohan
C - Councilmember Report, Moore

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
The Upcoming Draft Agenda Items Report is a tentative council meeting agenda calendar that lists upcoming City Council meeting dates and tentative agenda items, all of which are subject to change.

19. Subject: Upcoming Draft Agenda Items Report
A - Upcoming Draft Agenda Items Report

ADJOURNMENT
Lobbyist Registration and Reporting Requirements: Individuals who influence or attempt to influence legislative or administrative action may be required by the City of Cupertino’s lobbying ordinance (Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 2.100) to register and report lobbying activity. Persons whose communications regarding any legislative or administrative are solely limited to appearing at or submitting testimony for any public meeting held by the City are not required to register as lobbyists.

For more information about the lobbying ordinance, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014; telephone (408) 777-3223; email [email protected]; and website: www.cupertino.org/lobbyist.

The City of Cupertino has adopted the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6; litigation

10 CC 07/01/2025
10 of 1130
City Council Agenda July 1, 2025
challenging a final decision of the City Council must be brought within 90 days after a decision is announced unless a shorter time is required by State or Federal law.

Prior to seeking judicial review of any adjudicatory (quasi-judicial) decision, interested persons must file a petition for reconsideration within ten calendar days of the date the City Clerk mails notice of the City’s decision. Reconsideration petitions must comply with the requirements of Cupertino Municipal Code §2.08.096. Contact the City Clerk’s office for more information or go to http://www.cupertino.org/cityclerk for a reconsideration petition form.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning to attend this meeting who is visually or hearing impaired or has any disability that needs special assistance should call the City Clerk's Office at 408-777-3223, at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting to arrange for assistance. In addition, upon request in advance by a person with a disability, meeting agendas and writings distributed for the meeting that are public records will be made available in the appropriate alternative format.

Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Cupertino City Council after publication of the packet will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014, during normal business hours; and in Council packet archives linked from the agenda/minutes page on the City web site.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please be advised that pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code section

2.08.100 written communications sent to the City Council, Commissioners or staff concerning a matter on the agenda are included as supplemental material to the agendized item. These written communications are accessible to the public through the City website and kept in packet archives. Do not include any personal or private information in written communications to the City that you do not wish to make public, as written communications are considered public records and will be made publicly available on the City website.

11 CC 07/01/2025
11 of 1130

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-14094 Agenda Date: 7/1/2025
Agenda #: 1.

Subject: Conference with legal counsel - existing litigation; California Government Code Section 54956.9(d) (1) and 54954.5(c): Lixin (Leon) Chen, et al. v. City of Cupertino, et al., Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 25CV462857 and Yes In My Back Yard, et al. v. City of Cupertino, et al., Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 25CV263924
CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 6/25/2025
powered by Legistar™ 12
CC 07/01/2025
12 of 1130

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-14053 Agenda Date: 7/1/2025
Agenda #: 2.

Subject: Conference with legal counsel - anticipated litigation; California Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(4) and 54954.5(c): (six cases)
CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 6/25/2025
powered by Legistar™ 13
CC 07/01/2025
13 of 1130

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-13639 Agenda Date: 7/1/2025
Agenda #: 1.

Subject: Proclamation recognizing July as Parks and Recreation Month Recognize July as Parks and Recreation Month
CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 6/25/2025
powered by Legistar™ 14
CC 07/01/2025
14 of 1130
Proclamation
WHEREAS, Parks and recreation programs are essential to communities nationwide, including Cupertino, as they play a vital role in enhancing quality of life, supporting physical and mental wellbeing, and providing meaningful opportunities for recreation, learning, and community connection;
WHEREAS, Parks and recreation contribute to building stronger, more resilient communities by providing safe, accessible spaces and programs that encourage social interaction, physical activity, and community involvement for residents of all ages;
WHEREAS, The City of Cupertino’s Parks and Recreation Department is committed to delivering a diverse range of high-quality activities, classes, events, and services that meet the evolving needs of the community while promoting inclusion, lifelong learning, and overall wellness;
WHEREAS, Parks and the City’s nature preserve protect natural resources, preserve wildlife habitats, and enhance the natural beauty of our community;
WHEREAS, Parks and Recreation Month is an opportunity to recognize the dedicated professionals, volunteers, and community members who make Cupertino’s parks, facilities, events, and recreation programs a vital and valued part of the City;
THEREFORE, I, Mayor Liang Chao, and the Cupertino City Council do hereby Proclaim the month of July as
Parks and Recreation Month
in the City of Cupertino and encourage all residents to enjoy and support the City’s parks, preserve, recreation programs, and events, and to recognize the important role they play in making our community a great place to live, work, and play.

IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the City of Cupertino to be affixed this Tuesday, July First, Two Thousand and Twenty-Five. ____________________________
The Honorable Liang Chao
Mayor, City of Cupertino
15 CC 07/01/2025
15 of 1130

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-14026 Agenda Date: 7/1/2025
Agenda #: 2.

Subject: Project Update Presentation by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen) Board Member
Receive Project Update Presentation by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen) Board Member
CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 6/25/2025
powered by Legistar™ 16
CC 07/01/2025
16 of 1130

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-14034 Agenda Date: 7/1/2025
Agenda #: 3.

Subject: Approval of May 28, 2025 City Council meeting minutes Approve the May 28, 2025 City Council meeting minutes
CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 6/25/2025
powered by Legistar™ 17
CC 07/01/2025
17 of 1130

DRAFT MINUTES

CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
Wednesday, May 28, 2025

SPECIAL MEETING
At 6:18 p.m., Mayor Liang Chao called the Special City Council Meeting to order in the Cupertino Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014.

ROLL CALL

Present: Mayor Liang Chao, Vice Mayor Kitty Moore, and Councilmembers J.R. Fruen and Sheila Mohan. Absent: Councilmember R “Ray” Wang.

COMMISSION INTERVIEWS

1. Subject: Interview and appoint to fill vacancies on the Teen Commission (Day 1) Recommended Action: Conduct interviews and make appointments to fill five vacancies on the Teen Commission
Mayor Chao opened the public comment period and, seeing no one, closed the public comment period.

Councilmembers asked questions and made comments.

Council conducted interviews for commission vacancies with terms expiring on Teen Commission.

At 7:30 p.m., Mayor Chao recessed the meeting. The meeting reconvened at 7:35 p.m. with all Councilmembers present (Wang absent).

The Council continued interviewing applicants.

MOTION: Chao moved and Moore seconded to postpone voting to make any appointments until after conducting the remaining commission interviews scheduled on May 29. The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Chao, Moore, Fruen, and Mohan. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Wang.
18 CC 07/01/2025
18 of 1130
City Council Minutes May 28, 2025

2. Subject: Interview and appoint to fill vacancy on the Audit Committee Recommended Action: Conduct interviews and make appointment to fill one vacancy on the Audit Committee
Mayor Chao opened the public comment period and, seeing no one, closed the public comment period.

Councilmembers asked questions and made comments.

Council conducted interviews to fill a special vacancy on the Audit Committee.

The Council voted to make appointments via an electronic voting system. Images of the voting results are included after the minutes as Exhibit A (attached).

MOTION: Chao moved and Fruen seconded to appoint William Wong to the Audit Committee with term ending January 30, 2029. The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Chao, Moore, Fruen and Mohan. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Wang.

ADJOURNMENT
At 8:25 p.m., Mayor Chao adjourned the Special City Council Meeting.

Minutes prepared by:
________________________________
Lauren Sapudar, Deputy City Clerk
19 CC 07/01/2025
19 of 1130
City Council Audit Committee Interviews
May 28, 2025
Unofficial Council Voting Results (approved City Council minutes become the official record) Round 1
Round 2
Exhibit A
20 CC 07/01/2025
20 of 1130

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-14035 Agenda Date: 7/1/2025
Agenda #: 4.

Subject: Approval of May 29, 2025 City Council meeting minutes Approve the May 29, 2025 City Council meeting minutes
CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 6/25/2025
powered by Legistar™ 21
CC 07/01/2025
21 of 1130

DRAFT MINUTES

CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
Thursday, May 29, 2025

SPECIAL MEETING
At 6:15 p.m., Mayor Liang Chao called the Special City Council Meeting to order in the Cupertino Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014.

ROLL CALL

Present: Mayor Liang Chao, Vice Mayor Kitty Moore, and Councilmembers J.R. Fruen and Sheila Mohan. Absent: Councilmember R “Ray” Wang.

COMMISSION INTERVIEWS

1. Subject: Interview and appoint to fill vacancies on the Teen Commission (Day 1) Recommended Action: Conduct interviews and make appointments to fill five vacancies on the Teen Commission
Written Communications for this item included an amended Attachment A – Interview Schedule.

Mayor Chao opened the public comment period and, seeing no one, closed the public comment period.

Councilmembers asked questions and made comments.

Council conducted interviews for commission vacancies and terms expiring on Teen Commission.

At 6:47 p.m., Mayor Chao recessed the meeting. The meeting reconvened at 6:57 p.m. with all Councilmembers present (Wang absent).

The Council continued interviewing applicants.

At 8:05 p.m., Mayor Chao recessed the meeting. The meeting reconvened at 8:15 p.m. with all Councilmembers present (Wang absent).
22 CC 07/01/2025
22 of 1130
City Council Minutes May 29, 2025

Councilmembers asked questions and made comments.

Council voted to make appointments via an electronic voting system. Images of the voting results are included after the minutes as Exhibit A (attached).

Council conducted voting rounds to fill the vacancies on the Teen Commission.

MOTION: Chao moved and Mohan seconded to appoint Vinay Prakash, Rusheel Deshmukh, Saanvi Halambi, Sumedha Kumar and Jonathan Gao to the Teen Commission with terms ending August 31, 2027. The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes:

Chao, Moore, Fruen, and Mohan. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Wang.

ADJOURNMENT
At 8:55 p.m., Mayor Chao adjourned the Special City Council Meeting.

Minutes prepared by:
________________________________
Lauren Sapudar, Deputy City Clerk
23 CC 07/01/2025
23 of 1130
City Council Teen Commission Interviews
May 29, 2025
Unofficial Council Voting Results (approved City Council minutes become the official record) Round 1
Round 2
Exhibit A
24 CC 07/01/2025
24 of 1130
Round 3
25 CC 07/01/2025
25 of 1130

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-14059 Agenda Date: 7/1/2025
Agenda #: 5.

Subject: Approval of June 6, 2025 City Council meeting minutes Approve the June 6, 2025 City Council meeting minutes
CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 6/25/2025
powered by Legistar™ 26
CC 07/01/2025
26 of 1130

DRAFT MINUTES

CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
Friday, June 6, 2025

SPECIAL MEETING
At 4:46 p.m., Mayor Liang Chao called the Special City Council Meeting to order in City Hall Conference Room C, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014.

ROLL CALL

Present: Mayor Liang Chao, Vice Mayor Kitty Moore, and Councilmembers Sheila Mohan and R “Ray” Wang. Absent: Councilmember J.R. Fruen.

In open session prior to closed session, Mayor Chao opened the public comment period regarding any items on the agenda. No members of the public requested to speak and Mayor Chao closed the public comment period.

CLOSED SESSION

1. Subject: Public Employee Discipline/Dismissal/Release (Govt. Code Section 54954.5(e) and Section 54957).

Council conducted the closed session regarding Public Employee Discipline /Dismissal/Release.

OPEN SESSION REPORT REGARDING CLOSED SESSION – None
Note: City Attorney Floy Andrews provided the open session report at the Regular City Council meeting held at 6:45 p.m. on June 17, 2025. City Attorney Andrews reported that on June 6, the Council considered a separation, severance, and general release agreement with City Manager Pamela Wu, which had been signed by City Manager Wu with minor changes from the draft agreement previously approved by the Council on June 3. Mayor Chao and Councilmembers Wang and Mohan voted in favor; Vice Mayor Moore voted against, and Councilmember Fruen was absent. At that time, the separation, severance, and general release agreement became final. The salient provisions of the voluntary agreement include the following: the former City Manager will receive eight months of her twelve-month severance; a payout of unused vacation and administrative leave totaling $311,089.53; and eight months 27 CC 07/01/2025
27 of 1130

City Council Minutes June 6, 2025
of COBRA coverage. Former City Manager Wu agreed to waive her right to bring suit against the City for any known or unknown claims, and the City also agreed to waive its right to sue the former City Manager. Ms. Wu, on the one hand, and elected City officials, the appointed City Manager, and the City Attorney, on the other, agreed to refrain from making any slanderous, libelous, or disparaging statements about one another. Both parties were represented by legal counsel.

ADJOURNMENT
At 5:53 p.m., Mayor Chao adjourned the Special City Council Meeting.

Minutes prepared by:
_________________________
Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk
28 CC 07/01/2025
28 of 1130

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
24-13593 Agenda Date: 7/1/2025
Agenda #: 6.

Subject: Approval of June 17, 2025 City Council minutes Approve the June 17, 2025 City Council minutes
CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 6/25/2025
powered by Legistar™ 29
CC 07/01/2025
29 of 1130

DRAFT MINUTES

CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, June 17, 2025

SPECIAL MEETING
At 5:35 p.m., Mayor Liang Chao called the Special City Council Meeting to order in City Hall Conference Room C, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014; and via teleconference locations: Burlington Marriott Lobby, 1 Burlington Mall Rd, Burlington, MA 01803; and Via Nemorense 15, 00199 Roma RM, Italy.

ROLL CALL

Present: Mayor Liang Chao, Vice Mayor Kitty Moore, and Councilmembers J.R. Fruen (participated remotely), Sheila Mohan, and R “Ray” Wang (participated remotely). Absent:

None.

In open session prior to closed session, Mayor Chao opened the public comment period regarding any items on the agenda. No members of the public requested to speak and Mayor Chao closed the public comment period.

CLOSED SESSION

1. Subject: Conference with Labor Negotiators, unrepresented employee; Title: Acting City Manager; California Government Code Sections 54954.5(f) and 54957.6(a) The Council met with Conference with Labor Negotiators.

2. Subject: Public Employee Employment; Title: City Manager Recruitment; California Government Code Sections 54954.5(e) and 54957(b)(1)
The Council discussed City Manager Recruitment.

ADJOURNMENT
At 6:39 p.m., Mayor Chao adjourned the Special City Council Meeting. 30 CC 07/01/2025
30 of 1130
City Council Minutes June 17, 2025

REGULAR MEETING
At 6:48 p.m., Mayor Chao called the Regular City Council Meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance in the Cupertino Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue and via teleconference; and via teleconference locations: Burlington Marriott Lobby, 1 Burlington Mall Rd, Burlington, MA 01803; and Via Nemorense 15, 00199 Roma RM, Italy.

ROLL CALL

Present: Mayor Liang Chao, Vice Mayor Kitty Moore, and Councilmembers J.R. Fruen (participated remotely), Sheila Mohan, and R “Ray” Wang (participated remotely). Absent:

None.

CLOSED SESSION REPORT
City Attorney Floy Andrews reported on the special meeting closed session held at 5:30 p.m., City Attorney Andrews reported that the City Council unanimously voted to appoint Tina Kapoor as Interim City Manager.

City Attorney Andrews also reported on the special meeting closed sessions held on June 3 and June 6:

On June 3, the City Council voted to approve a draft separation, severance, and general release agreement with City Manager Pamela Wu, who had been on administrative leave since May 2. Mayor Chao and Councilmembers Wang, Mohan, and Fruen voted in favor; Vice Mayor Moore voted against.

On June 6, the Council considered the same agreement, which had been signed by City Manager Wu with minor changes. Mayor Chao and Councilmembers Wang and Mohan voted in favor; Vice Mayor Moore voted against, and Councilmember Fruen was absent.

At that time, the separation, severance, and general release agreement became final. The salient provisions of the voluntary agreement include the following: the former City Manager will receive eight months of her twelve-month severance; a payout of unused vacation and administrative leave totaling $311,089.53; and eight months of COBRA coverage. Former City Manager Wu agreed to waive her right to bring suit against the City for any known or unknown claims and the City also agreed to waive its right to sue the former City Manager. Ms. Wu, on the one hand, and elected City officials, the appointed City Manager, and the City Attorney, on the other, agreed to refrain from making any slanderous, libelous, or disparaging statements about one another. Both parties were represented by legal counsel.
31 CC 07/01/2025
31 of 1130
City Council Minutes June 17, 2025

CEREMONIAL ITEMS

1. Subject: Proclamation recognizing Friends of the Cupertino Library Recommended Action: Present proclamation recognizing Friends of the Cupertino Library
Bob McKibbin accepted the proclamation on behalf of the Friends of the Cupertino Library.

Mayor Chao presented the proclamation recognizing Friends of the Cupertino Library.

2. Subject: Proclamation recognizing the Cupertino-De Anza Optimist Club Recommended Action: Present proclamation recognizing the Cupertino-De Anza Optimist Club
Dennis Whittaker accepted the proclamation on behalf of the Cupertino-De Anza Optimist Club.

Mayor Chao presented the proclamation recognizing the Cupertino-De Anza Optimist Club.

3. Subject: Certificates of Recognition to Kennedy Middle School Science Olympiad Team, second place winners at 2025 Science Olympiad National Tournament Recommended Action: Present certificates of recognition to Kennedy Middle School Science Olympiad Team for placing second at the 2025 Science Olympiad National Tournament
Dr. Dewees Gwendolyn, Principal Kennedy Middle School, and the Science Olympiad Team received the certificates of appreciation.

Mayor Chao presented the certificates of recognition to the Kennedy Middle School Science Olympiad Team for placing second at the 2025 Science Olympiad National Tournament.

POSTPONEMENTS AND ORDERS OF THE DAY – None

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Written communications for this item included emails to the Council. 32 CC 07/01/2025
32 of 1130
City Council Minutes June 17, 2025

The following members of the public spoke:

Stanley Young, representing IFPTE Local 21/CEA, discussed labor negotiations.

Rodney Weathers discussed contract negotiations for City employees.

Rhoda Fry discussed the budget, zoning legislation, and the redevelopment of the McClellan Terrace Apartments.

William Jiang discussed safety measures at Wilson Park baseball field.

Jennifer Griffin discussed state housing legislation and retail along Stevens Creek Boulevard.

Vivek Sagdeo discussed the development project at 20840 Stevens Creek Boulevard.

Rajiv Chamraj discussed development projects at 20840 Stevens Creek Boulevard and 20739 Scofield Drive.

Nupur Hiremath, representing Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE), discussed the SVCE organization.

Alex Corbalis discussed contract negotiations for City employees.

Peggy Griffin discussed proposed state legislation on local zoning and community college housing near De Anza College.

Planning Commissioner San R (representing self) discussed City employees and budget, including annual fees and consultant costs.

CONSENT CALENDAR (4-11)
Mayor Chao opened the public comment period and the following members of the public spoke.

Charles Williams (Item 9)
Jean Bedord (Items 6 and 11)
Planning Commissioner San R (representing self) San R (Item 9) Mayor Chao closed the public comment period.

Councilmembers made comments.
33 CC 07/01/2025
33 of 1130
City Council Minutes June 17, 2025

Moore requested an informational memorandum on the loss of retail, including the estimated amount of potential retail space lost since 2018 due to SB 35, the Housing Accountability Act, the Density Bonus Law, and SB 330.

MOTION: Wang moved and Mohan seconded to approve Items 4-11 on the Consent Calendar as presented. The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Chao, Moore, Fruen, Mohan, and Wang. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.

4. Subject: Approval of June 3, 2025 Special City Council meeting minutes Recommended Action: Approve the June 3, 2025 City Council meeting minutes

5. Subject: Approval of June 3, 2025 Regular City Council meeting minutes Recommended Action: Approve the June 3, 2025 Regular City Council meeting minutes

6. Subject: Approval of negotiated Separation, Severance, and General Release Agreement with City Manager Pamela Wu
Recommended Action: Ratify the Agreement of Separation, Severance, and General Release by and Between the City of Cupertino (City) and City Manager Pamela Wu (Employee), dated June 6, 2025

7. Subject: Amendment to 2025 Council Committee Assignments to designate Vice Mayor Kitty Moore as the Second Alternate to attend the ABAG General Assembly and Conference on June 20, 2025
Recommended Action: Amend the 2025 Council Committee Assignments to designate Vice Mayor Kitty Moore as the Second Alternate to attend the ABAG General Assembly and Conference, scheduled for Friday, June 20, 2025, from 10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. at the Bay Area Metro Center, 375 Beale Street, San Francisco, CA 94105

8. Subject: Ratifying Accounts Payable for the periods ending May 9, 2025, and May 23, 2025
Recommended Action: A. Adopt Resolution No. 25-044 ratifying Accounts Payable for the Period ending May 9, 2025; and
B. Adopt Resolution No. 25-045 ratifying Accounts Payable for the Period ending May 23, 2025
Written communications for this item included emails to the Council.

9. Subject: Amend Chapter 16.74 of the Municipal Code to adopt CAL FIRE's recommendations for Fire Severity Hazard Zones in the Local Responsibility Area and 34 CC 07/01/2025
34 of 1130
City Council Minutes June 17, 2025

Chapter 16.40 of the Municipal Code to update a reference to the updated map.

Recommended Action: Conduct the second reading of Ordinance No. 25-2272 (Attachment A): “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Chapter 16.74 of the Municipal Code to adopt Fire Severity Hazard Zones in the Local Responsibility Area and Chapter 16.40 to update a reference to the updated map”.

10. Subject: Approval of a Final Map and the Subdivision Improvement Agreement for the 7-Unit Bianchi Way Development Project (Tract No. 10648; Applicant: Bianchi Way LLC; Location: 10070-10082 Bianchi Way; APN: 359-07-021) Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 25-046:
1) Approving the final map consisting of Tract No. 10648; 2) Accepting the street dedication and public easements as shown on the map; and 3) Authorizing the City Engineer to execute and record the Subdivision Improvement Agreement.

Written communications for this item included supplemental report with staff answers to councilmember questions and emails to the Council.

11. Subject: Amendment to the Grant Agreement with Apple Inc. (Apple) to include the Interstate 280/Wolfe Road Interchange Project as an eligible project in the agreement, reallocate donated funds to the Interchange Project, and accept the grant funds; and, Amendment to the Funding Agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) for the Interchange Project to extend the term to December 31, 2029.

Recommended Action: That the City Council:
1) Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Amendment to the June 18, 2019, Grant Agreement between the City of Cupertino and Apple Inc. to:
a) Include the I-280/Wolfe Road Interchange Project as an eligible Grant Project; and b) Reallocate $1,400,000 in donated grant funds from the 2019 Grant Agreement to support the I-280/Wolfe Road Interchange Project (100-88-844 900-964); and c) Accept up to $2,600,000 in Additional Grant Funds from Apple Inc. to address the funding gap for the I-280/Wolfe Road Interchange Project; and d) Adopt Resolution No. 25-047 approving Budget Modification #2425-396 to transfer out $333,333.33 from fund 420 and transfer into fund 100, and budget grant revenue of $3,666,666.67 into fund 100 with an expense of $4,000,000. 2) Approve the Fifth Amendment to the January 25, 2016, Funding Agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority for I-280/Wolfe Road Interchange Improvements Project to extend the term of the agreement to December 31, 2029.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

12. Subject: Brush Abatement Program hearing to hear objections to proposed removal of 35 CC 07/01/2025
35 of 1130
City Council Minutes June 17, 2025

brush and order abatement of the public nuisance; Resolution ordering abatement of potential fire hazard pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code (Section 16.40.200) regarding Defensible space (brush) and Resolution No. 25-029 Recommended Action: 1.) Conduct Brush Abatement Program hearing to note objections of property owners having their name on the list of properties that have been non-compliant in removing brush; and

2.) Adopt the Resolution No. 25-048 ordering abatement of public nuisance and potential fire hazard pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code (Section 16.40.200) regarding defensible space (brush) and Resolution No. 25-029 (Attachment A).

Written communications for this item included a staff presentation.

City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia gave a presentation.

Councilmembers asked questions and made comments.

Santa Clara County Fire Department Assistant Chief Hector Estrada answered questions.

Mayor Chao opened the public hearing and, seeing no one, closed the public hearing.

MOTION: Mohan moved and Wang seconded to adopt the Resolution No. 25-048 ordering abatement of public nuisance and potential fire hazard pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code (Section 16.40.200) regarding defensible space (brush) and Resolution No. 25-029. The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Chao, Moore, Fruen, Mohan, and Wang. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.

ACTION CALENDAR

13. Subject: Approve agreements for post-collection services and destination facilities for garbage and construction and demolition (C&D) debris with attendant rate increases Recommended Action: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 25-049 approving the following agreements for post-collection services, and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreements in substantially the same form as presented:
a. An Agreement with Zanker Road Resource Management, LLC for solid waste construction and demolition (C&D) material processing services to begin November 21, 2025, with a ten-year term
b. An agreement with International Disposal Corporation of California, Inc., for disposal of garbage at Newby Island Sanitary Landfill Facility with a ten-year term c. A Merchant agreement with the City of Sunnyvale for garbage processing at the Sunnyvale Materials Recovery and Transfer Station (SMart Station) and residue 36 CC 07/01/2025
36 of 1130
City Council Minutes June 17, 2025

disposal for a term of 20 years

2. Adopt Resolution No. 25-050 approving Budget Modification #2526-395 increasing appropriations in the Resource Recovery (Fund 520) budget by $35,000 through the use of fund balance to cover differences in disposal and C&D processing cost during the period between November, 21 2025 and January 31, 2026, allowing customer rates to remain unchanged until the beginning of Recology's Rate Period Six, which begins February 1, 2026
Written communications for this item included a staff presentation and emails to the Council.

Environmental Programs and Sustainability Manager Ursula Syrova gave a presentation.

Councilmembers asked questions and made comments.

Mayor Chao opened the public comment period and the following members of the public spoke.

Planning Commissioner San R (representing self)
Peggy Griffin
Lisa Warren
Mayor Chao closed the public comment period.

MOTION: moved and seconded to:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 25-049 approving the following agreements for postcollection services, and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreements in substantially the same form as presented:
a. An Agreement with Zanker Road Resource Management, LLC for solid waste construction and demolition (C&D) material processing services to begin November 21, 2025, with a ten-year term
b. An agreement with International Disposal Corporation of California, Inc., for disposal of garbage at Newby Island Sanitary Landfill Facility with a ten-year term
c. A Merchant agreement with the City of Sunnyvale for garbage processing at the Sunnyvale Materials Recovery and Transfer Station (SMart Station) and residue disposal for a term of 20 years

2. Adopt Resolution No. 25-050 approving Budget Modification #2526-395 increasing appropriations in the Resource Recovery (Fund 520) budget by $35,000 through the use of fund balance to cover differences in disposal and C&D processing cost during 37 CC 07/01/2025
37 of 1130
City Council Minutes June 17, 2025

the period between November, 21 2025 and January 31, 2026, allowing customer rates to remain unchanged until the beginning of Recology's Rate Period Six, which begins February 1, 2026
The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Chao, Moore, Fruen, and Mohan.

Noes: Wang. Abstain: None. Absent: None.

At 9:03 p.m., Mayor Chao recessed the meeting. The meeting was reconvened at 9:10 p.m. with all Councilmembers present.

14. Subject: Introduce Municipal Code amendments to Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 2, Chapter 2.96, Sections 2.96.010 Established-Composition and 2.96.020 Terms of Office, pertaining to the Economic Development Committee.

Recommended Action: 1. Conduct the first reading of Ordinance 25-2273 “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending City Code Title 2 Chapter 2.96 Economic Development Committee, Section 2.96.010 Established-Composition and Section 2.96.020 Terms of Office.”

2. Find that the proposed actions are exempt from CEQA.

Written communications for this item included a staff presentation and emails to the Council.

City Attorney Floy Andrews reviewed the staff report.

Councilmembers asked questions and made comments.

Mayor Chao opened the public comment period and the following members of the public spoke.

Sustainability Commissioner Susan Hansen, representing the Sustainability Commission
Sustainability Commissioners Sonali Padgaonkar and Jack Carter ceded their time to Susan Hansen
Planning Commissioner San R (representing self)
Mayor Chao closed the public comment period.

MOTION: Chao moved and Moore seconded for staff to return with an amended first reading of the Ordinance at the July 1 City Council meeting, with changes to the EDC (Economic Development Committee) composition so that it includes representatives from the Sustainability Commission, Planning Commission, Technology, Information, and Communications Commission (TICC), and Parks and Recreation Commission, each 38 CC 07/01/2025
38 of 1130
City Council Minutes June 17, 2025

serving a one-year term. All other details of the Ordinance will remain unchanged.

AMENDMENT: Chao amended the motion for the EDC to be composed of one Councilmember and three Commissioners, one each from the Planning Commission, Sustainability Commission, and TICC, with each commission representative serving a one-year term. All other details of the Ordinance will remain unchanged. Moore accepted the amendment.

The amended motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Chao, Moore, and Fruen.

Noes: Mohan, and Wang. Abstain: None. Absent: None.

15. Subject: Options on preservation and anti-displacement of Below Market Rate (BMR) units; Consider approval of BMR Anti-Displacement Policy Recommended Action: Receive presentation on preservation and anti-displacement for tenants residing in expiring Below Market Rate units in market rate developments for adoption; Adopt Resolution No. 25-051 (Attachment A) approving amendments to the BMR Admin Manual to create an anti-displacement policy for tenants residing in expiring Below Market Rate units
Written communications for this item included a staff presentation and emails to the Council.

Senior Housing Coordinator Nicky Vu gave a presentation.

Councilmembers asked questions and made comments.

Mayor Chao opened the public comment period and the following members of the public spoke.

Jennifer Griffin
Jean Bedord
Jan Fabry
Sujatha Venkatraman, representing West Valley Community Services Rhoda Fry
Peggy Griffin
Planning Commissioner San R (representing self)
Mayor Chao closed the public comment period.

MOTION: Chao moved and Wang seconded to extend the meeting until 11:20 p.m. to allow for completion of Item 15. The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Chao, Moore, 39 CC 07/01/2025
39 of 1130
City Council Minutes June 17, 2025

Fruen, Mohan, and Wang. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.

MOTION: Mohan moved and Chao seconded to adopt Resolution No. 25-051, as amended, to proceed with the waitlist procedure, with the condition that consideration of anti-displacement relocation assistance be deferred to a future date.

Amendment:

Remove Sections 5, 6, and 7 from the Draft Resolution, and direct staff to return with additional information on those sections at a future meeting.

The amended motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Chao, Moore, Fruen, and Mohan. Noes: Wang. Abstain: None. Absent: None.

ADJOURNMENT
At 11:15 p.m., Mayor Chao adjourned the Regular City Council Meeting per rule. There was no Council discussion on the remaining agenda items.

16. Subject: Consider the potential purchase of and appoint a negotiator for the potential purchase of 10480 Finch Avenue, owned by the Cupertino Unified School District, adjacent to Sedgwick Elementary School (postponed from July 3, 2025) Recommended Action: Appoint the Interim City Attorney and Acting City Manager to negotiate with the Superintendent of the Cupertino Unified School District or her designee regarding the possible purchase of 10480 Finch Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014, Assessor’s Parcel Number 375-40-067, from Cupertino Unified School District on terms established by the City Council.

Written communications for this item included a staff presentation and emails to the Council.

This item was continued to the July 1, 2025 City Council meeting per rule.

ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR - None

CITY MANAGER REPORT

17. Subject: City Manager Report
Acting City Manager Tina Kapoor reported on recent highlights and upcoming events as provided in the published agenda.

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - CONTINUED – None
40 CC 07/01/2025
40 of 1130
City Council Minutes June 17, 2025

COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS

18. Subject: Councilmember Reports
Councilmembers reported on their various committees and events as provided in the published agenda.

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
This item was not heard.

As noted under the Consent Calendar, Moore requested an informational memorandum on the loss of retail, including the estimated amount of potential retail space lost since 2018 due to SB 35, the Housing Accountability Act, the Density Bonus Law, and SB 330.

Minutes prepared by:
_________________________
Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk
41 CC 07/01/2025
41 of 1130

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-13972 Agenda Date: 7/1/2025
Agenda #: 7.

Subject: Approval of updated future agenda items requested by City Councilmembers ("TBD List") (Continued from April 15, 2025 and May 6, 2025)
Approve the updated future agenda items requested by City Councilmembers ("TBD List") CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 6/25/2025
powered by Legistar™ 42
CC 07/01/2025
42 of 1130
1 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: July 1, 2025
Subject
Review of Future agenda items requested by City Councilmembers (“TBD List”) Recommended Action
Review the TBD list and accept the staff recommendations for all 18 items.

Reasons for Recommendation and Options
As required per the Council’s adopted Procedures Manual, the City Manager provides a quarterly report to Council regarding the status of future agenda items. These are items that at least two Councilmembers have requested to be added to a future City Council agenda.

Background
On February 4, staff presented a list of 16 items for Council consideration. Council voted on the next steps for each item (described in Attachment A) and removed three items from the list. Since then, Council has added additional items to the future agenda items list for consideration.

At the April 15 council meeting, Council provided direction via a unanimous vote to agendize item 18 (Finch Property) as soon as possible to consider the Finch property for potential purchase or other form of partnership with the Cupertino Union School District (CUSD). Council also voted to continue the TBD discussion to a future meeting.

The updated TBD list is included as Attachment B with staff recommendations for all 18 items. A majority vote of the City Council can either agendize an item for discussion at a future date or remove an item from the list, as outlined in the Council Procedures Manual.

Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.

Fiscal Impact
43 CC 07/01/2025
43 of 1130
2 No fiscal impact.

California Environmental Quality Act
Not applicable.

City Work Program Item/Description
No/N/A
Council Goal
N/A
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Astrid Robles, Senior Management Analyst
Reviewed by: Floy Andrews, Interim City Attorney
Approved for Submission by: Tina Kapoor, Interim City Manager Attachments:

A – Future Agenda Items List from February 2025 with Adopted Motion B – Future Agenda Items List as of July 2025
44 CC 07/01/2025
44 of 1130
Attachment A – Future Agenda Items List from February 2025 with Adopted Motion # Requested Item Requestor/
Seconder
Date
Requested Recommendation Motion
1 Draft a policy regarding disclosure to the
public of remodeling costs of buildings the
Council is considering purchase of in open
session. This policy would ensure that the
public will not be surprised to find a
negotiated arrangement to provide a
Council-designated property negotiator
more than the delegation of authority to
negotiate the cost of the property (meaning
Council shall not negotiate remodeling costs
or process of determining remodeling
amounts in closed session).

Requestor:

Moore
Seconder:

Chao
6/28/24
added by
email
This item was postponed
in October. Council can
either:

1. Agendize this
discussion

2. Remove from list
An action item to add
the City Hall Renovation
and City Hall Annex to
the Fiscal Year (FY)
2025-26 Capital
Improvement Programs
(CIP) projects list
2 Report to Council a cost comparison of
leasing vs. buying office property in
Cupertino for a lease length of time of 2
years (in the event that plans for remodel
and retrofit are drawn up and executed,
staff leases an unremodeled building for 2
years and returns) or 7 years (in the event
that a purchased office building requires
$5M in remodel costs which takes one year
to complete, and City Hall relocates to it for
6 years, sells the building in a flat office
market and returns). Both of these scenarios
would assume City Hall is remodeled at
$27M.

Requestor:

Moore
Seconder:

Chao
6/28/24
added by
email
This item was postponed
in October. Council can
either:

1. Agendize this
discussion

2. Remove from list
An action item to add
the City Hall Renovation
and City Hall Annex to
the Fiscal Year (FY)
2025-26 Capital
Improvement Programs
(CIP) projects list
3 Action Item/Study Session with
information/proposal on the need for an
interim city hall for 6-7 years, rather than
Requestor:

Chao
7/1/24
added by
email
This item was postponed
in October. Council can
either:

An action item to add
the City Hall Renovation
and City Hall Annex to
45 CC 07/01/2025
45 of 1130
Attachment A – Future Agenda Items List from February 2025 with Adopted Motion # Requested Item Requestor/
Seconder
Date
Requested Recommendation Motion
one year during the renovation/construction
of the current city hall and any update on
the private-public partnership that led to
such proposal.

Seconder:

Moore

1. Agendize this
discussion

2. Remove from list
the Fiscal Year (FY)
2025-26 Capital
Improvement Programs
(CIP) projects list
4 Discuss and give direction on the "wisdom
of purchase" versus leasing of any property
as an interim city hall, based on prior
council motions for city hall
renovation/rebuild, to include the duration
of the use of the interim city hall, an
estimate of leasing/purchasing prices and
estimated remodeling/earthquake retrofit
costs in general terms as permitted in an
open session before any offer is made on
any property. The agenda item on June 18
Council meeting to authorize the city
managers as a negotiator, only listed the
property address, but not the "wisdom of
the purchase".

Requestor:

Chao
Seconder:

Moore
7/9/24
added by
email
This item was postponed
in October. Council can
either:

1. Agendize this
discussion

2. Remove from list
An action item to add
the City Hall Renovation
and City Hall Annex to
the Fiscal Year (FY)
2025-26 Capital
Improvement Programs
(CIP) projects list
5 Consider a policy to provide access to
documents made available for closed
sessions ahead of time with proper security
measures. Accordingly, Councilmembers
can read the materials before and after a
closed session.

Requestor:

Chao
Seconder:

Moore
At 7/16/24
Council
meeting
Staff recommends
removing this item.

Materials are confidential
and should be based on
the sensitivity of the
information and the
nature of the agenda item.

Keep on list until added
to Council Procedures
Manual
46 CC 07/01/2025
46 of 1130
Attachment A – Future Agenda Items List from February 2025 with Adopted Motion # Requested Item Requestor/
Seconder
Date
Requested Recommendation Motion
6 Consider regulations on sound
amplification devices in parks
Requestor:

Moore
Seconder:

Chao
Added by
email on
9/12/24 and
at the
9/17/24
Council
meeting.

Staff recommends
removing this item. Sound
amplification is currently
allowed in parks with a
valid City permit as
specified in CMC

13.04.120 Use of Park
Property Section I.

A friendly amendment
was approved to hold a
study session on this
item. Add this item to an
agenda: Amend CMC
Section 13.04.120 Use of
Park Property “No
person in the park shall
do any of the
following:… 1. Use any
system for amplifying
sounds, whether for
speech or music or
otherwise, unless an
exclusive use permit is
first secured,” as…
“No person in a park
shall do any of the
following: … 1. Use any
system for amplifying
sounds, whether for
speech or music or
otherwise, in an
unreasonable loud
manner, unless an
exclusive use permit is
for secured,” where the
definition of
“unreasonably loud
manner” means “the
47 CC 07/01/2025
47 of 1130
Attachment A – Future Agenda Items List from February 2025 with Adopted Motion # Requested Item Requestor/
Seconder
Date
Requested Recommendation Motion
volume of sound in the
use or operation of any
sound application
equipment if such sound
can be heard by a person
from fifty (50) or more
feet from the source of
the amplification” (as
defined in Oakland
Muni Code)
7 Review the City Work Program Process Requestor:

Chao
Seconder:

Moore
At 12/3/24
Council
meeting
Staff recommends
removing this item. This
discussion was held at
12/17/24 City Council
meeting.

Accept staff
recommendation to
remove item
8 Review the Cupertino City Council
Procedures Manual
Requestor:

Chao
Seconder:

Moore
At 12/3/24
Council
meeting
Council can either:

1. Agendize this
discussion

2. Remove from list
Keep on list to agendize
this discussion
9 Review the current list of future agenda
items requested by Councilmembers (“TBD
List”)
Requestor:

Chao
Seconder:

Moore
At 12/3/24
Council
meeting
Staff recommends
removing this item. This
item is agendized for the
1/22/25 City Council
meeting.

Accept staff
recommendation to
remove item
10 Consider changing regular City Council
meetings to Wednesdays
Unanimous At 12/17/24
Council
meeting
Staff recommends
removing this item and
keeping the current
Council schedule adopted
on 12/17/24. This will
reduce complications and
Accept staff
recommendation to
remove item
48 CC 07/01/2025
48 of 1130
Attachment A – Future Agenda Items List from February 2025 with Adopted Motion # Requested Item Requestor/
Seconder
Date
Requested Recommendation Motion
scheduling conflicts with a
variety of other
organizations and City
Commissions.
11 Review the architectural standards for 5G
towers
Requestor:

Wang
Seconder:

Chao
At 12/17/24
Council
Meeting
Staff recommends
removing this item. The
5G ordinance is being
considered as part of the
FY 25-27 City Work
Program discussion.

Keep on TBD until it is
added to the FY 2025-27
City Work Program.
12 Reactivate the Legislative Review
Committee
Requestor:

Chao
At 12/17/24
Council
meeting
Council can either:

1. Agendize this
discussion

2. Remove from list

3. Consider this as part of
the FY 25-27 City Work
Program discussion.

Add as an action item
13 Reactivate the Economic Development
Committee
Requestor:

Chao
At 12/17/24
Council
Meeting
Council can either:

1. Agendize this
discussion

2. Remove from list

3. Consider this as part of
the FY 25-27 City Work
Program discussion.

Add as an action item
14 Restore the previous responsibilities of the
Audit Committee
Requestor:

Chao
At 12/17/24
Council
Meeting
Council can either:

1. Agendize this
discussion

2. Remove from list
Add as an action item
49 CC 07/01/2025
49 of 1130
Attachment A – Future Agenda Items List from February 2025 with Adopted Motion # Requested Item Requestor/
Seconder
Date
Requested Recommendation Motion

3. Consider this as part of
the FY 25-27 City Work
Program discussion.
15 For transportation projects and added lane
reductions to fall under the jurisdiction of
the Planning Commission
Requestor:

Wang
Seconder:

Chao
At 12/17/24
Council
Meeting
Council can either:

1. Agendize this
discussion

2. Remove from list

3. Consider this as part of
the FY 25-27 City Work
Program discussion.

An action item added to
expand the
Responsibility for the
Planning Commission to
add small cell issues and
transportation issues,
such as traffic demand
management (TDM),
intersection
reconfiguration, lane
reduction, etc. (and
perhaps to rename it the
Planning and
Transportation
Commission).
16 Guidelines and Procedures regarding
Proclamations and Certificates
Chao 1/15/25
added by
email
Council can either:

1. Agendize this
discussion

2. Remove from list
A friendly amendment
was approved to
agendize this item as
appropriate.
50 CC 07/01/2025
50 of 1130
Attachment B – July 2025 Future Agenda Item List
# Requested Item Requestor/
Seconder
Date
Requested
Recommendation/
Council Motion
Date
Council
Approved
1 An action item to add the City Hall Renovation and City Hall Annex to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26 Capital
Improvement Programs (CIP) projects list.

Requestor:

Chao
Seconder:

Moore
7/9/24
added by
email
On 2/4 Council voted to
agendize this item. This
item is on the 7/1 City
Council Meeting. Staff
recommends removing
this item from the TBD
List after the meeting.
2/4/25
2 Consider a policy to provide access to documents made available for closed sessions ahead of time with proper security measures. Accordingly, Councilmembers can read the materials before and after a closed session.

Requestor:

Chao
Seconder:

Moore
At 7/16/24
Council
meeting
On 2/4 Council voted to
keep this item on the TBD
list until it is added to the
Council Procedures
Manual, which is
tentatively scheduled for
Summer 2025. Staff
recommends removing
this item once it is heard
by Council.
2/4/25
3 Review the Cupertino City Council Procedures Manual Requestor:

Chao
Seconder:

Moore
At 12/3/24
Council
meeting
Revisions to the manual
were done at the March 18
City Council Meeting.

Further revisions are
tentatively scheduled for
Summer 2025. Staff
recommends removing
this item once it is heard
by Council.

N/A
51 CC 07/01/2025
51 of 1130
Attachment B – July 2025 Future Agenda Item List
# Requested Item Requestor/
Seconder
Date
Requested
Recommendation/
Council Motion
Date
Council
Approved
4 Review the architectural standards for 5G towers Requestor:

Wang
Seconder:

Chao
At 12/17/24
Council
Meeting
On 2/4 Council voted to
keep this item on TBD
until it was added to the
City Work Program
(CWP). This item was
added to the FY 25-27
CWP. This is tentatively
scheduled to come to
Council in September.

Staff recommends
removing this item from
this list once it has been
heard by the City Council.
2/4/25
5 Study session to discuss the policy for the Capital
Improvement Project (CIP) approval process
Requestor:

Chao
At 3/18/25
Council
Meeting
This item was discussed at
the April 2 Council
meeting. Staff
recommends removing
this item from this list.

N/A
6 Reactivate the Legislative Review Committee (LRC) Requestor:

Chao
At 12/17/24
Council
meeting
On 2/4 Council voted to
agendize this item. On
3/18 Council created a
legislative subcommittee,
which is currently in effect
and is discussing details
on bringing back the LRC.

Staff recommends
removing this item from
this list.
2/4/2025
approved
by council
to agendize
52 CC 07/01/2025
52 of 1130
Attachment B – July 2025 Future Agenda Item List
# Requested Item Requestor/
Seconder
Date
Requested
Recommendation/
Council Motion
Date
Council
Approved
7 Reactivate the Economic Development Committee (EDC) Requestor:

Chao
At 12/17/24
Council
Meeting
On 2/4 Council voted to
agendize this item. On
4/15 Council reactivated
the EDC. Council made
further amendments to
the committee
composition on June 17.

Staff recommends
removing this item from
this list.
2/4/2025
approved
by council
to agendize
8 Introduce and conduct first reading of Ordinance No. 25- ____ of Municipal Code Amendments regarding vehicle
parking restrictions.
“I would like to propose a minor modification to the Muni Code for parking to address the issue that a vehicle could occupy the same section of a public street 24x7 as long as they move the vehicle by 6 inches. This is against the
original intent of the Muni Code 11.24.130. I have included relevant Muni Code sections from Mountain View and
Sunnyvale, in addition to Cupertino's Muni Code below.

We could consider the two options:
- Mountain View's version: Any vehicle must be
moved at least one thousand (1000) feet
(approximately two-tenths (2/10) of a mile) from its
current location and may not return to the same
parking spot for at least twenty-four (24) hours after
its departure.
- Sunnyvale's version: Pushing or moving a vehicle a
short distance will not be considered compliance
Requestor:

Chao
3/20/25
added by
email
This item is being
discussed by the City
Council in July. Staff
recommends removing
this item from this list
once it has been heard by
the City Council.

N/A
53 CC 07/01/2025
53 of 1130
Attachment B – July 2025 Future Agenda Item List
# Requested Item Requestor/
Seconder
Date
Requested
Recommendation/
Council Motion
Date
Council
Approved
with this section. Additionally, successive acts of
parking shall be presumed to be a single act of
parking within the meaning of this section when the
vehicle is moved merely for the purpose of avoiding
the parking limitations prescribed by this section.

I hope that such minor modification could be considered in a timely manner.
9 Study session on multi-family apartments converting to student housing (MOTION: Chao moved and Moore
seconded to add the following item to a future agenda: A study session on the multifamily apartment conversion to student housing issue, and whether the City can do it;
include existing proposed bills on student housing and
comparisons to municipal codes on student housing in
other jurisdictions, such as San Francisco and Berkeley; and consider a potential ordinance for student housing, so the City has control of its use and impact. The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Chao, Moore, Fruen, Mohan, and Wang. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.)
Requestor:

All
At 4/2/25
Council
Meeting
On 4/2 Council voted to
agendize this discussion.

On 5/6 Council adopted a
resolution to encourage
student housing while
preserving multi-unit
housing. A study session
is tentatively scheduled to
go to Council this
summer. Staff
recommends removing
this item once it has been
heard by the City Council.
4/2/2025
approved
by council
to agendize
10 An Informational Memorandum on the contracts signed by the City in the past year. Ideally, include the purpose, the department and the contract duration and the dollar
amount. If this request would need to be added to the info memo TBD list to get majority support. A monthly
report on new contract signed or renewed would be quite helpful going forward too.

Requestor:

Chao
4/4/25
added by
email
This info memo was
published on May 15.

Staff recommends
removing this item from
this list.

N/A
54 CC 07/01/2025
54 of 1130
Attachment B – July 2025 Future Agenda Item List
# Requested Item Requestor/
Seconder
Date
Requested
Recommendation/
Council Motion
Date
Council
Approved
11 Restore the previous responsibilities of the Audit
Committee (Motion: An action item to restore the Audit
Committee’s previous responsibilities. The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Chao, Moore, and Wang.

Noes: Fruen and Mohan. Abstain: None. Absent: None).

Requestor:

Chao
At 12/17/24
Council
Meeting
On 2/4 Council voted to
agendize this discussion.

On 5/20 Council directed
the Audit Committee to
discuss their scope and
bring recommendations to
Council. This will be
added to the upcoming
Audit Committee agenda
for discussion. Staff
recommends removing
this item from this list
once it has been heard by
the City Council.
2/4/25
approved
by council
to agendize
12 For transportation projects and added lane reductions to fall under the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission
(Motion: An action item to expand the Responsibility for the Planning Commission to add small cell issues and
transportation issues, such as traffic demand management (TDM), intersection reconfiguration, lane reduction, etc. (and perhaps to rename it the Planning and Transportation Commission. The motion passed with the following vote:

Ayes: Chao, Moore, and Wang. Noes: Fruen and Mohan.

Abstain: None. Absent: None).

Requestor:

Wang
Seconder:

Chao
At 12/17/24
Council
Meeting
On 2/4 Council voted to
agendize this item. This
item is tentatively
scheduled for July. Staff
recommends removing
this item from this list
once it has been heard by
the City Council.
2/4/25
approved
by council
to agendize
13 A study session to consider regulations on sound
amplification devices in parks (Motion: A friendly
amendment was approved to hold a study session on this
item. Add this item to an agenda: Amend CMC Section

13.04.120 Use of Park Property “No person in the park shall Requestor:

Moore
Seconder:

Chao
At 9/17/24
Council
meeting
On 2/4 Council voted to
agendize this study
session as soon as
appropriate. Staff
recommends keeping this
2/4/25
approved
by council
to agendize
55 CC 07/01/2025
55 of 1130
Attachment B – July 2025 Future Agenda Item List
# Requested Item Requestor/
Seconder
Date
Requested
Recommendation/
Council Motion
Date
Council
Approved
do any of the following: … 1. Use any system for
amplifying sounds, whether for speech or music or
otherwise, unless an exclusive use permit is first secured,” as… “No person in a park shall do any of the following: …

1. Use any system for amplifying sounds, whether for
speech or music or otherwise, in an unreasonable loud
manner, unless an exclusive use permit is for secured,” where the definition of “unreasonably loud manner” means “the volume of sound in the use or operation of any sound application equipment if such sound can be heard by a
person from fifty (50) or more feet from the source of the amplification” (as defined in Oakland Muni Code)
item on this list until it is
agendized.
14 Guidelines and Procedures regarding Proclamations and Certificates (Motion: A friendly amendment was approved to agendize this item as appropriate.)
Requestor:

Chao
1/15/25
added by
email.

Email
attached
below.

On 2/4 Council voted to
agendize this item as soon
as appropriate. Staff
recommends keeping this
item on this list until it is
agendized.
2/4/25
approved
by council
to agendize
15 Receive update and review the Active Transportation Plan Requestor:

Wang,
Seconder:

Chao
4/17/25
added by
email
An update on this item is
tentatively scheduled for
Fall 2025. Staff
recommends removing
this item once it has been
heard by the City Council.

N/A
16 Consider Finch Property for potential purchase or other partnership with CUSD. This includes:
• Information about the Finch Property itself
• Any communication about the Finch Property from
CUSD
Requestor:

Chao
3/20/25
added by
email
On 4/15 Council voted to
agendize this item. This
item is on the 7/1 City
Council meeting. Staff
recommends removing
4/15/25
approved
by council
to agendize
56 CC 07/01/2025
56 of 1130
Attachment B – July 2025 Future Agenda Item List
# Requested Item Requestor/
Seconder
Date
Requested
Recommendation/
Council Motion
Date
Council
Approved
• The info memo on the current balance and estimated
future parkland impact fee.
this item after the
meeting.
17 Get some clarity on the total expenses for the sister and friendship cities. These are valuable programs for the city, but we should be cognizant of the expenses so far and
going forward (in the budget).
“Will someone please provide a cost update prior to the Sister/Friendship city Policy Agenda item, to the following table (below) provided in October 10, 2023 Supplemental Materials to the October 10, 2023 agenda item, to include:
• Friendship City costs (gifts, staff time?), the table only has Sister Cities.
• Provide Actual Staff costs to manage the program so
that we can compare them with the budgeted amount.

If possible, by Sister or Friendship city.
o Staff costs of meeting with the delegations which
includes a presentation by the City Manager, slide
show, City Staff support, City photographer, City
Staff guided tour of the library, Community Hall,
and City Hall.
o Staff attendance at various Sister City and
Friendship City events (Bell ringing for Peace, for
example)
o Staff time making proclamations, speeches for
Mayor etc.

Requestor:

Moore,
Seconder:

Chao
4/14/25
added by
email
An info memo was
published on 5/29. Staff
recommends removing
this item from this list.

N/A
57 CC 07/01/2025
57 of 1130
Attachment B – July 2025 Future Agenda Item List
# Requested Item Requestor/
Seconder
Date
Requested
Recommendation/
Council Motion
Date
Council
Approved
o Staff free Advertising costs such as promotional
videos, this requires staff time to write a script,
video edit, post the videos etc. Here are examples:
o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5zyfVVrQhs
o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwlHxT5-f9I
• Provide travel costs whether covered by the city or not (we should know if individuals are traveling to cities
paid for by a Friendship or Sister City) and if it was for staff or a councilmember. The staff or councilmember
would have to report the costs covered by the Sister or Friendship City and the city would have a record of
what costs were covered.
• How many of the 18 free facility uses were used and for how many hours? The budgeted amount should be the
max. cost? 18 x 4 sister cities x Number of Hours x Cost per hour? I mention this because the policy is very
vague surrounding the uses.
• Any costs I may be missing?
Please repeat the process for FY 23-24 and FY 24-25 so
far. We have had no update since 2023. Please indicate
which Sister/Friendship City the costs are for with a
total for each.”
18 Grant Policy Update Requestor:

Chao
Seconder:

Moore
6/13/25
Verbal
Request
This item is tentatively
scheduled for January
2026. Staff recommends
keeping this item on this
list until it is agendized.

N/A
58 CC 07/01/2025
58 of 1130
1/15/25 Email Regarding Item 17
From: Pamela Wu <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2025 5:30 PM
To: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Cc: Tina Kapoor <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Samantha LoCurto <[email protected]>; Astrid Robles <[email protected]>; Serena Tu <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Proclamations for the 1/22 City Council meeting Mayor Chao, thank you for your clarification. I wasn’t sure if the message was meant for Sam or I.

As I mentioned earlier, I have absolutely no intention to “overwrite” or “defy” your authority. I was following the established procedures.

That said, I believe this is a great TBD item for the council to provide direction. Based on your last input, I will add your request to the TBD list.

Concerning the two proclamations, Tina and her team will revise the draft per your suggestions and incorporate best practices in the communication industry. Given it’s already past 5 pm, we will have the revisions for your review in the morning.

Tina / Sam – please provide revisions for Mayor’s review in the morning.

Tina / Astrid – please add the following request to the TBD list.

Thank you,
Pamela
Pamela Wu
City Manager
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408)777-1322
59 CC 07/01/2025
59 of 1130
From: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2025 5:20 PM
To: Pamela Wu <[email protected]>
Cc: Tina Kapoor <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Samantha LoCurto <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Proclamations for the 1/22 City Council meeting I just noticed that the "To" field of some earlier emails are Samantha when I clicked "reply".

Just to clarify. My previous emails regarding this matter should be addressed to Pamela, who has advised strongly, repeatedly. that I only issue certificates in our prep meetings. And I have also stressed, repeatedly in response, that I wish to issue proclamations to recognize the consistent and/or significant contributions an organization or an individual has made to Cupertino or its residents.

Those emails were not meant for Samantha, who should only receive directions from the City Manager. I apology if there is any confusion.

For your information, I have collected a few sample proclamations issued by other cities. And my decision to issue proclamations, rather than merely certificates, are informed by other proclamations I have seen over the years since I got involved with city issues in 2014. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YcFRrTfOEFsMkU04yiT_kmuJuZ4c1dqrTLtURI5D3Hk/edit?usp=sharing Therefore, I am merely following common practices on handling proclamations, even though it might have been different from things are handled in the past two years in Cupertino.

Thank you for your understanding,
Liang
Liang Chao
Mayor
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
60 CC 07/01/2025
60 of 1130
From: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2025 3:52 PM
To: Samantha LoCurto <[email protected]>
Cc: Pamela Wu <[email protected]>; Tina Kapoor <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Proclamations for the 1/22 City Council meeting The proclamations commonly include multiple items of information, marked as "WHEREAS", to specifically identify the contributions of the organizations or individuals we are recognizing.

It has been the common practice in Cupertino and also in other cities.

This is demonstrated by the 2022 proclamation to the Shin Shin Foundation and also in other proclamations from other cities that I have found.

Whatever practice the City has adopted in the past two years may work for former Mayor Wei and Mohan. But both of them seem to have attended only a handful of Cupertino council meetings before they got elected, while I have consistently attended council meetings since 2014, in Cupertino and also other cities. Thus, I do not have to follow the same practice as done in the last two years.

The City Clerk's office can of course polish the language I have proposed, but there is no reason to shorten it to contain only one "WHEREAS" item, which does not align with the common practice of other proclamations.

I respectfully request that the City Manager respects the Mayor's discretional authority to decide the content of proclamations to provide more information about the contribution of the organizations the Mayor wishes to recognize. If the City Manager insists on overwriting the Mayor's discretionary authority, I have no choice but to request a future agenda item on the dais in order to seek the direction of the entire Council.

Thank you for your cooperation.
61 CC 07/01/2025
61 of 1130
Liang
Liang Chao
Mayor
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2025 2:33 PM
To: Samantha LoCurto <[email protected]>
Cc: Pamela Wu <[email protected]>; Tina Kapoor <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Proclamations for the 1/22 City Council meeting For your information, here is the 2022 proclamation from then Mayor Wei to Shin Shin Foundation.

Thus, my draft proclamations are inline with the common formats for the proclamations, in Cupertino and in other cities. 62 CC 07/01/2025
62 of 1130
63 CC 07/01/2025
63 of 1130
Liang Chao
Mayor
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2025 2:21 PM
To: Samantha LoCurto <[email protected]>
Cc: Pamela Wu <[email protected]>; Tina Kapoor <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Proclamations for the 1/22 City Council meeting Thank you for send it to me for review. I do not approve of these two proclamations.

I request that the Council agenda is not published until the proclamations are prepared to be inline as the draft I have prepared.

The content of thesed two so-called "proclamations" is far away from the text for the proclamations that I have drafted.

The content is similar to certificates, but my direction is to present proclamations. \ It is my discretion as the Mayor to issue proclamations. The City Manager has no authority to interfere here.

You can check the proclamation to Shin Shin Fiundation from 2022 or in 2017 or earlier.

I have also consulted proclamations from other cities when I drafted the text for the two proclamations.

Please respect the discretion of the Mayor in the content of the proclamations.

I respectfully request that the city manager do not repeatedly defy the Mayor’s authority to make decisions on this matter.

For your information, I have included the text I sent earlier below.

Thank you.
64 CC 07/01/2025
64 of 1130
Liang
========
I have drafted the text of the two proclamations below. They are based on the proclamation by Mayor Wei in 2022 for the Shin Shin Education foundation and other proclamations I found from other cities.

The Shin Shin Day one is based on the 2022 version and a 2017 version I found. ==================
Proclamation
Presented to the Taiwan Cultural and Sports Association (TCSA) WHEREAS, the Taiwanese Cultural and Sports Association (TCSA) is a non-profit organization founded by Dr. Hung and Dr. Anita in 2010, dedicated to promoting Taiwanese culture and fostering intercultural exchange between Taiwan, the United States, and other nations; WHEREAS, TCSA actively encourages young Taiwanese Americans to engage in cultural and sports activities, thereby strengthening collaboration between the Taiwanese community and other communities; WHEREAS, TCSA organizes a variety of entertainment, educational, and volunteer-driven events aimed at cultural exchange, including festivals and sports activities;
WHEREAS, since 2010, TCSA has consistently hosted the annual International Kids Fun Festival in Cupertino, with the exception of a twoyear pause during the COVID-19 pandemic; WHEREAS, the International Kids Fun Festival attracts over 20,000 attendees annually, featuring performances, food, and products from Taiwan, alongside booths representing over 10 countries, with the support of numerous performers, exhibitors, and over 300 dedicated volunteers;
WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino is honored to have Memorial Park serve as the venue for TCSA’s widely celebrated International Kids Fun Festival; and
WHEREAS, the 15th International Kids Fun Festival, scheduled for 2025 in Cupertino, will continue to bring joy and cultural enrichment to the community.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Mayor Liang Chao, and the Cupertino City Council, formally recognize and commend the Taiwan Cultural and Sports Association (TCSA) for its invaluable contributions to our community through cultural festivals and events. I 65 CC 07/01/2025
65 of 1130
extend heartfelt gratitude to the volunteers and supporters of the Kids Fun Festival for their tireless efforts and ongoing service to the Cupertino community.
==============
Proclamation
Presented to the Shin Shin Educational Foundation
WHEREAS, since its establishment in 1997, the Shin Shin Educational Foundation has built and sustained a remarkable coalition of nonprofits dedicated to advancing education in rural China; WHEREAS, Shin Shin has made a profound impact through the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and the generosity of thousands of donors, continually improving the learning environment for children and striving to promote balanced development between urban and rural education in China;
WHEREAS, over the years, Shin Shin has directly supported more than 350,000 children and 3,000 teachers and principals, while constructing and repairing hundreds of schools;
WHEREAS, Shin Shin has engaged youth in Cupertino and surrounding regions, fostering meaningful connections with students in China, broadening their global perspectives, and inspiring service-oriented leadership; WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino expresses its heartfelt gratitude to the Shin Shin Educational Foundation and its volunteers for their steadfast commitment to both the Cupertino community and their mission abroad; and WHEREAS, on January 19, 2025, the Shin Shin Educational Foundation will celebrate its 27th Anniversary during its annual appreciation and fundraising event;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Mayor Liang Chao, and the Cupertino City Council, commend the Shin Shin Educational Foundation for its extraordinary contributions and hereby proclaim Sunday, January 19, 2025, as Shin Shin Educational Foundation Day
in Cupertino. I extend my deepest appreciation to the many volunteers and supporters for their tireless dedication and continued service to the community.
66 CC 07/01/2025
66 of 1130
Liang Chao
Mayor
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Samantha LoCurto <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2025 1:55 PM
To: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Cc: Pamela Wu <[email protected]>; Tina Kapoor <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Proclamations for the 1/22 City Council meeting Good afternoon Mayor,
I have attached the two Proclamations for the upcoming Council meeting on 1/22. We will include them in the agenda packet.

Thank you,
Samantha
Samantha LoCurto
Communications and Marketing Coordinator
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408) 777-3106
67 CC 07/01/2025
67 of 1130

From: Pamela Wu <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2025 9:50 AM
To: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Cc: Tina Kapoor <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Serena Tu <[email protected]>; Samantha LoCurto <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Proclamations for the 1/22 City Council meeting Mayor Chao, per your request, we will include both proclamations in the agenda packet and have them ready for your presentation on 1/22.

For future proclamations, Serena can walk you through the city’s process for such request.

Pamela
Pamela Wu
City Manager
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408)777-1322

From: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2025 8:00 AM
To: Pamela Wu <[email protected]>
Cc: Tina Kapoor <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Proclamations for the 1/22 City Council meeting Please include two proclamations for the 1/22 Council meeting in the agenda packet: One for Kids Fun Festival and one for Shin Shin Educational Foundation Day, which Cupertino used to declare almost every year at their anniversary. 68 CC 07/01/2025
68 of 1130
I have drafted the text of the two proclamations below. They are based on the proclamation by Mayor Wei in 2022 for the Shin Shin Education foundation and other proclamations I found from other cities.

The Shin Shin Day one is based on the 2022 version and a 2017 version I found. ==================
Proclamation
Presented to the Taiwan Cultural and Sports Association (TCSA) WHEREAS, the Taiwan Cultural and Sports Association (TCSA) is a non-profit organization founded by Dr. Hung and Dr. Anita in 2010, dedicated to promoting Taiwanese culture and fostering intercultural exchange between Taiwan, the United States, and other nations; WHEREAS, TCSA actively encourages young Taiwanese Americans to engage in cultural and sports activities, thereby strengthening collaboration between the Taiwanese community and other communities; WHEREAS, TCSA organizes a variety of entertainment, educational, and volunteer-driven events aimed at cultural exchange, including festivals and sports activities;
WHEREAS, since 2010, TCSA has consistently hosted the annual International Kids Fun Festival in Cupertino, with the exception of a twoyear pause during the COVID-19 pandemic; WHEREAS, the International Kids Fun Festival attracts over 20,000 attendees annually, featuring performances, food, and products from Taiwan, alongside booths representing over 10 countries, with the support of numerous performers, exhibitors, and over 300 dedicated volunteers;
WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino is honored to have Memorial Park serve as the venue for TCSA’s widely celebrated International Kids Fun Festival; and
WHEREAS, the 15th International Kids Fun Festival, scheduled for 2025 in Cupertino, will continue to bring joy and cultural enrichment to the community.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Mayor Liang Chao, and the Cupertino City Council, formally recognize and commend the Taiwan Cultural and Sports Association (TCSA) for its invaluable contributions to our community through cultural festivals and events. I extend heartfelt gratitude to the volunteers and supporters of the Kids Fun Festival for their tireless efforts and ongoing service to the Cupertino community.
==============
69 CC 07/01/2025
69 of 1130
Proclamation
Presented to the Shin Shin Educational Foundation
WHEREAS, since its establishment in 1997, the Shin Shin Educational Foundation has built and sustained a remarkable coalition of nonprofits dedicated to advancing education in rural China; WHEREAS, Shin Shin has made a profound impact through the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and the generosity of thousands of donors, continually improving the learning environment for children and striving to promote balanced development between urban and rural education in China;
WHEREAS, over the years, Shin Shin has directly supported more than 350,000 children and 3,000 teachers and principals, while constructing and repairing hundreds of schools;
WHEREAS, Shin Shin has engaged youth in Cupertino and surrounding regions, fostering meaningful connections with students in China, broadening their global perspectives, and inspiring service-oriented leadership; WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino expresses its heartfelt gratitude to the Shin Shin Educational Foundation and its volunteers for their steadfast commitment to both the Cupertino community and their mission abroad; and WHEREAS, on January 19, 2025, the Shin Shin Educational Foundation will celebrate its 27th Anniversary during its annual appreciation and fundraising event;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Mayor Liang Chao, and the Cupertino City Council, commend the Shin Shin Educational Foundation for its extraordinary contributions and hereby proclaim Sunday, January 19, 2025, as Shin Shin Educational Foundation Day
in Cupertino. I extend my deepest appreciation to the many volunteers and supporters for their tireless dedication and continued service to the community.
======
70 CC 07/01/2025
70 of 1130
Liang Chao
Mayor
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
71 CC 07/01/2025
71 of 1130

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-14080 Agenda Date: 7/1/2025
Agenda #: 8.

Subject: Appoint a negotiator for the potential purchase of 10480 Finch Avenue, owned by the Cupertino Unified School District, adjacent to Sedgwick Elementary School.

Appoint the Interim City Attorney and Acting City Manager to negotiate with the Superintendent of the Cupertino Unified School District or her designee regarding the possible purchase of 10480 Finch Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014, Assessor’s Parcel Number 375-40-067, from Cupertino Unified School District on terms established by the City Council.

CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 6/25/2025
powered by Legistar™ 72
CC 07/01/2025
72 of 1130

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: July 1, 2025
Subject
Appoint a negotiator for the potential purchase of 10480 Finch Avenue, owned by the Cupertino Unified School District, adjacent to Sedgwick Elementary School.

Recommended Action
Appoint the Interim City Attorney and Acting City Manager to negotiate with the Superintendent of the Cupertino Unified School District or her designee regarding the possible purchase of 10480 Finch Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014, Assessor’s Parcel Number 375-40-067, from Cupertino Unified School District on terms established by the City Council.

Background
10480 Finch Avenue (“Finch Property”) is an approximate 1.5-acre vacant parcel currently owned by the Cupertino Unified School District (“CUSD”). Adjacent to Sedgwick Elementary School, it is located in the southeastern portion of the City in the Rancho Rinconada district, bounded by Stevens Creek Blvd. to the north, Miller Avenue to the west, Bollinger Road to the south and Lawrence Expressway to the east.

In 2016, the CUSD Board authorized the purchase of the Finch Property for $5,386,750 in order to expand Sedgwick Elementary School. Due to the property’s prior use for agricultural purposes and the potential presence of pesticides, CUSD retained an environmental consultant to complete a Geologic and Environmental Hazards Report.

Testing by the consultant revealed pesticide residue, lead, and hydrocarbon deposits from an underground fuel tank. Under the oversight of the Department of Toxic Substances (“DTSC”), a Preliminary Environmental Assessment and a Supplemental Site Investigation were completed in September and November 2015. In 2019, DTSC issued a Removal Action Certification (Attachment F) for the property which certified the completion of the remedial work. Further investigation into the environmental condition of the site is advisable and an updated Phase 1 Environmental Report should be obtained during negotiations.
73 CC 07/01/2025
73 of 1130
Pertinent Environmental documents from CUSD are as follows:
i. Attachment A: Preliminary Environmental Assessment (September 2015) ii. Attachment B: Supplemental Site Investigation (November 2015) iii. Attachment C: School Cleanup Agreement with DTSC (June 2017) iv. Attachment D: Removal Action Workplan (January 2018) v. Attachment E: Hazardous Materials Management Report (June 2018) vi. Attachment F: Report Action Certification (May 2019) Additional documentation from DTCS can be found on their website here:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/
Parkland Dedication in lieu Fee fund
Pursuant to Municipal Code section 13.08 and Government Code section 66477, permissible uses of the Parkland Dedication in lieu Funds (“Parkland Funds”) include acquisition of parkland or developing new parks and recreational facilities.

Currently, the City’s Parkland Fund has a balance of approximately $19.1 million (as shown on 118 of the FY23-24 ACFR), of which $5.9 M is allocated toward LawrenceMitty Park design and construction, leaving approximately $13.2 million currently not allocated. If the City Council intends to convert this parcel into a public park space, the available Parkland funds could be used towards the purchase and development of the property.

Next Steps
Should Council direct staff to proceed with exploring a purchase of the Finch Property, the following due diligence information will need to be prepared prior to a discussion in Closed Session:
i. Obtain an updated Title Report;
ii. Perform any required environmental analysis;
iii. Obtain a property appraisal.

The above are estimated to cost approximately $10,000 and to take approximately 6 to 10 weeks to complete.

Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.

Fiscal Impact
Appointment of negotiators will result in the use of staff time and expenses for time used by Aleshire & Wynder, LLP. Approximately $10,000 will be used from the City Manager’s contingency fund (100-14-123 719-705) to procure the necessary documentation to inform the purchasing discussions.
74 CC 07/01/2025
74 of 1130
City Work Program Item/Description
None
Council Goals
Quality of Life
California Environmental Quality Act
Not applicable at this time.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Chad Mosley, Director of Public Works
Reviewed by: Floy Andrews, City Attorney
Approved for Submission by: Tina Kapoor, Interim City Manager Attachments:

A - Preliminary Environmental Assessment (September 2015) B - Supplemental Site Investigation (November 2015)
C - School Cleanup Agreement with DTSC (June 2017)
D - Removal Action Workplan (January 2018)
E - Hazardous Materials Management Report (June 2018)
F – Report Action Certification (May 2019)
75 CC 07/01/2025
75 of 1130

PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

SEDGWICK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

EXPANSION PROJECT
10480 FINCH AVENUE

CUPERTINO, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:

CUPERTINO UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
September 2015
Attachment A
76 CC 07/01/2025
76 of 1130
77 CC 07/01/2025
77 of 1130
Cupertino Union SD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2171
Cupertino_PEA Report_FINAL
- i -

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................ ES1

1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................. 1-1

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

1.2 OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................... 1-1

2.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND CONTACTS............................................... 2-1

2.1 SITE ADDRESS / ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER.......................... 2-1

2.2 DESIGNATED CONTACT PERSON AND MAILING ADDRESS.......... 2-1

2.3 PROPERTY USE................................................................................. 2-1

2.4 ENVIROSTOR DATABASE NUMBER ................................................. 2-1

2.5 TOWNSHIP, RANGE, AND SECTION................................................. 2-1

2.6 SITE MAPS.......................................................................................... 2-1

2.7 PHYSICAL SETTING........................................................................... 2-1

2.8 SURROUNDING PROPERTY LAND USE........................................... 2-2

3.0 BACKGROUND............................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS......................................... 3-1

3.2 CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN........................................... 3-2

4.0 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL ......................................................................... 4-1

5.0 PEA ASSESSMENT........................................................................................ 5-1

5.1 SAMPLE LOCATIONS......................................................................... 5-1

5.1.1 Soil Sampling .......................................................................... 5-1

5.1.2 Soil Gas Sampling ................................................................... 5-3

5.1.3 Quality Assurance / Quality Control Samples ........................... 5-3

5.2 SAMPLE COLLECTION....................................................................... 5-3

5.2.1 Soil Sample Collection.............................................................. 5-3

5.2.2 Soil Gas Sample Collection ...................................................... 5-4

5.2.3 Decontamination Procedures ................................................... 5-5

5.3 SAMPLE ANALYSES .......................................................................... 5-5

5.3.1 Chain-of-Custody Records ....................................................... 5-6

5.4 FIELD VARIANCES............................................................................. 5-6

6.0 FINDINGS....................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1 SOIL SAMPLING RESULTS................................................................ 6-1

6.1.1 OCPs ...................................................................................... 6-1

6.1.2 Lead ........................................................................................ 6-1 78 CC 07/01/2025
78 of 1130
Cupertino Union SD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2171
Cupertino_PEA Report_FINAL
- ii -

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page

6.1.3 Arsenic .................................................................................... 6-2

6.1.4 PCBs ....................................................................................... 6-2

6.1.5 TPHg and BTEX ...................................................................... 6-2

6.2 SOIL GAS SAMPLING RESULTS ....................................................... 6-2

6.2.1 VOCs ...................................................................................... 6-2

6.3 QA/QC SAMPLES ............................................................................... 6-3

6.3.1 Duplicates ................................................................................ 6-3

6.3.2 Equipment Blank ...................................................................... 6-4

6.3.3 Field Blank ............................................................................... 6-4

6.3.4 Laboratory QA/QC.................................................................... 6-4

7.0 HUMAN HEALTH SCREENING EVALUATION............................................... 7-1

7.1 CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN........................................... 7-1

7.2 SOIL RISK ASSESSMENT.................................................................. 7-1

7.3 SOIL GAS RISK ASSESSMENT.......................................................... 7-2

8.0 ECOLOGICAL SCREENING........................................................................... 8-1

9.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................ 9-1

10.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................ 10-1 TABLES
5-1 Field Sampling Schedule (Soil)........................................................................ 5-7 5-2 Field Sampling Schedule (Soil Gas) ................................................................ 5-9 5-3 Sample Collection Information......................................................................... 5-10 6-1 Soil Results for OCPs...................................................................................... 6-6 6-2 Soil Results for Arsenic and Lead.................................................................... 6-8 6-3 Soil Results for PCBs ...................................................................................... 6-11 6-4 Soil Results for TPHg and BTEX ..................................................................... 6-12 6-5 Soil Gas Results for VOCs .............................................................................. 6-13 7-1 Soil Exposure Screening Evaluation................................................................ 7-4 7-2 Soil Gas Exposure Screening Evaluation ........................................................ 7-5 79 CC 07/01/2025
79 of 1130
Cupertino Union SD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2171
Cupertino_PEA Report_FINAL
- iii -

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page
PLATES
Site Location ............................................................................................................... Plate 1-1 Site Plan ..................................................................................................................... Plate 1-2 Conceptual Site Model................................................................................................ Plate 4-1 Site Sampling Plan ........................................................................................................... Plate 5-1 Soil Vapor/Drill Hole Locations ......................................................................................... Plate 5-2 Soil Vapor Probe and Sample Schematic ........................................................................ Plate 5-3 Chlordane Results ..................................................................................................... Plate 6-1 Lead Results............................................................................................................... Plate 6-2 Arsenic Results........................................................................................................... Plate 6-3

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: DTSC CORRESPONDENCE
APPENDIX B: QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN (QAPP)
APPENDIX C: DRILL HOLE LOGS
APPENDIX D: ANALYTICAL LABORATORY REPORTS AND CHAIN-OF-CUSTODYS APPENDIX E: RISK SPREADSHEETS
80 CC 07/01/2025
80 of 1130
Cupertino Union SD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2171
Cupertino_PEA Report_FINAL ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Padre Associates, Inc. (Padre), on behalf of the Cupertino Union School District (District), has prepared this Preliminary Environmental Assessment (PEA) report for the Sedgwick Elementary School Expansion Project located at 10480 Finch Avenue in Cupertino, Santa Clara County, California (Project Site).

The Project Site consists of 1.48 acres of residential use property, and is located adjacent to the northwest corner of the Sedgwick Elementary School property. According to Padre’s review of available historical aerial photographs, the Project Site was planted as an orchard from at least 1939 through the late 1950s. The existing residential building is present in a 1956 aerial photograph.

The Project Site is bordered to the north by Phil Lane, beyond which is residential property; to the east and south by Sedgwick Elementary School; to the west by residential property; and to the northwest by Finch Avenue, beyond which is residential property.

The PEA was conducted in accordance with the Padre document titled Preliminary Environmental Assessment Work Plan, Sedgwick Elementary School Expansion Project, 10480 Finch Avenue, Cupertino, Santa Clara County, California, dated May 2015. The PEA Work Plan was conditionally approved by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) in a letter to District dated June 4, 2015. This PEA Report will be made available to the public for review and comment pursuant to Option A of the California Education Code (CEC) §17213.1.a (6)(A).

The purpose of the PEA was to establish whether a release or potential release of hazardous substances, which pose a threat to human health via ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation exposure pathways, exists at the Project Site. Chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) identified at the Project Site included:
• Organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) and arsenic in soil from historic agricultural use; • Lead in soil from weathering of lead-based paint used on historic on-site building structures; and termiticides in soil from historic on-site building structures with wood components;
• Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in soil from the weathering of window caulking used in historic building structures; and
• Petroleum hydrocarbons and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in soil and soil gas from a former 500-gallon gasoline underground storage tank (UST).

The results of the PEA screening level risk assessment estimated the total risk from COPCs identified in soils at the Project Site to be 3.2 x 10-5, which provides an increased cancer risk of greater than 1 in 1,000,000 (>10-6). The total health hazard from COPCs identified in soils at the Project Site is estimated to be 0.46, which does not provide an increased health 81 CC 07/01/2025
81 of 1130
Cupertino Union SD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2171
Cupertino_PEA Report_FINAL ES-2
hazard (i.e., >1). Therefore, a response action to reduce and/or eliminate the COPCs identified in surficial soils at the Project Site is recommended.

Lead concentrations ranged from 9.0 to 310 milligrams (mg/kg) in soil samples collected throughout the Project Site. Using DTSC’s lead risk assessment spreadsheet model (LeadSpread Version 8), exposure to the lead concentrations identified at the Project Site would result in a 90th percentile blood lead concentration of 8.0 micrograms per deciliter (µg/dl) in children, which exceeds the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) blood toxicity level of 1 µg/dl. Therefore, a response action to reduce or eliminate leadimpacted soil is recommended.

Arsenic concentrations ranged from 5.2 to 15 mg/kg in soil samples collected from across the Project Site. The arsenic data set consisted of four soil samples collected as part of the PEA, and 16 soil samples previously collected as part of a preliminary soil evaluation completed by others (Cornerstone, 2014). The four PEA soil samples were collected as stepout and step-down samples at the location of soil sample SS-6, which reported the highest Project Site arsenic concentration at 15 mg/kg. Arsenic concentrations reported for the PEA soil samples ranged from 5.7 to 13 mg/kg, indicating that arsenic concentrations in soil at this location do not present a potential “hotspot” for arsenic in soil. A statistical evaluation was performed by calculating the 95% Upper Confidence Limit (UCL) for the arsenic data set. The 95% UCL for arsenic in soil at the Project Site was calculated to be 10 mg/kg. A graphical evaluation completed by creating a normal probability plot of the arsenic data set. The shape of the plotted data presents a relatively normal distribution. Therefore, arsenic concentrations identified in surface soil at the Project Site are representative of ambient concentrations and further assessment and/or remedial action for arsenic in soil is not warranted.

Results of the soil gas assessment conducted at the Project Site identified low level concentrations of VOCs; however, none of the of the VOCs exceeded their respective human health screening levels. The results of the PEA screening level risk assessment for soil gas estimated the total risk to be 8.6 x 10-9, which does not provide an increased cancer risk of greater than 1 in 1,000,000 (>10-6). The cumulative hazard was estimated to be 0.0003, which does not provide a significant health hazard (>1). Therefore, further assessment and/or remediation regarding VOCs identified in soil gas at the Project Site is not warranted.

Due to elevated concentrations of OCPs and lead identified in surface soil around existing structures at the Project Site, Padre recommends a response action to reduce or eliminate the potential impact of these contaminants. The recommended remedial action is excavation, removal, and offsite disposal at an appropriate landfill. Prior to the response action, Padre recommends conducting a Supplemental Site Investigation (SSI) to further define chlordane and lead impacts around the structures.
82 CC 07/01/2025
82 of 1130
Cupertino Union SD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2171
Cupertino_PEA Report_FINAL
1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This document presents the results of the Preliminary Environmental Assessment (PEA), which was completed by Padre Associates, Inc. (Padre) on behalf of the Cupertino Union School District (District), for the Sedgwick Elementary School Expansion Project located at 10480 Finch Avenue, Cupertino, Santa Clara County, California (Project Site). The Project Site is identified on Plate 1-1: Site Location and Plate 1-2: Site Plan.

The Project Site consists of 1.48 acres of residential property located adjacent to the northwest corner of the existing Sedgewick Elementary School. The expansion project will not result in an addition of classrooms or students to the existing elementary school. Public water and sewer will be provided to the Project Site by the San Jose Water Company and the Sunnyvale Sanitation District, respectively.

The PEA was conducted in accordance with the Padre document titled Preliminary Environmental Assessment Work Plan, Sedgwick Elementary School Expansion Project, 10480 Finch Avenue, Cupertino, Santa Clara County, California, dated May 2015. The PEA Work Plan was conditionally approved by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) in a letter to District dated June 4, 2015. This PEA Report will be made available to the public for review and comment pursuant to Option A of the California Education Code (CEC) §17213.1.a(6)(A). A copy of the DTSC approval letter is included in Appendix A.

1.1 PURPOSE
California Department of Education statutes (Assembly Bill 387, Senate Bill 162 and Assembly Bill 2644) require the CalEPA/DTSC to review environmental assessments for proposed new school sites and/or new construction school expansion projects. The role of the DTSC is to ensure that selected properties do not contain hazardous substances that are a threat to public health and the environment.

1.2 OBJECTIVES
This PEA was conducted consistent with the DTSC guidance manual for evaluation of hazardous substance release sites titled Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual, State of California, Environmental Protection Agency, January 1994 (Interim Final – Revised October 2013). Pursuant to the Health and Safety Code §25355.5 (a) (1) (C), the activities performed were to fulfill the requirements of the Environmental Oversight Agreement (EOA) issued to the school district by CalEPA/DTSC.

The objectives of the PEA included:
• Evaluating historical information for indications of past use, storage, disposal, and/or release of hazardous substances at the Project Site;
• Establishing through a field sampling and laboratory analysis program, the nature, 83 CC 07/01/2025
83 of 1130
Cupertino Union SD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2171
Cupertino_PEA Report_FINAL
1-2
concentration, and general extent of hazardous substances that may be present in soil and/or groundwater at the Project Site; and
• Estimating the potential threat to public health and the environment presented by hazardous constituents identified at the property, and providing an indicator of relative risk using a residential land-use scenario.

Based on information developed during the course of the PEA and the conservative human and ecological risk evaluation using the DTSC’s PEA Guidance Manual (January 1994 (Interim Final – Revised October 2013), DTSC will then make an informed decision regarding potential risks posed by the Project Site.

Possible outcomes of the PEA decision include the issuance of a “No Further Action” finding if the risk level is found to be less than 1 in 1,000,000 (>10-6) which is DTSC’s “point of departure”, and the health hazard index is less than 1.0. Additional outcomes may include the need for further assessment through the Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study (RI/FS) process if the Project Site presents a risk and/or health hazard; the need to perform a Removal Action if localized impacts by hazardous substances release(s) are found; or the abandonment of the Project Site as a potential school site and the pursuit of alternative sites. 84 CC 07/01/2025
84 of 1130
85 CC 07/01/2025
85 of 1130
86 CC 07/01/2025
86 of 1130
Cupertino Union SD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2171
Cupertino_PEA Report_FINAL
2-1

2.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND CONTACTS

2.1 SITE ADDRESS / ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER
The Project Site consists of approximately 1.48 acres of residential property located at 10480 Finch Avenue in Cupertino, Santa Clara County, California. The County of Santa Clara identifies the Project Site as Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN): 375-40-067. A copy of the APN map was presented in the PEA Work Plan.

2.2 DESIGNATED CONTACT PERSON AND MAILING ADDRESS
Mary Ann Duggan, P.E., Director – Facility Modernization Cupertino Union School District
10301 Vista Drive,
Cupertino, CA 94014
Phone No. (408) 252-3000
[email protected]

2.3 PROPERTY USE
The Project Site consists of 1.48-acres of residential use property, and is located adjacent to the northwest corner of the Sedgwick Elementary School property. According to a review of available historical aerial photographs, the Project Site was planted as an orchard from at least 1939 through the late 1950s. The existing residential building is present in a 1956 aerial photograph.

2.4 ENVIROSTOR DATABASE NUMBER
The EnviroStor database number for the Project Site is 60002143.

2.5 TOWNSHIP, RANGE, AND SECTION
The Project Site is located in Section 19, Township 7 South, Range 1 West, of the Cupertino Quadrangle, California USGS 7½-Minute Series, Topographic Map (1991).

Approximate latitude and longitude of the central area of the property are identified to be:
• Latitude (North) 37° 18’ 56.5194” (37.3157)
• Longitude (West) -122° 0’ 35.2794” (-122.0098)

2.6 SITE MAPS
A Site Location Map is included as Plate 1-1, and a Site Plan is included as Plate 1-2.

2.7 PHYSICAL SETTING
Based on a review of the USGS 7.5-minute series topographic map Cupertino Quadrangle, California, 1991 (photorevised 1982), the Project Site lies at an approximate 87 CC 07/01/2025
87 of 1130
Cupertino Union SD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2171
Cupertino_PEA Report_FINAL
2-2
elevation of 205 feet above mean sea level (msl) near the center of the Project Site. The overall topographic gradient for the surrounding area is to the northeast. The Project Site is relatively flat with storm water runoff directed northerly towards storm drains located in the adjacent street.

Calabazas Creek is located approximately 1,600-feet northwest of the Project Site and flows in a northeasterly direction. Saratoga Creek is located approximately 0.75 miles west of the Project Site and flows in a northerly direction.

The Project Site is located within the Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province of California.

The Coast Ranges stretch approximately 600 miles from the Oregon border to the Santa Ynez River and fall into two sub-provinces: the ranges north of San Francisco Bay and those from the bay south to Santa Barbara County. The northern ranges lie east of the San Andreas Fault zone, whereas most of the southern ranges are to the west. The province contains many elongate ranges and narrow valleys that are approximately parallel to the coast, although the coast usually shows a somewhat more northerly trend than do the ridges and valleys.

Therefore, some valleys intersect the shore at acute angles and some mountains terminate abruptly at the sea. The northern Coast Ranges are higher than the southern where Solomon Peak located in Trinity County rises to an elevation of 7,581 feet, the highest point in the Coast Ranges (Norris and Webb, 1990).

According to the United States Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey (http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/), two soil types are identified for the Project Site. Soils located within the southeast half of the Project Site consist of Urban Land-Stevens Creek Complex located on 0 to 2 percent slopes. Native soils consist of sandy loam, silt loam, and silty clay loam. Soils in the northwest half of the Project Site consist of Urban Land-Elpaloalto Complex located on 0 to 2 percent slopes. Native soils consist of clay loam and silty clay loam. Both of these soils are well drained and runoff is slow.

A review of the State Water Resources Control Board’s GeoTracker website (http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov), identified groundwater assessment activities that were conducted for a facility located approximately 0.56 miles northeast of the Project Site. Reportedly, the depth to first groundwater at the referenced site is greater than 80 feet bgs, and groundwater is inferred to flow in a northeast direction.

2.8 SURROUNDING PROPERTY LAND USE
The Project Site is bordered to the north by Phil Lane, beyond which is residential property; to the east and south by Sedgwick Elementary School; to the west by residential property; and to the northwest by Finch Avenue, beyond which is residential property. 88 CC 07/01/2025
88 of 1130
Cupertino Union SD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2171
Cupertino_PEA Report_FINAL
3-1

3.0 BACKGROUND

3.1 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS
Padre reviewed the document titled Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Preliminary Soil Quality Evaluation, 10480 Finch Avenue, Cupertino, California and dated July 1, 2014. A copy of the Phase I ESA has previously been provided to DTSC. The Phase I ESA was prepared by Cornerstone Earth Group (Cornerstone) on behalf of David J. Powers & Associates and, a copy was provided to DTSC. Below is a summary of the findings presented in the Phase I ESA:

The property is currently owned by F.A. Pestarino Jr. Trustee, and has been owned by the Pestarino family since the 1930s. The property historically contained a prune tree orchard.

According to a review of available historical aerial photographs, the Project Site was planted as an orchard from at least 1939 through the late 1950s. The existing residential building is present in a 1956 aerial photograph.

In addition to the residence, the Project Site contains a workshop (wood-framed with corrugate metal roof) located at the southeast corner of the Project Site. Located south and adjacent to the workshop are two, small, single-room dwellings that are wood-framed and situated on concrete blocks.

In 1996 a 500-gallon gasoline UST was removed from the Project Site. Reportedly, the UST had been empty for approximately 20 years prior to removal. Two soil samples were collected below the ends of the UST at depths of approximately 7-feet below grade surface (bgs). Total petroleum hydrocarbons identified as gasoline (TPHg) were identified in soil at concentrations up to 60 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). The Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) subsequently issued a case-closure letter for the UST dated March 26, 1997 stating that “Due to the low levels of hydrocarbons detected and the site location, Santa Clara Valley Water District staff believes that with time the residual pollution will naturally attenuate and does not require any further corrective action at this time.” Because recognized environmental conditions (RECs) were identified as part of the Phase I ESA, Cornerstone conducted preliminary soil assessment activities at the Project Site.

Based on the historic agricultural use (orchard) at the Project Site and the age/construction of the existing structures, a total of sixteen surface soil samples were collected throughout the Project Site and chemically analyzed for the presence of pesticides, arsenic, lead, and mercury.

Five of the soil samples were collected at the perimeter of the residence, and two soil samples were collected at the perimeter of the workshop. Below is summary of the analytical results:
• Chlordane was reported at a concentration of 2.8 mg/kg at the location of soil sample SS-5, which exceeds the U.S. EPA Region 9 Residential Screening Level (RSL, EPA June 2015) of 1.7 mg/kg. Soil sample SS-5 is located along the western side of the residence;
89 CC 07/01/2025
89 of 1130
Cupertino Union SD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2171
Cupertino_PEA Report_FINAL
3-2
• Arsenic was reported at concentrations ranging from 5.2 mg/kg to 15 mg/kg. The highest arsenic concentration was identified at the location of soil sample SS-6 located along the northwest property boundary; and
• Lead was reported at concentrations ranging from 9.0 mg/kg to 100 mg/kg, which exceeds the California Human Health Screening Level (CHHSL) of 80 mg/kg.

The highest lead concentration was identified at the location of soil sample SS-2 located along the western side of the workshop.

The soil assessment activities included the advancement of one drill hole using directpush drilling technology to an approximate depth of 20 feet at the location of the former UST.

Soil samples were collected from approximate depths of 8 feet and 12 feet, which were chemically analyzed for the presence of TPHg, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes (BTEX) and methyl-tert butyl ether (MTBE). Reportedly, TPHg, BTEX, or MTBE concentrations were not identified in the soil sample collected from a depth of 8 feet below ground surface (bgs). However, TPHg, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes were identified at concentrations of 1,300 mg/kg, 27 mg/kg, and 180 mg/kg, respectively in the 12-foot soil sample.

3.2 CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
The chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) identified at the Project Site was based on the results of a previous environmental investigation and historic property use. This information is summarized below:
• The Project Site had been used for agricultural purposes (orchard) from at least 1939 through the late 1950s. Based on preliminary soil data, further assessment for OCPs associated with historic agricultural use was not warranted. However, arsenic concentrations ranged from 5.2 to 15 mg/kg across the Project Site. Therefore, at the location of soil sample SS-6 (which contained the highest concentration of arsenic), the collection of step-out soil samples was performed;
• Based on preliminary soil data, chlordane was identified at a concentration of

2.8 mg/kg at the location of soil sample SS-5, which is located on the west side of the residence (constructed circa 1950s). Therefore, step-out soil sampling for OCPs was performed at the location of SS-5 and around the perimeter of the residence and outbuildings (workshop, single-room dwelling);
• Based on preliminary soil data, lead was identified at a concentration of 100 mg/kg at the location of soil sample SS-2, which is located on the west side of the workshop. Therefore, step-out soil sampling for lead at the location of SS-2 and around the perimeter of the residence and outbuildings was performed;
• In recent years, U.S. EPA has disovered that caulk containing PCBs was used in many buildings from the 1950s through the 1970s. The residential 90 CC 07/01/2025
90 of 1130
Cupertino Union SD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2171
Cupertino_PEA Report_FINAL
3-3
structure at the Project Site was constructed in the 1950s. Therefore, soil sampling for the presence of PCBs beneath large window panes at the residence was performed;
• No electrical transformers, either pad-mounted and/or pole-mounted, were identified on the Project Site. Therefore, the collection of soil samples to assess for the presence of PCBs related to electrical transformers was not performed;
• Based on the presence of a former gasoline UST and identified petroleum hydrocarbon contamination, soil vapor sampling for TPHg and VOCs was performed;
• According to the California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Map of San Francisco – San Jose Quadrangle California, (1:250,000), 1990 (Second Printing 2005) ultramafic outcrops are mapped approximately 7.5 miles east/south east of the Project Site, and approximately 7.5 miles south of the Project Site. Based on a review of U.S.G.S. topographic maps for the Project Site and surrounding areas (San Jose, Santa Clara), the main drainage from the ultramafic outcrops appear to be Coyote Creek, Alamitos Creek, and Los Gatos Creek which drain along the east side of the Santa Clara Valley. The Project Site is situated along the west side of the Santa Clara Valley within the drainage of Calabazas Creek. Therefore, the potential presence of naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) at the Project Site from weathering and deposition of ultramafic rock outcrops is considered low and soil sampling for NOA was not performed;
91 CC 07/01/2025
91 of 1130
Cupertino Union SD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2171
Cupertino_PEA Report_FINAL
4-1

4.0 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL
The conceptual site model is the tool used to identify the primary sources of COPCs identified at the Project Site, release mechanisms for the COPCs, points of exposure at the Project Site, and the exposure pathways (ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact) for the screening level evaluation of chronic health risks. The objective of this PEA is to evaluate the Project Site for an unrestricted land use (residential) scenario.

There are several ways a receptor may be exposed to COPCs, ie. pesticides, metals.

Receptors can include humans, animals, vegetation, surface water, and/or groundwater.

Typical pathways for exposure to COPCs include:
• Physical transport via tracking chemicals of concern on people, clothing, and/or equipment; and
• Transport by airborne particulate matter.

For humans and animals, exposure usually occurs by the following exposure routes:
• Ingestion or inhalation of contaminated soil particles; • Dermal contact with contaminated soil particles.

The conceptual site model for the Project Site was developed based on the following assumptions:
• Exposure of students, staff, and site visitors to COPCs in soil via the ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation routes is considered a complete exposure pathway;
• Exposure of students, staff, and site visitors to COPCs in airborne particulate matter via the inhalation route is considered a complete exposure pathway; • Exposure of students, staff, and site visitors to COPCs in soil vapor via the inhalation route is considered a complete exposure pathway; • The Project Site will be connected to municipal water. Therefore, exposure to groundwater beneath the Project Site is considered an incomplete exposure pathway;
• Surface water was not observed at the Project Site. Therefore, exposure to surface water at the Project Site is an incomplete exposure pathway; and • Ingestion of vegetation and animals is considered an incomplete exposure pathway because of the proposed use as an elementary school site.

A conceptual site model is presented on Plate 4-1.
92 CC 07/01/2025
92 of 1130
93 CC 07/01/2025
93 of 1130
Cupertino Union SD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2171
Cupertino_PEA Report_FINAL
5-1

5.0 PEA ASSESSMENT
On July 9th and 10th, 2015 Padre completed the PEA soil and soil gas sampling activities at the Project Site in general accordance with the DTSC approved Final PEA Work Plan dated May 2015. At the time of the PEA sample collection activities, there were no unusual Project Site conditions.

The District provided notification to residents in the “immediate area” of the Project Site prior to the commencement of PEA field activities. The “immediate area” is defined as in line of sight of the Project Site. The notices were submitted on District letterhead and delivered via United States Postal Service a minimum of 5 days prior field activities. A copy of the draft notification letter was presented in the PEA Work Plan.

5.1 SAMPLE LOCATIONS
Soil samples collected around the perimeters of the buildings were located in the field using pin flags. The field sampling schedule is presented in Tables 5-1 and 5-2, and the sample collection information is presented in Table 5-3. Additionally, the sample collection locations are presented on Plates 5-1 and 5-2. Specific sample locations are described below.

5.1.1 Soil Sampling
The soil sample collection activities were implemented in general accordance with the guidelines of the following documents:
• California DTSC, PEA Guidance Manual, January 1994 (Interim Final – Revised October 2013);
• DTSC’s Interim Guidance, Evaluation of School Sites with Potential Soil Contamination as a Result of Lead from Lead-Based Paint, Organochlorine Pesticides from Termiticides, and Polychlorinated Biphenyls from Electrical Transformers, Revised June 9, 2006; and
• DTSC’s Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties, Revised August 7, 2008.

Residence Structure. Additional soil samples were collected to further delineate the potential presence of pesticides in soil around the perimeter of the building structure and lead from weathering of lead-based paint. Soil samples were also collected beneath large window panes to identify the potential presence of PCBs from the weathering of caulking. • At the location of SS-5 soil samples were collected at approximate depths of 1.0 to 1.5 feet and 2.0 to 2.5 feet. The 1.0 to 1.5-foot soil sample was chemically analyzed for the presence of OCPs, and the 2.0 to 2.5-foot sample was placed on-hold with the analytical laboratory;
94 CC 07/01/2025
94 of 1130
Cupertino Union SD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2171
Cupertino_PEA Report_FINAL
5-2
• Around the perimeter of the residence, soil samples were collected from approximate depths of surface to 0.5 feet, 1.0 to 1.5 feet, and 2.0 to 2.5 feet bgs.

The surface and 1.0 to 1.5-foot samples were chemically analyzed for the presence of OCPs and lead, and the 2.0 to 2.5-foot soil samples were placed onhold with the analytical laboratory; and • Surface soil samples collected beneath window panes (P-4, -9, -10, -11, -14, and -15) were chemically analyzed for the potential presence of PCBs with the deeper soil samples placed on-hold.

Outbuildings. Soil samples were collected to further delineate the presence of lead and to potentially identify residual termiticides in soil along the east and south side of the outbuildings.
• At the location of SS-2, a soil sample was collected at an approximate depth of

1.0 to 1.5 feet and chemically analyzed for the presence of lead; • Along the west side of the outbuildings, step-out soil samples (5- and 10-foot centers) were collected at approximate depths of surface to 0.5 feet and 1.0 to

1.5 feet and chemically analyzed for the presence of lead. Soil sample P-22 was placed on-hold with the analytical laboratory pending the results of sample P-20; and
• Along the eastern and southern sides of the outbuildings, soil samples were collected at approximate depths of surface to 0.5 feet and 1.0 to 1.5 feet and chemically analyzed for OCPs and lead.

Arsenic soil samples. At the location of soil sample SS-6, discrete soil samples were collected from approximate depths of 1.0 to 1.5 feet and 2.0 to 2.5 feet to be chemically analyzed for the presence of arsenic. The 2.0 to 2.5-foot sample was placed on-hold with the analytical laboratory pending results of the 1.0 to 1.5-foot soil sample. Additionally, three stepout soil samples (AS-1, -2, and -3) were collected from approximate depths of surface to 0.5 feet, 1.0 to 1.5 feet, and 2.0 to 2.5 feet to be chemically analyzed for the presence of arsenic.

The deeper soil samples were placed on hold with the analytical laboratory pending results of the surface soil samples.

Former Gasoline UST. In the area of the former 500-gallon gasoline UST, five drill holes (DH-1 through DH-5) were advanced to approximate depths of 20 feet. Drill hole DH-1 was advanced to confirm and vertically define identified contamination at the location of drill hole EB1 (June 2014). Drill holes DH-2 through DH-5 were advanced to laterally define potential impacts. Soil samples were visually inspected and field screened using a hand-held photoionization detector (PID). Based on field screening and in consultation with the DTSC project manager, 2 to 3 soil samples per drill hole (12-, 15-, and 20-feet) were collected and chemically analyzed for the presence of TPHg, BTEX and MTBE. 95 CC 07/01/2025
95 of 1130
Cupertino Union SD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2171
Cupertino_PEA Report_FINAL
5-3

5.1.2 Soil Gas Sampling
The soil gas sample collection activities were implemented in general accordance with the guidelines of the following documents:
• California DTSC, PEA Guidance Manual, January 1994 (Interim Final – Revised October 2013); and
• CALEPA, DTSC, Advisory, Active Soil Gas Investigations, April 2012.

The soil gas investigation was directed at an identified area of contamination (EB-1).

Although soil gas samples were collected at the location of drill hole DH-1, there were no indications (visual, field screening) of contamination which was also observed by the DTSC project manager. Additionally, no indications of contamination at the locations of DH-2 through DH-5 were observed. Therefore, in consultation with the DTSC project manager, no additional soil gas samples were collected.

Soil gas samples were collected using the Drive Point Method. At the location of the former UST, a direct push drill rig was utilized to collect soil gas samples for chemical analyses.

Prior to collection of the soil gas samples, a continuous core drill hole was completed to visually inspect and document the soil types encountered. Temporary vapor wells were completed at approximate depths of 5- and 8-feet. A soil vapor probe was constructed within the drill hole using sand-pack and hydrated bentonite to seal the wells annular space. The vapor probe was completed with a gas-tight fitting well cap and sample port. Soil gas samples were collected in summa canisters and chemically analyzed for the presence of TPHg and VOCs. The soil vapor sample locations are presented on Plate 5-2, and the Field Sampling Schedule for soil gas is presented in Table 5-2. A schematic diagram of the well design and sampling train is presented as Plate 5-3.

5.1.3 Quality Analysis/Quality Control Samples
For quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC), approximately 10% of the soil samples were split by the analytical laboratory and chemically analyzed as duplicates for OCPs and lead.

Based on the quantity of soil gas samples collected, duplicate samples were not analyzed.

One equipment blank sample and one field blank sample per soil sampling event (water samples) were also collected and analyzed for the presence of arsenic and lead. The collection of these samples is discussed in more detail in the QAPP presented in Appendix B.

5.2 SAMPLE COLLECTION

5.2.1 Soil Sample Collection
Surface and shallow subsurface soil samples were collected using hand sampling tools including a hand pick and auger. Soil sampling equipment was decontaminated prior to use at each sample collection location and sampling event. Soil samples were collected in 2-inch x 6- 96 CC 07/01/2025
96 of 1130
Cupertino Union SD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2171
Cupertino_PEA Report_FINAL
5-4
inch stainless steel sleeves. Surface soil was loosened with a hand pick and placed into the sample sleeves. Soil cuttings were placed back in the hole after sample collection.

At select locations soil samples were collected using GeoprobeTM direct-push technology. The drill rod was hydraulically advanced to the desired depth and undisturbed soil samples were collected in 4 to 5-foot continuous core acetate liners. The soil cores were visually inspected and classified by a Padre geologist in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Direct-push drill holes were backfilled with a tremmied neatcement grout to approximately 6-inches bgs and completed with native soil to surface. Copies of the drill hole logs are presented as Appendix C.

The soil samples were sealed, labeled, and preserved on ice in the field. After completion of soil sampling activities, the soil samples were transferred to a State-certified analytical laboratory under chain-of-custody protocol for chemical analyses. Field sampling methods conformed to guidelines set forth in the Health and Safety Plan included in Appendix E of the PEA Work Plan.

5.2.2 Soil Gas Sample Collection
Soil gas sampling activities were performed in general accordance with the DTSC Advisory- Active Soil Gas Investigations dated April 2012. Soil gas samples were collected from depths of approximately 5-feet and 8-feet using direct-push technology and the following procedure:
• Driving a 1-inch steel rod to the desired depth of the drill hole and then removing the rod;
• Placing a 2 to 3-inch layer of clean sand at the base of the drill hole; • Installing a new plastic vapor implant connected to ¼-inch new Teflon tubing at the top of the clean sand;
• Placing an additional 3-inches of clean sand into the drill hole to cover the vapor implant;
• Placing approximately 1-foot of dry bentonite above the sand pack; • Sealing the drill hole with bentonite hydrated in approximate 1-foot increments; and
• Labeling each drill hole with a unique sample id and depth.

After subsurface conditions had equilibrated (no less than two hours), a shut-in test was performed to check for leaks in the fittings. The shut-in test consisted of assembling the aboveground section of the sampling train (e.g. valve lines, fittings, flow controllers, and Summa canister downstream from the top of the probe), and evacuating the flow lines to a measured vacuum of about 100-inches of water; then shutting the valves at either end of the above ground section of the sampling train including the valve attached to the summa canister and observing the vacuum for a minimum of one minute. If there was any observable loss of vacuum, then the 97 CC 07/01/2025
97 of 1130
Cupertino Union SD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2171
Cupertino_PEA Report_FINAL
5-5
fittings were adjusted as needed until the vacuum in the aboveground section of the sample train does not noticeably dissipate. After the shut-in test was successful, a leak check was performed. The leak check consisted of applying the leak check compound (1,1-difluoroethane) inside a shroud covering the surface and bentonite seal and tubing. Additionally, the leak check compound was applied near connections along the sample train. The leak-check compound was included in the laboratory analyte list and the laboratory quantified and annotated all detections of the leak-check compound at the reporting limit of the target analytes. The shut-in test and leak check were conducted prior to collecting each soil gas sample.

After performing the shut-in test and leak check, three purge volumes of soil vapor were removed from the sample lines prior to collecting the soil gas sample in 1-liter summa canisters.

As discussed above, during sampling, a leak check compound is used to confirm that the sample train and probe rod is tight and leak free. After purging is complete, the valve at the top of the 1-liter summa was opened to collect the soil gas sample. The flow rate of vapor was monitored and maintained at less than 200-milliliters (mL) per minute using the flow control provided with the canisters. Additionally, during purging and sampling, a calibrated vacuum gauge was used to maintain a vacuum of less than 100-inches of water to minimize stripping and prevent ambient air from diluting the soil gas samples. As the pressure gauge reached just below 5-inches of mercury, the valve was closed and the pressure reading recorded. New tubing and canisters were used for each sample location. Sample canisters were pre-cleaned and supplied by the analytical laboratory.

5.2.3 Decontamination Procedures
All equipment that came into contact with potentially contaminated soil was decontaminated consistently so as to assure the quality of samples collected. Disposable equipment intended for one time use was not decontaminated, but was packaged for appropriate disposal. Decontamination occurred prior to and after each use of a piece of equipment. All sampling devices used were decontaminated using the following procedures:
• Non-phosphate detergent and tap water wash, in a 5-gallon plastic bucket, using a brush;
• Deionized/distilled water rinse, in a 5-gallon plastic bucket; and • Final deionized/distilled water rinse in a 5-gallon plastic bucket.

At the completion of sampling activities the small amount of wash water was dispersed to the ground surface.

5.3 SAMPLE ANALYSES
The sampling schedule is summarized in Tables 5-1 and 5-2. Analytical methods, types of containers, preservative, and holding times are summarized in Table 5-3. The laboratory analytical program consisted of chemical analyses of soil and soil gas samples collected from the Project Site for the presence of:
98 CC 07/01/2025
98 of 1130
Cupertino Union SD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2171
Cupertino_PEA Report_FINAL
5-6
Soil –
• OCPs by U.S. EPA Method 8081A;
• Arsenic by U.S. EPA Method 6020;
• Lead by U.S. EPA Method 6020;
• PCBs by U.S. EPA Method 8082;
• TPHg by U.S. EPA Method 8015M; and
• BTEX, MTBE by U.S. EPA Method 8260.

Soil Gas –
• TPHg, VOCs by U.S. EPA Method TO-15.

5.3.1 Chain-of-Custody Records
Chain-of-custody (COPC) records were used to document sample collection and shipment to the laboratory for analysis. A COPC record accompanied all samples delivered for analysis to McCampbell Analytical, Inc. located in Pittsburg, California. The COPC record identified the contents of each shipment and maintained the custodial integrity of the samples.

Generally, a sample is considered to be in someone’s custody if it is either in someone’s physical possession, in someone’s view, locked up, or kept in a secured area that is restricted to authorized personnel. Until receipt by the laboratory, the custody of the samples was the responsibility of the sample collector.

5.4 FIELD VARIANCES
At the request of the DTSC project manager, an additional soil sample (P-27) was collected along the eastern side of the outbuildings and chemically analyzed for the presence of OCPs and lead.

The PEA Workplan proposed that soil samples P-3, P-7, and P-12 were to be chemically analyzed for the presence of PCBs related to weathered window caulking. However, these samples were not located beneath large window panes and therefore not chemically analyzed for PCBs.

Due to low flow conditions (clay) encountered at 10 feet, a soil gas sample was collected at 8 feet (SV-1-8’). This was discussed with and approved by the DTSC project manager on July 9, 2015.
99 CC 07/01/2025
99 of 1130
Cupertino USD
Project No. 1401-2171
5-7
Table 5-1. Soil Sampling Schedule
Test Method Sample Depth Number of Samples Sample Location Submittal Status Residence and Outbuildings OCPs
U.S. EPA Method 8081A
Surface to 0.5 feet 1.0 to 1.5 feet
18 (discrete) 17 (discrete)
P-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 25, 26, 27 Dupe ~10% of samples P-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 25, 26, 27 Dupe ~10% of samples Analyze Analyze
Arsenic
U.S. EPA Method 6020
Surface to 0.5 feet 1.0 to 1.5 feet
3 (discrete) 1 (discrete)
AS-1, 2, and 3 SS-6A
Analyze Analyze
Lead
U.S. EPA Method 6020
Surface to 0.5 feet 1.0 to 1.5 feet
15 (discrete) 15 (discrete)
P-7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 Dupe ~10% of samples P-7, 10, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 Dupe ~10% of samples Analyze Analyze
PCBs
U.S. EPA Method 8082
Surface to 0.5 feet 1.0 to 1.5 feet
7 (discrete) 7 (discrete)
P-4, 9, 10, 11, 14, and 15 P-4, 9, 10, 11, 14, and 15
Analyze Hold
100
CC 07/01/2025
100 of 1130
Cupertino USD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2171
5-8
Table 5-1. Soil Sampling Schedule (continued)
Test Method Sample Depth Number of Samples Sample Location Submittal Status Former Gasoline UST TPHg
U.S. EPA Method 8015m
12 feet 15 feet 20 feet
1 (discrete) 5 (discrete) 5 (discrete)
DH-1 DH-1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 DH-1, 2, 3, 4 and 5
Analyze Analyze Analyze

BTEX, MTBE
U.S. EPA Method 8260
12 feet 15 feet 20 feet
1 (discrete) 5 (discrete) 5 (discrete)
DH-1 DH-1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 DH-1, 2, 3, 4 and 5
Analyze Analyze Analyze
Notes: OCPs – Organochlorine Pesticides PCBs – Polychlorinated Biphenyls TPHg – Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons - Gasoline BTEX – Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes MTBE – Methyl tert butyl ether 101
CC 07/01/2025
101 of 1130
Cupertino USD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2171
5-9
Table 5-2. Soil Gas Sampling Schedule
Sample Matrix and
Test
Method
Sample Depth Number of
Samples*
Sample
Location
Submittal
Status
Soil Gas
TPHg
U.S. EPA Method
TO-15
5-feet
8-feet
1 1
SV-1
SV-1
Analyze
Analyze
VOCs
U.S. EPA Method
TO-15
5-feet
8-feet
1 1
SV-1
SV-1
Analyze
Analyze
Notes:

TPHs – Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
VOCs – Volatile Organic Compounds
102
CC 07/01/2025
102 of 1130
Cupertino USD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2171
5-10
Table 5-3. Sample Collection Information
Sample Matrix and Test Method Container Preservative
Holding Time
From Sample
Collection to
Extraction
Soil
OCPs
U.S. EPA Method 8081A
2 inch x 6 inch stainless steel sample
sleeves and plastic end caps Ice 14 days
Lead
U.S. EPA Method 6010
2 inch x 6 inch stainless steel sample
sleeves and plastic end caps Ice 180 days
Arsenic
U.S. EPA Method 6020
2 inch x 6 inch stainless steel sample
sleeves and plastic end caps Ice 180 days
PCBs
U.S. EPA Method 8082
2 inch x 6 inch stainless steel sample
sleeves and plastic end caps Ice 14 days
TPHg
U.S. EPA Method 8015m 25 gram EncoreTM Container Ice 48 hrs

BTEX, MTBE
U.S. EPA Method 8260 25 gram EncoreTM Container Ice 48 hrs Soil Gas
TPHg
U.S. EPA Method TO-15 Summa Canister (1 Liter) Keep out of sun /heat 30 days
VOCs
U.S. EPA Method TO-15 Summa Canister (1 Liter) Keep out of sun /heat 30 days
QA/QC Samples (water)
Arsenic and Lead
U.S. EPA Method 200.8 250 mL poly bottle HNO3 / Ice 180 days Notes:

OCPs – Organochlorine Pesticides
PCBs – Polychlorinated Biphenyls
VOCs – Volatile Organic Compounds
TPHg – Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons- Gasoline
HNO3 – Nitric Acid
103
CC 07/01/2025
103 of 1130
104
CC 07/01/2025
104 of 1130
105
CC 07/01/2025
105 of 1130
106
CC 07/01/2025
106 of 1130
Cupertino Union SD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2171
Cupertino_PEA Report_FINAL
6-1

6.0 FINDINGS
The following sections describe the results of the field sampling activities performed by Padre at the Project Site on July 9th and 10th, 2015. The laboratory analytical results are summarized in Table 6-1 through Table 6-6. Certified analytical laboratory reports and chainof-custody documentation are provided in Appendix D.

6.1 SOIL SAMPLING RESULTS
The following subsections describe soil sample analytical results, locations, and depth intervals for soil samples collected at the Project Site.

6.1.1 OCPs
A total of thirty-five discrete surface and subsurface soil samples were collected near the perimeters of the existing building structures and chemically analyzed for the presence of OCPs by U.S. EPA Method 8081A. Results of the laboratory analyses are presented in Table 6-1 with the chlordane results shown on Plate 6-1. Additionally the results are summarized below:
• Chlordane-technical (chlordane) was reported at concentrations ranging from <25 to 13,000 micrograms per kilogram (µg/kg);
• DDD was reported at concentrations ranging from <1.0 to 9.3 µg/kg; • DDE was reported at concentrations ranging from <1.0 to 410 µg/kg; • DDT was reported at concentrations ranging from <1.0 to 260 µg/kg; • Dieldrin was reported at concentrations ranging from <1.0 to 6.8J µg/kg; • g-BHC (lindane) was reported at concentrations ranging from <1.0 to 0.49J µg/kg; • Heptachlor was reported at concentrations ranging from <1.0 to 21 µg/kg; and • Heptachlor epoxide was reported at concentrations ranging from <1.0 to 57 µg/kg.

6.1.2 Lead
A total of thirty discrete surface and subsurface soil samples were collected near the perimeters of the existing building structures and chemically analyzed for the presence of lead by U.S. EPA Method 6020. Results of the laboratory analyses are presented in Table 6-2 and shown on Plate 6-2. Additionally the results are summarized below:
• Lead was reported at concentrations ranging from 9.0 to 310 mg/kg. 107
CC 07/01/2025
107 of 1130
Cupertino Union SD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2171
Cupertino_PEA Report_FINAL
6-2

6.1.3 Arsenic
A total of three discrete surface soil samples and one subsurface soil sample were collected near the northwest corner of Project Site and chemically analyzed for the presence of arsenic by U.S. EPA Method 6020. Results of the laboratory analyses are presented in Table 6-2 and shown on Plate 6-3. Additionally the results are summarized below:
• Arsenic was reported at concentrations ranging from 5.7 to 13 mg/kg.

6.1.4 PCBs
Six discrete surface soil samples were collected from areas below window panes at the residential building and chemically analyzed for the presence of PCBs by U.S. EPA Method 8082. Results of the laboratory analyses are presented in Table 6-3 and summarized below:
• Total PCBs (Aroclors) were not reported at concentrations at or above the reporting limit of 0.05 mg/kg.

6.1.5 TPHg and BTEX
Eleven discrete subsurface soil samples were collected from five locations in the area of the former UST and chemically analyzed for the presence of TPHg and BTEX by U.S. EPA Methods 8215M and 8260, respectively. Results of the laboratory analyses are presented in Table 6-4 and summarized below:
• TPH-g was reported at concentrations ranging from less than 0.081 mg/kg to 0.18 mg/kg;
• Total xylenes were reported at concentrations ranging from less than 0.0032 mg/kg to 0.026 mg/kg; and
• Benzene, toluene and ethylbenzene were not reported at concentrations exceeding their respective analytical reporting limits.

6.2 SOIL GAS SAMPLING RESULTS
The following subsection describes soil gas analytical results, depths, and locations of drill holes advanced at the Project Site.

6.2.1 VOCs
Soil gas samples were collected at approximate depths of 5-feet and 8-feet and chemically analyzed for the presence of VOCs by U.S. EPA Method TO-15. Results of the laboratory analyses are presented in Table 6-5, and are summarized below:
108
CC 07/01/2025
108 of 1130
Cupertino Union SD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2171
Cupertino_PEA Report_FINAL
6-3
• TPH-g was not reported above the reporting limit of 720 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3
);
• Benzene was reported at concentrations ranging from less than 1.6 to 2.8 µg/m3 ;
• Toluene was reported at concentrations ranging from 5.6 to 11 µg/m3 ;
• Ethylbenzene was reported at concentrations ranging from 2.9 to 3.4 µg/m3 ;
• Total xylenes (m,p-xylene, o-xylene) was reported at concentrations ranging from less than 6.6 to 12 µg/m3; and
• 2-Hexanone was reported at concentrations ranging from less than 2.1 to 5.6 µg/m3 .

6.3 QA/QC SAMPLES

6.3.1 Duplicates
The laboratory split soil samples selected by Padre that were chemically analyzed as duplicates for OCPs. The results are summarized below:
• Soil samples P-1 (SURF) and P-1 (SURF) DUPE detected comparable concentrations of chlordane (technical), DDE, DDT, and heptachlor epoxide; • Soil samples P-9 (SURF) and P-9 (SURF) DUPE detected comparable concentrations of chlordane (technical), DDE, DDT, and heptachlor epoxide; • Soil sample P-10 (1-1.5’) and P-10 (1-1.5’) DUPE detected comparable concentrations of chlordane (technical), DDE, DDT, and heptachlor epoxide; and • Soil samples P-15 (1-1.5’) and P-15 (1-1.5’) DUPE detected comparable concentrations of DDD, DDE, DDT, and heptachlor epoxide.

The laboratory split soil samples selected by Padre that were chemically analyzed as duplicates for lead. The results are summarized below:
• Soil samples P-17 (SURF) and P-17 (SURF) DUPE reported identical concentrations of lead;
• Soil samples P-27 (SURF) and P-27 (SURF) DUPE reported comparable concentrations of lead;
• Soil samples P-19 (1-1.5’) and P-19 (1-1.5’) DUPE reported comparable concentrations of lead; and
• Soil samples P-24 (1-1.5’) and P-24 (1-1.5’) DUPE reported comparable concentrations of lead.

The reported concentrations for OCPs and lead in selected soil samples and the 109
CC 07/01/2025
109 of 1130
Cupertino Union SD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2171
Cupertino_PEA Report_FINAL
6-4
corresponding duplicate soil samples are comparable in concentration. Therefore, the data is considered to be valid.

6.3.2 Equipment Blank
For each sampling event, distilled water was used as rinseate for decontaminating soil sampling equipment. The equipment blank samples were collected by pouring rinseate water over and through recently cleaned equipment, and collected directly into the appropriate sample container.

Two equipment blank samples were collected and chemically analyzed for arsenic and lead by U.S. EPA Method 200.8. The results of the laboratory analysis are summarized below:
• The laboratory analyses did not identify arsenic at or above the analytical reporting limit. The reporting limit for arsenic was 0.5 micrograms per liter (µg/L); and • The laboratory analyses did not identify lead at or above the analytical reporting limit.

The reporting limit for lead was 0.5 µg/L.

6.3.3 Field Blank
For each sampling event, distilled water was used as rinseate for decontaminating sampling equipment. The field blank samples were collected by pouring rinseate water into the appropriate sample container.

Three field blank samples were collected and chemically analyzed for arsenic and lead by U.S. EPA Method 200.8. The results of the laboratory analysis are summarized below:
• The laboratory analyses did not identify arsenic at or above the analytical reporting limit. The reporting limit for arsenic was 0.5 µg/L; and • The laboratory analyses did not identify lead at or above the analytical reporting limit.

The reporting limit for lead was 0.5 µg/L.

6.3.4 Laboratory QA/QC
A cover letter with the signature of the laboratory manager accompanies every laboratory report received for this project. According to the laboratory manager results reported conform to the most current NELAP standards, where applicable, unless otherwise stated in the case narrative.

Work Order 1507320
The laboratory reported the following notes regarding TPH-g, BTEX, and MTBE in soil by U.S. EPA Method SW8260B:
• The reporting limits for all samples were near, but not identical to, the lab’s standard 110
CC 07/01/2025
110 of 1130
Cupertino Union SD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2171
Cupertino_PEA Report_FINAL
6-5
reporting limit due to the variable encore/solid sample weight; • The surrogate recovery for soil sample DH-1 (15’) was outside of the control limits due to matrix interference;
• The surrogate recovery for soil sample DH-2 (15’) was outside of the control limits due to matrix interference; and
• The spike recovery for sample DH-2 (15’) was outside of the accepted recovery limits.

Work Order 1507327
The laboratory reported the following notes regarding OCPs in soil by U.S. EPA Methods SW8081A/SW8082:
• MS/MSD recovery and/or RPD for lead was out of acceptance criteria but the LCS validated the prep batch;
• DDD was detected above the minimum detection limit and below the practical laboratory reporting limit in soil samples P-5 (SURF), P-9 (1-1.5’), P-12 (1-1.5’), P-14 (1-1.5’), and P-25 (SURF). Therefore, these concentrations are estimated; • DDE was detected above the minimum detection limit and below the practical laboratory reporting limit in soil samples P-2 (1-1.5’) and P-5 (1-1.5’). Therefore, these concentrations are estimated;
• Dieldrin was detected above the minimum detection limit and below the practical laboratory reporting limit in soil samples P-11 (1-1.5’) and P-25 (SURF). Therefore, this concentration is estimated;
• g-BHC was detected above the minimum detection limit and below the practical laboratory reporting limit in the soil sample P-15 (SURF). Therefore, this concentration is estimated;
• Heptachlor was detected above the minimum detection limit and below the practical laboratory reporting limit in soil sample P-14 (SURF). Therefore, this concentration is estimated; and
• Heptachlor epoxide was detected above the minimum detection limit and below the practical laboratory reporting limit in soil samples P-3 (SURF), P-14 (SURF), P-9 (SURF) DUP, P-1 (1-1.5’), P-4 (1-1.5’), P-6 (SURF), P-6 (1-1.5’). Therefore, these concentrations are estimated.
111
CC 07/01/2025
111 of 1130
Cupertino USD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2171
6-6
Table 6-1 - Soil Results for OCPs
(results in µg/kg)
Sample
Identification
Aldrin
(a,b,d)-BHC
Gamma-BHC
Chlordanetechnical
DDD
DDE
DDT
Dieldrin
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan
Sulfate
Endrin
Endrin
Aldehyde
Endrin Ketone
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Epoxide
Methoxychlor
Hexachloro
benzene
Hexachloro
cyclopentadiene
Toxaphene
P-1 (SURF) <10 <10 <10 3,700 <10 350 260 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 23 <10 <100 <200 <500 P-1 (SURF)DUPE <20 <20 <20 2,800 <20 290 210 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 31 <20 <200 <400 <1,000 P-1 (1-1.5’) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 87 <1.0 9.5 5.9 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 0.86 J <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-2 (SURF) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 120 <1.0 77 44 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 4.8 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-2 (1-1.5’) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <25 <1.0 0.46 J <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-3 (SURF) <10 <10 <10 1,200 <10 56 46 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 4.0 J <10 <100 <200 <500 P-3 (1-1.5’) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 220 <1.0 6.5 8.2 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-4 (SURF) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 2,900 <1.0 140 130 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 7.4 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-4 (1-1.5’) <10 <10 <10 1,100 <10 44 38 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 7.8 J <10 <100 <200 <500 P-5 (SURF) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 63 0.76 J 24 24 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.6 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-5 (1-1.5’) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <25 <1.0 0.93 J 1.1 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-6 (SURF) <10 <10 <10 3,400 <10 120 210 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 6.0 J <10 <100 <200 <500 P-6 (1-1.5’) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <25 <1.0 0.94 J 0.73 J <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-7 (SURF) <10 <10 <10 1,900 <10 120 110 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 26 <10 <100 <200 <500 P-7 (1-1.5’) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <25 <1.0 1.4 1.1 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-8 (SURF) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 57 <1.0 14 11 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 3.3 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-8 (1-1.5’) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <25 1.1 3.9 3.4 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-9 (SURF) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 2,100 <1.0 53 120 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 13 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-9 (SURF) DUPE <10 <10 <10 1,800 <10 47 120 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 8.3 J <10 <100 <200 <500 P-9 (1-1.5’) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 38 0.35 J 3.9 12 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-10 (SURF) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 13,000 <1.0 39 160 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 21 57 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-10 (1-1.5’) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 40 <1.0 1.4 4.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-10 (1-1.5’) DUPE <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 38 <1.0 1.9 4.8 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.0 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-11 (SURF) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 930 <1.0 35 93 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 4.0 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-11 (1-1.5’) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 95 <1.0 12 24 0.53 J <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.8 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-12 (SURF) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 110 <1.0 12 18 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.2 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-12 (1-1.5’) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <25 0.41 J 2.7 6.3 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-14 (SURF) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 60 2.2 97 61 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 0.25 J 0.71 J <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-14 (1-1.5’) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <25 0.47 J 14 9.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-15 (SURF) <1.0 <1.0 0.49 J 1,500 <1.0 410 160 6.8 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 11 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-15 (1-1.5’) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <25 9.3 50 36 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.4 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 HHRA NOTE #3 430
RSLs 39 -- 570 1,700 2,300 2,000 1,900 34 -- -- -- -- -- -- 130 70 -- 210 -- 490 112
CC 07/01/2025
112 of 1130
Cupertino USD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2171
6-7
Table 6-1 - Soil Results for OCPs (cont’)
(results in µg/kg)
Sample
Identification
Aldrin
(a,b,d)-BHC
Gamma-BHC
Chlordanetechnical
DDD
DDE
DDT
Dieldrin
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan
Sulfate
Endrin
Endrin
Aldehyde
Endrin Ketone
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Epoxide
Methoxychlor
Hexachloro
benzene
Hexachloro
cyclopentadiene
Toxaphene
P-15 (1-1.5’) DUPE <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <25 8.9 50 31 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.5 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-16 (SURF) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 170 3.3 4.5 18 2.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.3 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-25 (SURF) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <25 0.49 J 62 25 0.43 J <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-25 (1-1.5’) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <25 <1.0 2.6 2.7 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-26 (SURF) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <25 <1.0 43 23 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-26 (1-1.5’) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <25 <1.0 3.1 1.8 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-27 (SURF) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <25 2.8 150 62 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-27 (1-1.5’) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <25 <1.0 1.3 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 Soil Samples (Cornerstone, June 2014) SS-1* <9.9 <9.9 <9.9 <200 21 320 87 <9.9 <9.9 9.9 <9.9 <9.9 <9.9 <9.9 <9.9 <9.9 <9.9 -- -- <200 SS-2* <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <40 26 280 33 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 -- -- <40 SS-3* <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <39 26 280 33 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 -- -- <39 SS-4* <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 180 31 230 26 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 -- -- <39 SS-5* <20 400 280 2,800 26 360 91 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 -- -- <400 SS-6* <2.0 86 50 520 28 55 26 8.7 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 12 <2.0 -- -- <40 SS-7* <2.0 5.9 3.7 <40 29 240 26 2.9 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 -- -- <40 SS-8* <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <40 21 120 14 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 -- -- <40 SS-9* <2.0 7.0 5.5 67 48 260 29 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 -- -- <40 SS-10* <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <40 31 220 16 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 -- -- <40 SS-11* <2.0 3.2 3.5 <39 32 180 21 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 -- -- <39 SS-12* <9.7 25 31 240 17 150 60 <9.7 <9.7 <9.7 <9.7 <9.7 <9.7 <9.7 <9.7 <9.7 <9.7 -- -- <190 SS-13* <2.0 15 12 110 21 42 14 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 -- -- <40 SS-14* <9.8 <9.8 <9.8 <200 28 410 88 <9.8 <9.8 <9.8 <9.8 <9.8 <9.8 <9.8 <9.8 <9.8 <9.8 -- -- <200 SS-15* <2.0 3.5 3.9 <40 47 190 26 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 -- -- <40 SS-16* <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <39 <1.9 8.8 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 -- -- <39 HHRA NOTE #3 430
RSLs 39 -- 570 1,700 2,300 2,000 1,900 34 -- -- -- -- -- -- 130 70 -- 210 -- 490 Notes:
µg/kg – micrograms per kilogram
* Surface soil sample (Cornerstone, June 2014)
-- Not reported HHRA – Human Health Risk Assessment Note #3, Table 1 (May 2015).

RSL – U.S. EPA Regional Screening Levels (June, 2015)
3,700 – above RSLs
113
CC 07/01/2025
113 of 1130
Cupertino USD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2171
6-8
Table 6-2 - Soil Results for Arsenic and Lead
(results in mg/kg)
Sample
Identification Arsenic Lead
U.S. EPA Method 6020 6020
SS-6A (1-1.5’) 11 --
AS-1 (SURF) 13 --
AS-2 (SURF) 7.2 --
AS-3 (SURF) 5.7 --
P-7 (SURF) -- 39
P-7 (1-1.5’) -- 79
P-10 (SURF) -- 29
P-10 (1-1.5’) -- 9.3
P-11 (SURF) -- 24
P-11 (1-1.5’) -- 13
P-13 (SURF) -- 92
P-13 (1-1.5’) -- 17
P-14 (SURF) -- 36
P-15 (SURF) -- 220
P-17 (SURF) -- 310
P-17 (SURF) DUP -- 310
P-17 (1-1.5’) -- 43
P-18 (SURF) -- 93
P-18 (1-1.5’) -- 17
P-19 (SURF) -- 180
P-19 (1-1.5’) -- 31
P-19 (1-1.5’) DUPE -- 27
P-20 (SURF) -- 35
P-20 (1-1.5’) -- 11
P-21 (SURF) -- 40
P-21 (1-1.5’) -- 9.4
P-23 (SURF) -- 42
P-23 (1-1.5’) -- 13
Screening Level 12A 80B
114
CC 07/01/2025
114 of 1130
Cupertino USD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2171
6-9
Table 6-2 - Soil Results for Arsenic and Lead (cont’)
(results in mg/kg)
Sample
Identification Arsenic Lead
U.S. EPA Method 6020 6020
P-24 (SURF) -- 83
P-24 (1-1.5’) -- 10
P-24 (1-1.5’) DUP -- 9.0
P-25 (SURF) -- 47
P-25 (1-1.5’) -- 9.8
P-26 (SURF) -- 29
P-26 (1-1.5’) -- 12
P-27 (SURF) -- 64
P-27 (SURF) DUP -- 39
P-27 (1-1.5’) -- 14
P-28 (SURF) -- 150
P-28 (1-1.5’) -- 12
Screening Level 12A 80B
Notes:
mg/kg milligrams per kilogram
‘--‘ Not analyzed
150 Above screening level
A School Site Screening level from DTSC Guidance (4/30/08) B California Human Health Screening Level (CHSSL)
115
CC 07/01/2025
115 of 1130
Cupertino USD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2171
6-10
Table 6-2 - Soil Results for Arsenic and Lead (cont’)
(results in mg/kg)
Sample
Identification Arsenic Lead
U.S. EPA Method 6020 6020
SS-1* 11 40
SS-2* 12 100
SS-3* 8.7 20
SS-4* 7.3 23
SS-5* 13 51
SS-6* 15 75
SS-7* 8.0 20
SS-8* 7.8 18
SS-9* 7.8 42
SS-10* 8.9 27
SS-11* 6.4 19
SS-12* 8.2 72
SS-13* 5.2 52
SS-14* 8.9 33
SS-15* 6.6 22
SS-16* 6.8 9.0
Screening Level 12A 80B
Notes:
mg/kg milligrams per kilogram
‘*‘ Surface soil sample (Cornerstone, June 2014)
100 Above screening level
A School Site Screening level from DTSC Guidance (4/30/08) B California Human Health Screening Level (CHSSL)
116
CC 07/01/2025
116 of 1130
Cupertino USD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2171
6-11
Table 6-3 - Soil Results for PCBs
(results in mg/kg)
Sample
Identification
Aroclor
1016
Aroclor
1221
Aroclor
1232
Aroclor
1242
Aroclor
1248
Aroclor
1254
Aroclor
1260
PCBs
Total
P-4 (SURF) <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05P-9 (SURF) <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 P-10 (SURF) <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05P-11 (SURF) <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05P-14 (SURF) <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05P-15 (SURF) <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 RSLs 0.23 0.17 0.17 0.23 0.23 0.12 0.24 0.24
Notes: mg/kg – milligrams per kilogram RSLs– U.S. EPA Regional Screening Level (June 2015) 117
CC 07/01/2025
117 of 1130
Cupertino USD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2171
6-12
Table 6-4 – Soil Results for TPHg, BTEX, and MTBE
(results in mg/kg)
Sample
Identification
TPHGasoline
(C6 –C12)
Benzene Toluene EthylBenzene
Total
Xylenes MTBE
U.S. EPA
Method 8260 8260 8260 8260 8260 8260
DH-1 (12’) 0.18 <0.0034 <0.0034 <0.0034 0.026 <0.0034
DH-1 (15’) <0.081 <0.0033 <0.0033 <0.0033 <0.0033 <0.0033 DH-1 (20’) <0.081 <0.0032 <0.0032 <0.0032 <0.0032 <0.0032 DH-2 (15’) <0.084 <0.0034 <0.0034 <0.0034 <0.0034 <0.0034 DH-2 (20’) <0.081 <0.0033 <0.0033 <0.0033 <0.0033 <0.0033 DH-3 (15’) <0.087 <0.0035 <0.0035 <0.0035 <0.0035 <0.0035 DH-3 (20’) <0.092 <0.0037 <0.0037 <0.0037 <0.0037 <0.0037 DH-4 (15’) <0.088 <0.0035 <0.0035 <0.0035 <0.0035 <0.0035 DH-4 (20’) <0.082 <0.0033 <0.0033 <0.0033 <0.0033 <0.0033 DH-5 (15’) <0.13 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 DH-5 (20’) <0.14 <0.0057 <0.0057 <0.0057 <0.0057 <0.0057 HHRA Note #3 0.33 1,100
RSL 1.2 4,900 5.8 650 47
Notes:

TPH – Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
BTEX – Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes
MTBE – Methyl tert butyl ether
HHRA – Human Health Risk Assessment Note #3, Table 1
RSL – U.S. EPA Regional Screening Level (June 2015)
118
CC 07/01/2025
118 of 1130
Cupertino USD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2171
6-13
Table 6-5 - Soil Gas Results for TPHg and VOCs
by EPA Method TO-15 (µg/m3 of Vapor)
Sample
ID
TPH-Gasoline
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Total Xylenes
Methyl-t butyl ether
(MTBE)
2-Hexanone
All Other VOCs
SV-1 (5’) <720 <1.6 5.6 2.9 <6.6 <1.8 <2.1 <1.3 SV-1 (8’) <720 2.8 11 3.4 12 <1.8 5.6 <1.3 HHRA Note #3 97 310,000 1,100 100,000 11,000 31,000
RSLs 31,000 360 5,200,000 1,100 100,000 11,000 31,000
Notes:
µg/m3 – micrograms per cubic meter
TPHg – Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Gasoline HHRA – Human Health Risk Assessment Note #3, Table 3. Screening level includes attenuation factor (0.001) for future residential structures. “—“ - not established or not used RSL – USEPA Regional Screening Level (June 2015). Screening level includes attenuation factor (0.001) for future residential structures. 119
CC 07/01/2025
119 of 1130
120
CC 07/01/2025
120 of 1130
121
CC 07/01/2025
121 of 1130
122
CC 07/01/2025
122 of 1130
Cupertino Union SD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2171
Cupertino_PEA Report_FINAL 7-1

7.0 HUMAN HEALTH SCREENING-LEVEL EVALUATION

7.1 CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
The COPCs used in the human health screening-level evaluation for the Project Site completed by Padre included those compounds that were reported at concentrations at or in excess of their respective analytical laboratory reporting limits. Therefore, the following COPCs in soil and soil gas were evaluated:

Soil
• OCPs – chlordane, DDD, DDE, DDT, dieldrin, gamma-BHC (lindane), heptachlor, and heptachlor epoxide;
• Metals – Arsenic and lead; and
• VOCs – TPH-g and total xylenes.

Soil Gas
• VOCs – benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes, and 2-hexanone.

7.2 SOIL RISK ASSESSMENT
The DTSC-modified screening levels or the U.S. EPA RSLs (if DTSC-modified screening levels were not available) were used to conduct a screening-level human health risk assessment using the residential land-use scenario. Carcinogenic screening levels are typically based on a predicted excess long-term cancer risk of one in a million. Non-carcinogenic screening levels are based on maintaining the daily COPC intake below the level at which deleterious health effects are considered possible.

In accordance with PEA guidance documents and DTSC’s Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Note No.3, dated May 2015, the maximum detected chemical concentrations in soil were evaluated as potential exposure point concentrations (EPCs). The EPCs were compared to their respective screening levels. The ratio of an EPC to the corresponding carcinogenic screening level was multiplied by 1E-06 to estimate the chemicalspecific screening cancer risk. For noncarcinogens, the chemical-specific hazard index is the ratio of the EPC to the screening level based on noncarcinogenic effects. The sums of the chemical-specific screening cancer risk and screening hazard index are the cumulative screening cancer risk and hazard index, respectively.

The total risk from COPCs identified in soils at the Project Site was estimated to be

3.2 x 10-5, which provides an increased cancer risk of greater than 1 in 1,000,000 (>10-6). The total health hazard from COPCs identified in soils at the Project Site was estimated to be 0.46, which does not present an increased health hazard (i.e., >1). Therefore, a response action to reduce or eliminate the COPCs identified in surficial soils at the Project Site is recommended.

The results of the screening-level evaluation are presented in Table 7-1. 123
CC 07/01/2025
123 of 1130
Cupertino Union SD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2171
Cupertino_PEA Report_FINAL 7-2
Arsenic concentrations ranged from 5.2 to 15 mg/kg in soil samples collected from across the Project Site. The arsenic data set consisted of four soil samples collected as part of the PEA, and 16 soil samples previously collected as part of a preliminary soil evaluation completed by others (Cornerstone, 2014). The four PEA soil samples were collected as stepout and step-down samples at the location of soil sample SS-6, which reported the highest Project Site arsenic concentration at 15 mg/kg. Arsenic concentrations reported for the PEA soil samples ranged from 5.7 to 13 mg/kg, indicating that arsenic concentrations in soil at this location do not present a potential “hotspot” for arsenic in soil. A statistical evaluation was performed by calculating the 95% Upper Confidence Limit (UCL) for the arsenic data set. The 95% UCL for arsenic in soil at the Project Site was calculated to be 10 mg/kg. A graphical evaluation completed by creating a normal probability plot of the arsenic data set. The shape of the plotted data presents a relatively normal distribution. Therefore, arsenic concentrations identified in surface soil at the Project Site are representative of ambient concentrations and further assessment and/or remedial action for arsenic in soil is not warranted. A copy of the normal probability plot and ProUCL output sheet are presented in Appendix E.

Lead concentrations ranged from 9.0 mg/kg to 310 mg/kg in soil samples collected across the Project Site. A risk assessment was performed using the DTSC lead risk assessment spreadsheet model (LeadSpread Version 8). Based on the LeadSpread output, exposure to the lead concentrations detected at the Project Site will result in a 90th percentile blood lead concentration of 8.0 µg/dl in children which exceeds the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) blood toxicity level of 1 µg/l. Therefore, a response action to reduce or eliminate the lead-impacted soil is recommended. A copy of the LeadSpread Risk Assessment Spreadsheet is presented in Appendix E.

7.3 SOIL GAS RISK ASSESSMENT
The objective of the soil gas survey was to evaluate shallow soil gas beneath the Project Site for potential VOC impacts. The source of the potential impacts was identified to be a former 500-gallon UST located on the northeast side of the Project Site. Several low level VOCs constituents, including BTEX, were identified in soil gas samples collected at the Project Site. Therefore, a risk evaluation was performed.

DTSC’s SG Screen Version 2.0 (4/03) (DTSC modification December 2014) Screening Level Model for Soil Gas Contamination (based on the Johnson-Ettinger Indoor Vapor Intrusion Model) was used to estimate the cumulative risk and hazard associated with the carcinogenic and the non-carcinogenic constituents detected in soil gas. Soil vapor drill holes were advanced at the former location of the UST. Based on the soil conditions encountered and potential future building construction, the following parameters were used for the screening evaluation:
• Soil gas sample collection depths were approximately 5 and 8-feet; • Static groundwater was not encountered;
• The highest constituent concentrations were used from each sample depth; 124
CC 07/01/2025
124 of 1130
Cupertino Union SD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2171
Cupertino_PEA Report_FINAL 7-3
• The depth below grade to bottom of enclosed space floor (LF) is 15-centimeters (slab-on-grade);
• The general soil type encountered (within upper 8 feet) was classified as clay (CL); and
• Conservative default values were used for the remaining input parameters.

The leak check compound (1,1-difluoroethane) was not detected in any of the soil gas samples. Therefore, the collected soil gas samples are representative of shallow soil gas conditions at the Project Site.

The results of the soil gas assessment conducted at the Project Site identified low level concentrations of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes (BTEX), as well as 2- hexanone. However, none of the VOC constituents exceeded their respective human health screening levels. The results of the PEA screening level risk assessment calculated that the total risk from COPCs identified in soil gas was estimated to be 8.6 x 10-9, which does not provide an increased cancer risk of greater than 1 in 1,000,000 (>10-6). The cumulative hazard is estimated to be 0.0003, which does not provide a significant health hazard (>1). Therefore, further assessment and/or remediation regarding VOCs identified in soil gas at the Project Site is not warranted. Results of the soil gas model are summarized in Table 7-2, and copies of the screening level model spreadsheets are included as Appendix E. 125
CC 07/01/2025
125 of 1130
Table 7‐1
Soil Exposure Screening Evaluation
Sedgwick Elementary School Expansion Project
Cupertino Union School District
Screening
Level (mg/kg) Source Cancer            Risk Screening  Level (mg/kg) Source Hazard      Index Chlordane 13 0.43 HHRA Note #3 3.02E‐05 34 RSL 3.82E‐01 DDD 0.0093 2.3 RSL 4.04E‐09 37 Surrogate RSL 2.51E‐04
DDE 0.41 2 RSL 2.05E‐07 37 Surrogate RSL 1.11E‐02DDT 0.26 1.9 RSL 1.37E‐07 37 RSL 7.03E‐03 Dieldrin 0.0068 0.034 RSL 2.00E‐07 3.2 RSL 2.13E‐03
g‐BHC (lindane) 0.00049 0.57 RSL 8.60E‐10 21 RSL 2.33E‐05 Heptachlor 0.021 0.13 RSL 1.62E‐07 39 RSL 5.38E‐04
Heptachlor Epoxide 0.057 0.07 RSL 8.14E‐07 1 RSL 5.70E‐02TPH‐aromatic low 0.18 nc RSL NA 82 RSL 2.20E‐03 Total Xylenes 0.026 nc RSL NA 650 RSL 4.00E‐05
Total Risk: 3.18E‐05 Total Hazard: 4.63E‐01
Notes:COPC = chemical of potential concernEPC = exposure point concentrationExposure Point Concentration = maximum detected concentration in soil samples collected at the site HHRA = Human Health Risk Assessment Note #3, Table 1 (DTSC HERO, May 2015)RSL = regional screening level for residential soil (U.S.EPA June 2015)mg/kg = milligrams per kilogramSurrogate RSL = RSL not established for DDD, DDE.  RSL for DDT was used as a surrogate value.nc = non‐carcinogenic NE = not establishedNA = not applicable COPC
Exposure‐Point
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Carcinogenic Risk Non‐carcinogenic Hazard
126
7-4
CC 07/01/2025
126 of 1130
Cupertino USD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2171
7-5
Table 7-2. Results of Soil Gas Screening Level Risk Assessment Project Site Soils (0-8 feet bgs) Project Site Soils (0-8 feet bgs) COPC (1) Risk by COPC (2) COPC (1) Hazard by COPC (3)
Benzene 7.7E-09 Benzene 2.4E-04
Toluene NA Toluene 8.2E-06
Ethylbenzene 8.5E-10 Ethylbenzene 9.2E-07
Xylenes NA Xylenes 2.4E-05
4-Methyl-4-pentanone (MIBK) NA 4-Methyl-4-pentanone (MIBK) 3.9E-07 Total Risk (4) Total Hazard (5)
Risk by Pathway 8.6E-09 Hazard by Pathway 2.7E-04
Notes
(1) Chemical of Potential Concern (COPC)
(2) Risk from each COPC (Cumulative)
(3) Hazard from each COPC (Cumulative)
(4) Total calculated cancer risk
(5) Total calculated hazard quotient
NA Not Applicable
127
CC 07/01/2025
127 of 1130
Cupertino Union SD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2171
Cupertino_PEA Report_FINAL 8-1

8.0 ECOLOGICAL SCREENING
A detailed ecological screening evaluation was not performed as part of the PEA because the Project Site has been developed as a residential property since the 1950s. Natural wildlife areas were not noted at the Project Site during the course of the PEA. Therefore, based on the available information, there does not appear to be a significant pathway of exposure to nonhuman, sensitive ecological species.
128
CC 07/01/2025
128 of 1130
Cupertino Union SD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2171
Cupertino_PEA Report_FINAL 9-1

9.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The purpose of the PEA was to establish whether a release or potential release of hazardous substances, which potentially pose a threat to human health via ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation exposure pathways, exists at the Project Site.

Evaluation
The COPCs used in the human health screening-level evaluation for the Project Site included those compounds that were reported at concentrations at or above their respective analytical laboratory reporting limits. Therefore, the following COPCs were evaluated:

Soil
• OCPs – chlordane, DDD, DDE, DDT, dieldrin, gamma-BHC (lindane), heptachlor, and heptachlor epoxide;
• Metals – Arsenic and lead; and
• VOCs – TPH-g and total xylenes.

Soil Gas
• VOCs – benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes, and 2-hexanone.

Risk Assessment
The results of the PEA screening level risk assessment estimated the total risk from COPCs identified in soils at the Project Site to be 3.2 x 10-5, which provides an increased cancer risk of greater than 1 in 1,000,000 (>10-6). The total health hazard from COPCs identified in soils at the Project Site is estimated to be 0.46, which does not provide an increased health hazard (i.e., >1). Therefore, a response action to reduce and/or eliminate the COPCs identified in surficial soils at the Project Site is recommended.

Lead concentrations ranged from 9.0 to 310 mg/kg in soil samples collected throughout the Project Site. Using DTSC’s lead risk assessment spreadsheet model (LeadSpread Version 8), exposure to the lead concentrations identified at the Project Site would result in a 90th percentile blood lead concentration of 8.0 micrograms per deciliter (µg/dl) in children, which exceeds OEHHA’s blood toxicity level of 1 µg/dl. Therefore, a response action to reduce or eliminate lead-impacted soil is recommended.

Arsenic concentrations ranged from 5.2 to 15 mg/kg in soil samples collected from across the Project Site. The arsenic data set consisted of four soil samples collected as part of the PEA, and 16 soil samples previously collected as part of a preliminary soil evaluation completed by others (Cornerstone, 2014). The four PEA soil samples were collected as stepout and step-down samples at the location of soil sample SS-6, which reported the highest Project Site arsenic concentration at 15 mg/kg. Arsenic concentrations reported for the PEA soil samples ranged from 5.7 to 13 mg/kg, indicating that arsenic concentrations in soil at this 129
CC 07/01/2025
129 of 1130
Cupertino Union SD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2171
Cupertino_PEA Report_FINAL 9-2
location do not present a potential “hotspot” for arsenic in soil. A statistical evaluation was performed by calculating the 95% Upper Confidence Limit (UCL) for the arsenic data set. The 95% UCL for arsenic in soil at the Project Site was calculated to be 10 mg/kg. A graphical evaluation completed by creating a normal probability plot of the arsenic data set. The shape of the plotted data presents a relatively normal distribution. Therefore, arsenic concentrations identified in surface soil at the Project Site are representative of ambient concentrations and further assessment and/or remedial action for arsenic in soil is not warranted.

Results of the soil gas assessment conducted at the Project Site identified low level concentrations of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes (BTEX), and 2-hexanone.

However, none of the VOC constituents exceeded their respective human health screening levels. The results of the PEA screening level risk assessment calculated that the total risk from COPCs identified in soil gas was estimated to be 8.6 x 10-9, which does not provide an increased cancer risk of greater than 1 in 1,000,000 (>10-6). The cumulative hazard is estimated to be 0.0003, which does not provide a significant health hazard (>1). Therefore, further assessment and/or remediation regarding VOCs identified in soil gas at the Project Site is not warranted.

Recommendations
Based on the results of the PEA, soil and soil gas at the location of the former 500-gallon capacity gasoline UST has not been significantly impacted from the former presence of the UST. Subsurface soil in the area of the UST generally consists of a stiff clay material, and any residual petroleum hydrocarbons in soil will degrade over time by natural attenuation processes.

Therefore, further assessment and/or remediation regarding the former UST is not warranted.

Based on the results of the PEA, chlordane and lead have been identified in surface soils at the Project Site at concentrations exceeding their respective human health screening levels. The total increased cancer risk from chlordane identified in soils at the Project Site is estimated to be 3.2 x 10-5, which exceeds DTSC’s ‘point of departure’ of 1 in 1,000,000 (>10-6).

Due to elevated concentrations of chlordane and lead identified in surface soil around existing structures located at the Project Site, Padre recommends a response action to reduce or eliminate the potential impact of these contaminants. The recommended remedial action is excavation, removal, and offsite disposal at an appropriate landfill. Prior to the response action, Padre recommends conducting a Supplemental Site Investigation (SSI) to further define chlordane and lead impacts around the structures.
130
CC 07/01/2025
130 of 1130
Cupertino Union SD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2171
Cupertino_PEA Report_FINAL
10-1

10.0 REFERENCES
California, Department of Water Resources (http://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/) California, Department of Water Resources, Evaluation of Groundwater Resources South San Francisco Bay Volume III Northern Santa Clara County Area: Bulletin 118-1, December 1975.

California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Map of San Francisco – San Jose Quadrangle California, (1:250,000), 1990 (Second Printing 2005).

California Geological Survey, 2000, A General Location Guide For Ultramafic Rocks in California - Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos. Open File Report 2000-19.
2002, Guidelines for Geologic Investigations of Naturally Occurring Asbestos in California. Special Publication 124.

California, State Water Resources Control Board Geotracker website (http://geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov).

Cornerstone Earth Group, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Preliminary Soil Quality Evaluation, 10480 Finch Avenue, Cupertino, California, July 11, 2014.

County of Santa Clara - Assessor’s Office
County of Santa Clara – Planning Deparment
Cupertino, City of, General Plan 2000-2020, Adopted 2005.

Department of Toxic Substances Control, Envirostor Database, (http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/).

Department of Toxic Substances Control, Interim Guidance, Evaluation of School Sites with Potential Contamination as a Result of Lead from Lead-Based-Paint, Organochlorine Pesticides from Temiticides, and Polychlorinated Biphenyls from Electrical Transformers, revised June 9, 2006.

Department of Toxic Substances Control, Preliminary Environmental Assessment Guidance Manual, January 1994, Interim Final – Final October 2013.

Department of Toxic Substances Control, Advisory – Active Soil Gas Investigations, April 2012..

Duggan, Mary Ann, P.E., Director – Facility Modernization – Cupertino Union SD Google Earth.
131
CC 07/01/2025
131 of 1130
Cupertino Union SD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2171
Cupertino_PEA Report_FINAL
10-2
Jennings and Bryant, 2010, Fault Activity Map of California, California Geological Survey.

Norris, R. M., & R. W. Webb, 1976 (Second Edition 1990), Geology of California, John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 412-427.

Padre Associates, Inc., Geologic Hazards Report, Sedgwick Elementary School Expansion Project, 10480 Finch Avenue, Cupertino, Santa Clara County, California, January 2015.

Padre Associates, Inc., Preliminary Environmental Assessment Work Plan, Sedgwick Elementary School Expansion Project, 10480 Finch Avenue, Cupertiono, Santa Clara County, California, May 2015.

United States Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey (http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/).

USGS Geological Survey; Cupertino Quadrangle, California, Topographic Map, 1991. 132
CC 07/01/2025
132 of 1130

APPENDIX A

DTSC CORRESPONDENCE
133
CC 07/01/2025
133 of 1130
134
CC 07/01/2025
134 of 1130
135
CC 07/01/2025
135 of 1130
136
CC 07/01/2025
136 of 1130

APPENDIX B

QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN (QAPP)
137
CC 07/01/2025
137 of 1130
Cupertino Union SD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2171

APPENDIX B

QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL
(QA/QC) PROCEDURES
The QA/QC procedures will be employed in both the field and the laboratory. QA/QC samples include the collection of equipment rinsate samples, field blank samples, and duplicate split samples.

FIELD QA/QC PROCEDURES
Field QA/QC procedures will be performed at the site and consist of the following measures:
 Chain-of-Custody (COC) forms will be used for sample submittal to the laboratory; and
 Daily information regarding sample collection will be recorded by Padre in Field Logbooks. Sample types, soil descriptions, sample identification numbers, and sample times will be collected and recorded on Field Data Sheets and in the Field Logbooks. Pages will be numbered, dated, and signed by the person performing data entry.

Field QA/QC samples will be collected and submitted for analysis along with the discrete soil samples using the following sampling frequency:
 Equipment blanks - One equipment rinsate blank per sample event;  Field blanks - One field blank sample per sample event; and  Field duplicates – Approximately 10% of the collected samples will be analyzed as duplicate samples for select chemical analyses.

Equipment Rinseate Blanks
An equipment rinseate blank (equipment blank) will be collected from the final water rinsed over equipment after cleaning activities have been performed. The equipment blank will be collected from non-dedicated (reusable) sampling equipment such as soil sampling tools.

The equipment blank will be analyzed for arsenic using the same analytical method used on the unique soil samples.

To collect an equipment blank sample, rinse water will be carefully poured over or through the recently cleaned equipment, and collected directly into an appropriate sample container held over a bucket. Equipment blank samples will be labeled and handled in the same manner as all other samples.
138
CC 07/01/2025
138 of 1130
Cupertino Union SD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2171
Field Blanks
Field blank samples consist of a sample of the deionized water that was used to rinse sampling equipment during equipment cleaning activities. The purpose of the field blank sample is to evaluate the rinse water for compounds detected in the soil samples. A field blank sample will be collected by pouring rinse water into the appropriate sample container. The field blank will be analyzed for arsenic using the same analytical method used on the unique soil samples, and the field blank samples will be handled in the same manner as all other samples.

Duplicate Samples
Duplicate soil sample(s) will be analyzed in order to evaluate the analytical procedures and methods employed by the laboratory. The field duplicate sample(s) will be selected from the original soil samples, and split by the laboratory. Duplicate soil samples will be analyzed for OCPs and lead.

Duplicate soil gas sample(s) will be collected immediately after the original sample, in separate sample containers, at the same location and depth. Duplicate soil gas samples will be analyzed for VOCs.

Laboratory QA/QC Procedures
Laboratory QA/QC procedures include the following:
 Laboratory analyses will be performed within the required holding time for all samples;
 Appropriate minimum reporting limits (RLs) will be used for each analysis;  A state-certified hazardous waste testing laboratory will conduct the required analysis;
 The laboratory will provide the following information for each sample:
- Method blank data;
- Surrogate recovery, instrument tuning, and calibration data; and - Signed laboratory reports including the sample designation, date of sample collection, date of sample analysis, laboratory analytical method employed, sample volume, and the minimum RL.

To determine whether Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) requirements for sampling and analysis were met for the project, and to determine whether the data are usable for risk assessment purposes, a cursory data validation review will be done on the data summary package provided by the laboratory. This review will include an evaluation of chain-ofcustody documentation, holding times, reporting limits, precision and accuracy of goals, representativeness, and completeness of the data. QA/QC requirements that are not met will 139
CC 07/01/2025
139 of 1130
Cupertino Union SD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2171
be evaluated in the ‘uncertainty’ portion of the risk assessment. Documentation of the data validation review will be included with the PEA report.

Detection Limits
Detection limits for OCPs and metals that will be met by the analytical laboratory are listed in the following DTSC document(s), and are attached:
 DTSC’s Advisory – Active Soil gas Investigations, dated April 2012, and  DTSC, Interim Guidance, Evaluation of School Sites with Potential Contamination as a Result of Lead from Lead-Based-Paint, Organochlorine Pesticides from Temiticides, and Polychlorinated Biphenyls from Electrical Transformers, revised June 9, 2006.

Padre proposes to utilize McCampbell Analytical Inc. (McCampbell) located in Pittsburg, California to provide the required chemical analyses of collected soil, soil gas, and water samples. McCampbell is certified (No. 1644) by the California State Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program Branch to provide the required chemical analyses. 140
CC 07/01/2025
140 of 1130

APPENDIX C

DRILL HOLE LOGS
141
CC 07/01/2025
141 of 1130
142
CC 07/01/2025
142 of 1130
143
CC 07/01/2025
143 of 1130
144
CC 07/01/2025
144 of 1130
145
CC 07/01/2025
145 of 1130
146
CC 07/01/2025
146 of 1130

APPENDIX D

ANALYTICAL LABORATORY REPORTS AND CHAIN-OF CUSTODYS
147
CC 07/01/2025
147 of 1130
WorkOrder:

Report Created for: Padre Associates. Inc.
555 University Ave., Suite 110
Sacramento, CA 95825
Project Contact: Alan J. Klein
Project Name: #1401-2171; CUPERTINO (SEDGWICK PEA)
Project P.O.:

Project Received: 07/13/2015
Analytical Report reviewed & approved for release on 07/22/2015 by:

Angela Rydelius,
Laboratory Manager
1507427
The report shall not be reproduced except in full, without the written approval of the laboratory.

The analytical results relate only to the items tested. Results reported conform to the most current NELAP standards, where applicable, unless otherwise stated in the case narrative.

Amended: 07/24/2015
Analytical Report
1534 Willow Pass Rd. Pittsburg, CA 94565 ♦ TEL: (877) 252-9262 ♦ FAX: (925) 252-9269 ♦ www.mccampbell.com NELAP: 4033ORELAP ♦ ELAP: 1644 ♦ ISO/IEC: 17025:2005 ♦ WSDE: C972-11 ♦ ADEC: UST-098 ♦ UCMR3 McCampbell Analytical, Inc.
"When Quality Counts"

148
CC 07/01/2025
148 of 1130
Glossary of Terms & Qualifier Definitions
Client: Padre Associates. Inc.

Project: #1401-2171; CUPERTINO (SEDGWICK PEA)
WorkOrder: 1507427
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Glossary Abbreviation
95% Interval 95% Confident Interval
DF Dilution Factor
DI WET (DISTLC) Waste Extraction Test using DI water
DISS Dissolved (direct analysis of 0.45 µm filtered and acidified water sample) DUP Duplicate
EDL Estimated Detection Limit
ITEF International Toxicity Equivalence Factor
LCS Laboratory Control Sample
MB Method Blank
MB % Rec % Recovery of Surrogate in Method Blank, if applicable MDL Method Detection Limit
ML Minimum Level of Quantitation
MS Matrix Spike
MSD Matrix Spike Duplicate
N/A Not Applicable
ND Not detected at or above the indicated MDL or RL
NR Data Not Reported due to matrix interference or insufficient sample amount.

PF Prep Factor
RD Relative Difference
RL Reporting Limit (The RL is the lowest calibration standard in a multipoint calibration.) RPD Relative Percent Deviation
RRT Relative Retention Time
SPK Val Spike Value
SPKRef Val Spike Reference Value
SPLP Synthetic Precipitation Leachate Procedure
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure
TEQ Toxicity Equivalents
WET (STLC) Waste Extraction Test (Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration) Analytical Qualifiers
J Result is less than the RL but greater than the MDL. The reported concentration is an estimated value.

Quality Control Qualifiers
F1 MS/MSD recovery and/or RPD was out of acceptance criteria; LCS validated the prep batch.

149
CC 07/01/2025
149 of 1130
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Padre Associates. Inc.

Project: #1401-2171; CUPERTINO (SEDGWICK PEA)
Date Received: 7/13/15 17:18
Date Prepared: 7/13/15
WorkOrder: 1507427
Extraction Method: SW3550B
Analytical Method: SW8081A/8082
Unit: mg/kg
Organochlorine Pesticides (Basic Target List) + PCBs
P-4 (SURF) 1507427-007A Soil 07/09/2015 12:44 GC22 107573 Analytes Result MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Aldrin ND 0.00027 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 11:37
a-BHC ND 0.00010 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 11:37
b-BHC ND 0.00025 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 11:37
d-BHC ND 0.00037 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 11:37
g-BHC ND 0.000097 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 11:37
Chlordane (Technical) 2.9 0.16 0.25 10 07/21/2015 20:46 a-Chlordane 0.32 0.0047 0.010 10 07/21/2015 20:46
g-Chlordane 0.20 0.0021 0.010 10 07/21/2015 20:46
p,p-DDD ND 0.00014 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 11:37
p,p-DDE 0.14 0.0032 0.010 10 07/21/2015 20:46
p,p-DDT 0.13 0.0043 0.010 10 07/21/2015 20:46
Dieldrin ND 0.00033 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 11:37
Endosulfan I ND 0.00065 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 11:37
Endosulfan II ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 11:37
Endosulfan sulfate ND 0.00063 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 11:37 Endrin ND 0.00042 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 11:37
Endrin aldehyde ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 11:37
Endrin ketone ND 0.00013 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 11:37
Heptachlor ND 0.00021 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 11:37
Heptachlor epoxide 0.0074 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 11:37 Hexachlorobenzene ND 0.00027 0.010 1 07/21/2015 11:37
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ND 0.00040 0.020 1 07/21/2015 11:37 Methoxychlor ND 0.00089 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 11:37
Toxaphene ND 0.035 0.050 1 07/21/2015 11:37
Aroclor1016 ND 0.0051 0.050 1 07/21/2015 11:37
Aroclor1221 ND 0.011 0.050 1 07/21/2015 11:37
Aroclor1232 ND 0.0063 0.050 1 07/21/2015 11:37
Aroclor1242 ND 0.0067 0.050 1 07/21/2015 11:37
Aroclor1248 ND 0.0040 0.050 1 07/21/2015 11:37
Aroclor1254 ND 0.0068 0.050 1 07/21/2015 11:37
Aroclor1260 ND 0.0061 0.050 1 07/21/2015 11:37
PCBs, total ND 0.0040 0.050 1 07/21/2015 11:37
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): CK
Decachlorobiphenyl 124 70-130 07/21/2015 20:46
CDPH ELAP 1644 ♦ NELAP 4033ORELAP Angela Rydelius, Lab Manager (Cont.)

150
CC 07/01/2025
150 of 1130
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Padre Associates. Inc.

Project: #1401-2171; CUPERTINO (SEDGWICK PEA)
Date Received: 7/13/15 17:18
Date Prepared: 7/13/15
WorkOrder: 1507427
Extraction Method: SW3550B
Analytical Method: SW8081A/8082
Unit: mg/kg
Organochlorine Pesticides (Basic Target List) + PCBs
P-9 (SURF) 1507427-017A Soil 07/09/2015 14:20 GC22 107585 Analytes Result MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Aldrin ND 0.00027 0.0010 1 07/24/2015 07:01
a-BHC ND 0.00010 0.0010 1 07/24/2015 07:01
b-BHC ND 0.00025 0.0010 1 07/24/2015 07:01
d-BHC ND 0.00037 0.0010 1 07/24/2015 07:01
g-BHC ND 0.000097 0.0010 1 07/24/2015 07:01
Chlordane (Technical) 2.1 0.16 0.25 10 07/20/2015 14:15 a-Chlordane 0.25 0.0047 0.010 10 07/20/2015 14:15
g-Chlordane 0.17 0.0021 0.010 10 07/20/2015 14:15
p,p-DDD ND 0.00014 0.0010 1 07/24/2015 07:01
p,p-DDE 0.053 0.0032 0.010 10 07/20/2015 14:15
p,p-DDT 0.12 0.0043 0.010 10 07/20/2015 14:15
Dieldrin ND 0.00033 0.0010 1 07/24/2015 07:01
Endosulfan I ND 0.00065 0.0010 1 07/24/2015 07:01
Endosulfan II ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/24/2015 07:01
Endosulfan sulfate ND 0.00063 0.0010 1 07/24/2015 07:01 Endrin ND 0.00042 0.0010 1 07/24/2015 07:01
Endrin aldehyde ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/24/2015 07:01
Endrin ketone ND 0.00013 0.0010 1 07/24/2015 07:01
Heptachlor ND 0.00021 0.0010 1 07/24/2015 07:01
Heptachlor epoxide 0.013 0.0020 0.010 10 07/20/2015 14:15 Hexachlorobenzene ND 0.00027 0.010 1 07/24/2015 07:01
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ND 0.00040 0.020 1 07/24/2015 07:01 Methoxychlor ND 0.00089 0.0010 1 07/24/2015 07:01
Toxaphene ND 0.035 0.050 1 07/24/2015 07:01
Aroclor1016 ND 0.0051 0.050 1 07/24/2015 07:01
Aroclor1221 ND 0.011 0.050 1 07/24/2015 07:01
Aroclor1232 ND 0.0063 0.050 1 07/24/2015 07:01
Aroclor1242 ND 0.0067 0.050 1 07/24/2015 07:01
Aroclor1248 ND 0.0040 0.050 1 07/24/2015 07:01
Aroclor1254 ND 0.0068 0.050 1 07/24/2015 07:01
Aroclor1260 ND 0.0061 0.050 1 07/24/2015 07:01
PCBs, total ND 0.0040 0.050 1 07/24/2015 07:01
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): CK
Decachlorobiphenyl 122 70-130 07/20/2015 14:15
CDPH ELAP 1644 ♦ NELAP 4033ORELAP Angela Rydelius, Lab Manager (Cont.)

151
CC 07/01/2025
151 of 1130
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Padre Associates. Inc.

Project: #1401-2171; CUPERTINO (SEDGWICK PEA)
Date Received: 7/13/15 17:18
Date Prepared: 7/13/15
WorkOrder: 1507427
Extraction Method: SW3550B
Analytical Method: SW8081A/8082
Unit: mg/kg
Organochlorine Pesticides (Basic Target List) + PCBs
P-10 (SURF) 1507427-019A Soil 07/09/2015 14:41 GC22 107585 Analytes Result MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Aldrin ND 0.00027 0.0010 1 07/22/2015 00:09
a-BHC ND 0.00010 0.0010 1 07/22/2015 00:09
b-BHC ND 0.00025 0.0010 1 07/22/2015 00:09
d-BHC ND 0.00037 0.0010 1 07/22/2015 00:09
g-BHC ND 0.000097 0.0010 1 07/22/2015 00:09
Chlordane (Technical) 13 0.16 0.25 10 07/21/2015 23:01
a-Chlordane 1.5 0.0047 0.010 10 07/21/2015 23:01
g-Chlordane 1.5 0.0021 0.010 10 07/21/2015 23:01
p,p-DDD ND 0.00014 0.0010 1 07/22/2015 00:09
p,p-DDE 0.039 0.0032 0.010 10 07/21/2015 23:01
p,p-DDT 0.16 0.0043 0.010 10 07/21/2015 23:01
Dieldrin ND 0.00033 0.0010 1 07/22/2015 00:09
Endosulfan I ND 0.00065 0.0010 1 07/22/2015 00:09
Endosulfan II ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/22/2015 00:09
Endosulfan sulfate ND 0.00063 0.0010 1 07/22/2015 00:09 Endrin ND 0.00042 0.0010 1 07/22/2015 00:09
Endrin aldehyde ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/22/2015 00:09
Endrin ketone ND 0.00013 0.0010 1 07/22/2015 00:09
Heptachlor 0.021 0.0021 0.010 10 07/21/2015 23:01
Heptachlor epoxide 0.057 0.0020 0.010 10 07/21/2015 23:01 Hexachlorobenzene ND 0.00027 0.010 1 07/22/2015 00:09
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ND 0.00040 0.020 1 07/22/2015 00:09 Methoxychlor ND 0.00089 0.0010 1 07/22/2015 00:09
Toxaphene ND 0.035 0.050 1 07/22/2015 00:09
Aroclor1016 ND 0.0051 0.050 1 07/22/2015 00:09
Aroclor1221 ND 0.011 0.050 1 07/22/2015 00:09
Aroclor1232 ND 0.0063 0.050 1 07/22/2015 00:09
Aroclor1242 ND 0.0067 0.050 1 07/22/2015 00:09
Aroclor1248 ND 0.0040 0.050 1 07/22/2015 00:09
Aroclor1254 ND 0.0068 0.050 1 07/22/2015 00:09
Aroclor1260 ND 0.0061 0.050 1 07/22/2015 00:09
PCBs, total ND 0.0040 0.050 1 07/22/2015 00:09
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): CK
Decachlorobiphenyl 129 70-130 07/21/2015 23:01
CDPH ELAP 1644 ♦ NELAP 4033ORELAP Angela Rydelius, Lab Manager (Cont.)

152
CC 07/01/2025
152 of 1130
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Padre Associates. Inc.

Project: #1401-2171; CUPERTINO (SEDGWICK PEA)
Date Received: 7/13/15 17:18
Date Prepared: 7/13/15
WorkOrder: 1507427
Extraction Method: SW3550B
Analytical Method: SW8081A/8082
Unit: mg/kg
Organochlorine Pesticides (Basic Target List) + PCBs
P-11 (SURF) 1507427-021A Soil 07/09/2015 15:06 GC22 107585 Analytes Result MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Aldrin ND 0.00027 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 12:31
a-BHC ND 0.00010 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 12:31
b-BHC ND 0.00025 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 12:31
d-BHC ND 0.00037 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 12:31
g-BHC ND 0.000097 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 12:31
Chlordane (Technical) 0.93 0.16 0.25 10 07/21/2015 01:11 a-Chlordane 0.11 0.0047 0.010 10 07/21/2015 01:11
g-Chlordane 0.081 0.0021 0.010 10 07/21/2015 01:11
p,p-DDD ND 0.00014 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 12:31
p,p-DDE 0.035 0.0032 0.010 10 07/21/2015 01:11
p,p-DDT 0.093 0.0043 0.010 10 07/21/2015 01:11
Dieldrin ND 0.00033 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 12:31
Endosulfan I ND 0.00065 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 12:31
Endosulfan II ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 12:31
Endosulfan sulfate ND 0.00063 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 12:31 Endrin ND 0.00042 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 12:31
Endrin aldehyde ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 12:31
Endrin ketone ND 0.00013 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 12:31
Heptachlor ND 0.00021 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 12:31
Heptachlor epoxide 0.0040 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 12:31 Hexachlorobenzene ND 0.00027 0.010 1 07/20/2015 12:31
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ND 0.00040 0.020 1 07/20/2015 12:31 Methoxychlor ND 0.00089 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 12:31
Toxaphene ND 0.035 0.050 1 07/20/2015 12:31
Aroclor1016 ND 0.0051 0.050 1 07/20/2015 12:31
Aroclor1221 ND 0.011 0.050 1 07/20/2015 12:31
Aroclor1232 ND 0.0063 0.050 1 07/20/2015 12:31
Aroclor1242 ND 0.0067 0.050 1 07/20/2015 12:31
Aroclor1248 ND 0.0040 0.050 1 07/20/2015 12:31
Aroclor1254 ND 0.0068 0.050 1 07/20/2015 12:31
Aroclor1260 ND 0.0061 0.050 1 07/20/2015 12:31
PCBs, total ND 0.0040 0.050 1 07/20/2015 12:31
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): CK
Decachlorobiphenyl 122 70-130 07/21/2015 01:11
CDPH ELAP 1644 ♦ NELAP 4033ORELAP Angela Rydelius, Lab Manager (Cont.)

153
CC 07/01/2025
153 of 1130
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Padre Associates. Inc.

Project: #1401-2171; CUPERTINO (SEDGWICK PEA)
Date Received: 7/13/15 17:18
Date Prepared: 7/13/15
WorkOrder: 1507427
Extraction Method: SW3550B
Analytical Method: SW8081A/8082
Unit: mg/kg
Organochlorine Pesticides (Basic Target List) + PCBs
P-14 (SURF) 1507427-027A Soil 07/10/2015 08:28 GC23 107585 Analytes Result Qualifiers MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Aldrin ND 0.00027 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 09:35
a-BHC ND 0.00010 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 09:35
b-BHC ND 0.00025 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 09:35
d-BHC ND 0.00037 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 09:35
g-BHC ND 0.000097 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 09:35
Chlordane (Technical) 0.060 0.016 0.025 1 07/18/2015 09:35 a-Chlordane 0.0067 0.00047 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 09:35
g-Chlordane 0.0040 0.00021 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 09:35
p,p-DDD 0.0022 0.00014 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 09:35
p,p-DDE 0.097 0.00032 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 09:35
p,p-DDT 0.061 0.00043 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 09:35
Dieldrin ND 0.00033 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 09:35
Endosulfan I ND 0.00065 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 09:35
Endosulfan II ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 09:35
Endosulfan sulfate ND 0.00063 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 09:35 Endrin ND 0.00042 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 09:35
Endrin aldehyde ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 09:35
Endrin ketone ND 0.00013 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 09:35
Heptachlor 0.00025 J 0.00021 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 09:35
Heptachlor epoxide 0.00071 J 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 09:35 Hexachlorobenzene ND 0.00027 0.010 1 07/18/2015 09:35
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ND 0.00040 0.020 1 07/18/2015 09:35 Methoxychlor ND 0.00089 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 09:35
Toxaphene ND 0.035 0.050 1 07/18/2015 09:35
Aroclor1016 ND 0.0051 0.050 1 07/18/2015 09:35
Aroclor1221 ND 0.011 0.050 1 07/18/2015 09:35
Aroclor1232 ND 0.0063 0.050 1 07/18/2015 09:35
Aroclor1242 ND 0.0067 0.050 1 07/18/2015 09:35
Aroclor1248 ND 0.0040 0.050 1 07/18/2015 09:35
Aroclor1254 ND 0.0068 0.050 1 07/18/2015 09:35
Aroclor1260 ND 0.0061 0.050 1 07/18/2015 09:35
PCBs, total ND 0.0040 0.050 1 07/18/2015 09:35
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): SS
Decachlorobiphenyl 99 70-130 07/18/2015 09:35
CDPH ELAP 1644 ♦ NELAP 4033ORELAP Angela Rydelius, Lab Manager (Cont.)

154
CC 07/01/2025
154 of 1130
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Padre Associates. Inc.

Project: #1401-2171; CUPERTINO (SEDGWICK PEA)
Date Received: 7/13/15 17:18
Date Prepared: 7/13/15
WorkOrder: 1507427
Extraction Method: SW3550B
Analytical Method: SW8081A/8082
Unit: mg/kg
Organochlorine Pesticides (Basic Target List) + PCBs
P-15 (SURF) 1507427-029A Soil 07/10/2015 08:00 GC22 107585 Analytes Result Qualifiers MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Aldrin ND 0.00027 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 21:47
a-BHC ND 0.00010 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 21:47
b-BHC ND 0.00025 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 21:47
d-BHC ND 0.00037 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 21:47
g-BHC 0.00049 J 0.000097 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 21:47
Chlordane (Technical) 1.5 0.16 0.25 10 07/21/2015 20:12 a-Chlordane 0.17 0.0047 0.010 10 07/21/2015 20:12
g-Chlordane 0.13 0.0021 0.010 10 07/21/2015 20:12
p,p-DDD ND 0.00014 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 21:47
p,p-DDE 0.41 0.0032 0.010 10 07/21/2015 20:12
p,p-DDT 0.16 0.0043 0.010 10 07/21/2015 20:12
Dieldrin 0.0068 0.00033 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 21:47
Endosulfan I ND 0.00065 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 21:47
Endosulfan II ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 21:47
Endosulfan sulfate ND 0.00063 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 21:47 Endrin ND 0.00042 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 21:47
Endrin aldehyde ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 21:47
Endrin ketone ND 0.00013 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 21:47
Heptachlor ND 0.00021 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 21:47
Heptachlor epoxide 0.011 0.0020 0.010 10 07/21/2015 20:12 Hexachlorobenzene ND 0.00027 0.010 1 07/20/2015 21:47
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ND 0.00040 0.020 1 07/20/2015 21:47 Methoxychlor ND 0.00089 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 21:47
Toxaphene ND 0.035 0.050 1 07/20/2015 21:47
Aroclor1016 ND 0.0051 0.050 1 07/20/2015 21:47
Aroclor1221 ND 0.011 0.050 1 07/20/2015 21:47
Aroclor1232 ND 0.0063 0.050 1 07/20/2015 21:47
Aroclor1242 ND 0.0067 0.050 1 07/20/2015 21:47
Aroclor1248 ND 0.0040 0.050 1 07/20/2015 21:47
Aroclor1254 ND 0.0068 0.050 1 07/20/2015 21:47
Aroclor1260 ND 0.0061 0.050 1 07/20/2015 21:47
PCBs, total ND 0.0040 0.050 1 07/20/2015 21:47
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): CK
Decachlorobiphenyl 75 70-130 07/21/2015 20:12
CDPH ELAP 1644 ♦ NELAP 4033ORELAP Angela Rydelius, Lab Manager

155
CC 07/01/2025
155 of 1130
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Padre Associates. Inc.

Project: #1401-2171; CUPERTINO (SEDGWICK PEA)
Date Received: 7/13/15 17:18
Date Prepared: 7/13/15-7/16/15
WorkOrder: 1507427
Extraction Method: SW3550B
Analytical Method: SW8081A
Unit: mg/kg
Organochlorine Pesticides (Basic Target List)
P-1 (SURF) 1507427-001A Soil 07/09/2015 11:56 GC22 107573 Analytes Result MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Aldrin ND 0.0027 0.010 10 07/21/2015 21:19
a-BHC ND 0.0010 0.010 10 07/21/2015 21:19
b-BHC ND 0.0025 0.010 10 07/21/2015 21:19
d-BHC ND 0.0037 0.010 10 07/21/2015 21:19
g-BHC ND 0.00097 0.010 10 07/21/2015 21:19
Chlordane (Technical) 3.7 0.16 0.25 10 07/21/2015 21:19 a-Chlordane 0.42 0.0047 0.010 10 07/21/2015 21:19
g-Chlordane 0.23 0.0021 0.010 10 07/21/2015 21:19
p,p-DDD ND 0.0014 0.010 10 07/21/2015 21:19
p,p-DDE 0.35 0.0032 0.010 10 07/21/2015 21:19
p,p-DDT 0.26 0.0043 0.010 10 07/21/2015 21:19
Dieldrin ND 0.0033 0.010 10 07/21/2015 21:19
Endosulfan I ND 0.0065 0.010 10 07/21/2015 21:19
Endosulfan II ND 0.0020 0.010 10 07/21/2015 21:19
Endosulfan sulfate ND 0.0063 0.010 10 07/21/2015 21:19
Endrin ND 0.0097 0.010 10 07/21/2015 21:19
Endrin aldehyde ND 0.0020 0.010 10 07/21/2015 21:19
Endrin ketone ND 0.0013 0.010 10 07/21/2015 21:19
Heptachlor ND 0.0021 0.010 10 07/21/2015 21:19
Heptachlor epoxide 0.023 0.0020 0.010 10 07/21/2015 21:19 Hexachlorobenzene ND 0.0027 0.10 10 07/21/2015 21:19
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ND 0.0040 0.20 10 07/21/2015 21:19 Methoxychlor ND 0.0089 0.010 10 07/21/2015 21:19
Toxaphene ND 0.35 0.50 10 07/21/2015 21:19
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): CK
Decachlorobiphenyl 121 70-130 07/21/2015 21:19
CDPH ELAP 1644 ♦ NELAP 4033ORELAP Angela Rydelius, Lab Manager (Cont.)

156
CC 07/01/2025
156 of 1130
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Padre Associates. Inc.

Project: #1401-2171; CUPERTINO (SEDGWICK PEA)
Date Received: 7/13/15 17:18
Date Prepared: 7/13/15-7/16/15
WorkOrder: 1507427
Extraction Method: SW3550B
Analytical Method: SW8081A
Unit: mg/kg
Organochlorine Pesticides (Basic Target List)
P-1 (SURF) DUP 1507427-001B Soil 07/09/2015 11:56 GC22 107573 Analytes Result MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Aldrin ND 0.0054 0.020 20 07/20/2015 16:34
a-BHC ND 0.0020 0.020 20 07/20/2015 16:34
b-BHC ND 0.0050 0.020 20 07/20/2015 16:34
d-BHC ND 0.0074 0.020 20 07/20/2015 16:34
g-BHC ND 0.0019 0.020 20 07/20/2015 16:34
Chlordane (Technical) 2.8 0.32 0.50 20 07/20/2015 16:34 a-Chlordane 0.34 0.0094 0.020 20 07/20/2015 16:34
g-Chlordane 0.19 0.0042 0.020 20 07/20/2015 16:34
p,p-DDD ND 0.0028 0.020 20 07/20/2015 16:34
p,p-DDE 0.29 0.0064 0.020 20 07/20/2015 16:34
p,p-DDT 0.21 0.0086 0.020 20 07/20/2015 16:34
Dieldrin ND 0.0066 0.020 20 07/20/2015 16:34
Endosulfan I ND 0.013 0.020 20 07/20/2015 16:34
Endosulfan II ND 0.0040 0.020 20 07/20/2015 16:34
Endosulfan sulfate ND 0.013 0.020 20 07/20/2015 16:34
Endrin ND 0.0084 0.020 20 07/20/2015 16:34
Endrin aldehyde ND 0.0040 0.020 20 07/20/2015 16:34
Endrin ketone ND 0.0026 0.020 20 07/20/2015 16:34
Heptachlor ND 0.0042 0.020 20 07/20/2015 16:34
Heptachlor epoxide 0.031 0.0040 0.020 20 07/20/2015 16:34 Hexachlorobenzene ND 0.0054 0.20 20 07/20/2015 16:34
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ND 0.0080 0.40 20 07/20/2015 16:34 Methoxychlor ND 0.018 0.020 20 07/20/2015 16:34
Toxaphene ND 0.70 1.0 20 07/20/2015 16:34
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): CK
Decachlorobiphenyl 126 70-130 07/20/2015 16:34
CDPH ELAP 1644 ♦ NELAP 4033ORELAP Angela Rydelius, Lab Manager (Cont.)

157
CC 07/01/2025
157 of 1130
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Padre Associates. Inc.

Project: #1401-2171; CUPERTINO (SEDGWICK PEA)
Date Received: 7/13/15 17:18
Date Prepared: 7/13/15-7/16/15
WorkOrder: 1507427
Extraction Method: SW3550B
Analytical Method: SW8081A
Unit: mg/kg
Organochlorine Pesticides (Basic Target List)
P-1 (1-1.5') 1507427-002A Soil 07/09/2015 11:59 GC22 107573 Analytes Result Qualifiers MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Aldrin ND 0.00027 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 14:28
a-BHC ND 0.00010 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 14:28
b-BHC ND 0.00025 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 14:28
d-BHC ND 0.00037 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 14:28
g-BHC ND 0.000097 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 14:28
Chlordane (Technical) 0.087 0.016 0.025 1 07/21/2015 14:28 a-Chlordane 0.0094 0.00047 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 14:28
g-Chlordane 0.0053 0.00021 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 14:28
p,p-DDD ND 0.00014 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 14:28
p,p-DDE 0.0095 0.00032 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 14:28
p,p-DDT 0.0059 0.00043 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 14:28
Dieldrin ND 0.00033 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 14:28
Endosulfan I ND 0.00065 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 14:28
Endosulfan II ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 14:28
Endosulfan sulfate ND 0.00063 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 14:28 Endrin ND 0.00042 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 14:28
Endrin aldehyde ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 14:28
Endrin ketone ND 0.00013 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 14:28
Heptachlor ND 0.00021 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 14:28
Heptachlor epoxide 0.00086 J 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 14:28 Hexachlorobenzene ND 0.00027 0.010 1 07/21/2015 14:28
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ND 0.00040 0.020 1 07/21/2015 14:28 Methoxychlor ND 0.00089 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 14:28
Toxaphene ND 0.035 0.050 1 07/21/2015 14:28
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): CK
Decachlorobiphenyl 94 70-130 07/21/2015 14:28
CDPH ELAP 1644 ♦ NELAP 4033ORELAP Angela Rydelius, Lab Manager (Cont.)

158
CC 07/01/2025
158 of 1130
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Padre Associates. Inc.

Project: #1401-2171; CUPERTINO (SEDGWICK PEA)
Date Received: 7/13/15 17:18
Date Prepared: 7/13/15-7/16/15
WorkOrder: 1507427
Extraction Method: SW3550B
Analytical Method: SW8081A
Unit: mg/kg
Organochlorine Pesticides (Basic Target List)
P-2 (SURF) 1507427-003A Soil 07/09/2015 12:20 GC22 107573 Analytes Result MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Aldrin ND 0.00027 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 15:03
a-BHC ND 0.00010 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 15:03
b-BHC ND 0.00025 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 15:03
d-BHC ND 0.00037 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 15:03
g-BHC ND 0.000097 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 15:03
Chlordane (Technical) 0.12 0.016 0.025 1 07/21/2015 15:03 a-Chlordane 0.018 0.00047 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 15:03
g-Chlordane 0.0058 0.00021 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 15:03
p,p-DDD ND 0.00014 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 15:03
p,p-DDE 0.077 0.00032 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 15:03
p,p-DDT 0.044 0.00043 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 15:03
Dieldrin ND 0.00033 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 15:03
Endosulfan I ND 0.00065 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 15:03
Endosulfan II ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 15:03
Endosulfan sulfate ND 0.00063 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 15:03 Endrin ND 0.00042 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 15:03
Endrin aldehyde ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 15:03
Endrin ketone ND 0.00013 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 15:03
Heptachlor ND 0.00021 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 15:03
Heptachlor epoxide 0.0048 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 15:03 Hexachlorobenzene ND 0.00027 0.010 1 07/21/2015 15:03
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ND 0.00040 0.020 1 07/21/2015 15:03 Methoxychlor ND 0.00089 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 15:03
Toxaphene ND 0.035 0.050 1 07/21/2015 15:03
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): CK
Decachlorobiphenyl 100 70-130 07/21/2015 15:03
CDPH ELAP 1644 ♦ NELAP 4033ORELAP Angela Rydelius, Lab Manager (Cont.)

159
CC 07/01/2025
159 of 1130
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Padre Associates. Inc.

Project: #1401-2171; CUPERTINO (SEDGWICK PEA)
Date Received: 7/13/15 17:18
Date Prepared: 7/13/15-7/16/15
WorkOrder: 1507427
Extraction Method: SW3550B
Analytical Method: SW8081A
Unit: mg/kg
Organochlorine Pesticides (Basic Target List)
P-2 (1-1.5') 1507427-004A Soil 07/09/2015 12:25 GC22 107573 Analytes Result Qualifiers MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Aldrin ND 0.00027 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 16:12
a-BHC ND 0.00010 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 16:12
b-BHC ND 0.00025 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 16:12
d-BHC ND 0.00037 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 16:12
g-BHC ND 0.000097 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 16:12
Chlordane (Technical) ND 0.016 0.025 1 07/21/2015 16:12 a-Chlordane ND 0.00047 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 16:12
g-Chlordane ND 0.00021 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 16:12
p,p-DDD ND 0.00014 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 16:12
p,p-DDE 0.00046 J 0.00032 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 16:12
p,p-DDT ND 0.00043 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 16:12
Dieldrin ND 0.00033 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 16:12
Endosulfan I ND 0.00065 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 16:12
Endosulfan II ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 16:12
Endosulfan sulfate ND 0.00063 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 16:12 Endrin ND 0.00097 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 16:12
Endrin aldehyde ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 16:12
Endrin ketone ND 0.00013 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 16:12
Heptachlor ND 0.00021 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 16:12
Heptachlor epoxide ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 16:12 Hexachlorobenzene ND 0.00027 0.010 1 07/21/2015 16:12
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ND 0.00040 0.020 1 07/21/2015 16:12 Methoxychlor ND 0.00089 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 16:12
Toxaphene ND 0.035 0.050 1 07/21/2015 16:12
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): CK
Decachlorobiphenyl 98 70-130 07/21/2015 16:12
CDPH ELAP 1644 ♦ NELAP 4033ORELAP Angela Rydelius, Lab Manager (Cont.)

160
CC 07/01/2025
160 of 1130
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Padre Associates. Inc.

Project: #1401-2171; CUPERTINO (SEDGWICK PEA)
Date Received: 7/13/15 17:18
Date Prepared: 7/13/15-7/16/15
WorkOrder: 1507427
Extraction Method: SW3550B
Analytical Method: SW8081A
Unit: mg/kg
Organochlorine Pesticides (Basic Target List)
P-3 (SURF) 1507427-005A Soil 07/09/2015 12:26 GC22 107573 Analytes Result Qualifiers MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Aldrin ND 0.0027 0.010 10 07/21/2015 22:28
a-BHC ND 0.0010 0.010 10 07/21/2015 22:28
b-BHC ND 0.0025 0.010 10 07/21/2015 22:28
d-BHC ND 0.0037 0.010 10 07/21/2015 22:28
g-BHC ND 0.00097 0.010 10 07/21/2015 22:28
Chlordane (Technical) 1.2 0.16 0.25 10 07/21/2015 22:28 a-Chlordane 0.13 0.0047 0.010 10 07/21/2015 22:28
g-Chlordane 0.092 0.0021 0.010 10 07/21/2015 22:28
p,p-DDD ND 0.0014 0.010 10 07/21/2015 22:28
p,p-DDE 0.056 0.0032 0.010 10 07/21/2015 22:28
p,p-DDT 0.046 0.0043 0.010 10 07/21/2015 22:28
Dieldrin ND 0.0033 0.010 10 07/21/2015 22:28
Endosulfan I ND 0.0065 0.010 10 07/21/2015 22:28
Endosulfan II ND 0.0020 0.010 10 07/21/2015 22:28
Endosulfan sulfate ND 0.0063 0.010 10 07/21/2015 22:28
Endrin ND 0.0097 0.010 10 07/21/2015 22:28
Endrin aldehyde ND 0.0020 0.010 10 07/21/2015 22:28
Endrin ketone ND 0.0013 0.010 10 07/21/2015 22:28
Heptachlor ND 0.0021 0.010 10 07/21/2015 22:28
Heptachlor epoxide 0.0040 J 0.0020 0.010 10 07/21/2015 22:28 Hexachlorobenzene ND 0.0027 0.10 10 07/21/2015 22:28
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ND 0.0040 0.20 10 07/21/2015 22:28 Methoxychlor ND 0.0089 0.010 10 07/21/2015 22:28
Toxaphene ND 0.35 0.50 10 07/21/2015 22:28
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): CK
Decachlorobiphenyl 103 70-130 07/21/2015 22:28
CDPH ELAP 1644 ♦ NELAP 4033ORELAP Angela Rydelius, Lab Manager (Cont.)

161
CC 07/01/2025
161 of 1130
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Padre Associates. Inc.

Project: #1401-2171; CUPERTINO (SEDGWICK PEA)
Date Received: 7/13/15 17:18
Date Prepared: 7/13/15-7/16/15
WorkOrder: 1507427
Extraction Method: SW3550B
Analytical Method: SW8081A
Unit: mg/kg
Organochlorine Pesticides (Basic Target List)
P-3 (1-1.5') 1507427-006A Soil 07/09/2015 12:30 GC40 107573 Analytes Result MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Aldrin ND 0.00027 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 00:20
a-BHC ND 0.00010 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 00:20
b-BHC ND 0.00025 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 00:20
d-BHC ND 0.00037 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 00:20
g-BHC ND 0.000097 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 00:20
Chlordane (Technical) 0.22 0.016 0.025 1 07/16/2015 00:20 a-Chlordane 0.020 0.00047 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 00:20
g-Chlordane 0.020 0.00021 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 00:20
p,p-DDD ND 0.00014 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 00:20
p,p-DDE 0.0065 0.00032 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 00:20
p,p-DDT 0.0082 0.00043 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 00:20
Dieldrin ND 0.00033 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 00:20
Endosulfan I ND 0.00065 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 00:20
Endosulfan II ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 00:20
Endosulfan sulfate ND 0.00063 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 00:20 Endrin ND 0.00042 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 00:20
Endrin aldehyde ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 00:20
Endrin ketone ND 0.00013 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 00:20
Heptachlor ND 0.00021 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 00:20
Heptachlor epoxide ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 00:20 Hexachlorobenzene ND 0.00027 0.010 1 07/16/2015 00:20
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ND 0.00040 0.020 1 07/16/2015 00:20 Methoxychlor ND 0.00089 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 00:20
Toxaphene ND 0.035 0.050 1 07/16/2015 00:20
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): SS
Decachlorobiphenyl 83 70-130 07/16/2015 00:20
CDPH ELAP 1644 ♦ NELAP 4033ORELAP Angela Rydelius, Lab Manager (Cont.)

162
CC 07/01/2025
162 of 1130
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Padre Associates. Inc.

Project: #1401-2171; CUPERTINO (SEDGWICK PEA)
Date Received: 7/13/15 17:18
Date Prepared: 7/13/15-7/16/15
WorkOrder: 1507427
Extraction Method: SW3550B
Analytical Method: SW8081A
Unit: mg/kg
Organochlorine Pesticides (Basic Target List)
P-4 (1-1.5') 1507427-008A Soil 07/09/2015 13:02 GC22 107728 Analytes Result Qualifiers MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Aldrin ND 0.0027 0.010 10 07/20/2015 17:09
a-BHC ND 0.0010 0.010 10 07/20/2015 17:09
b-BHC ND 0.0025 0.010 10 07/20/2015 17:09
d-BHC ND 0.0037 0.010 10 07/20/2015 17:09
g-BHC ND 0.00097 0.010 10 07/20/2015 17:09
Chlordane (Technical) 1.1 0.16 0.25 10 07/20/2015 17:09 a-Chlordane 0.13 0.0047 0.010 10 07/20/2015 17:09
g-Chlordane 0.079 0.0021 0.010 10 07/20/2015 17:09
p,p-DDD ND 0.0014 0.010 10 07/20/2015 17:09
p,p-DDE 0.044 0.0032 0.010 10 07/20/2015 17:09
p,p-DDT 0.038 0.0043 0.010 10 07/20/2015 17:09
Dieldrin ND 0.0033 0.010 10 07/20/2015 17:09
Endosulfan I ND 0.0065 0.010 10 07/20/2015 17:09
Endosulfan II ND 0.0020 0.010 10 07/20/2015 17:09
Endosulfan sulfate ND 0.0063 0.010 10 07/20/2015 17:09
Endrin ND 0.0042 0.010 10 07/20/2015 17:09
Endrin aldehyde ND 0.0020 0.010 10 07/20/2015 17:09
Endrin ketone ND 0.0013 0.010 10 07/20/2015 17:09
Heptachlor ND 0.0021 0.010 10 07/20/2015 17:09
Heptachlor epoxide 0.0078 J 0.0020 0.010 10 07/20/2015 17:09 Hexachlorobenzene ND 0.0027 0.10 10 07/20/2015 17:09
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ND 0.0040 0.20 10 07/20/2015 17:09 Methoxychlor ND 0.0089 0.010 10 07/20/2015 17:09
Toxaphene ND 0.35 0.50 10 07/20/2015 17:09
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): CK
Decachlorobiphenyl 129 70-130 07/20/2015 17:09
CDPH ELAP 1644 ♦ NELAP 4033ORELAP Angela Rydelius, Lab Manager (Cont.)

163
CC 07/01/2025
163 of 1130
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Padre Associates. Inc.

Project: #1401-2171; CUPERTINO (SEDGWICK PEA)
Date Received: 7/13/15 17:18
Date Prepared: 7/13/15-7/16/15
WorkOrder: 1507427
Extraction Method: SW3550B
Analytical Method: SW8081A
Unit: mg/kg
Organochlorine Pesticides (Basic Target List)
P-5 (SURF) 1507427-009A Soil 07/09/2015 13:14 GC23 107728 Analytes Result Qualifiers MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Aldrin ND 0.00027 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 07:43
a-BHC ND 0.00010 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 07:43
b-BHC ND 0.00025 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 07:43
d-BHC ND 0.00037 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 07:43
g-BHC ND 0.000097 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 07:43
Chlordane (Technical) 0.063 0.016 0.025 1 07/18/2015 07:43 a-Chlordane 0.0055 0.00047 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 07:43
g-Chlordane 0.0023 0.00021 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 07:43
p,p-DDD 0.00076 J 0.00014 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 07:43
p,p-DDE 0.024 0.00032 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 07:43
p,p-DDT 0.024 0.00043 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 07:43
Dieldrin ND 0.00033 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 07:43
Endosulfan I ND 0.00065 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 07:43
Endosulfan II ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 07:43
Endosulfan sulfate ND 0.00063 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 07:43 Endrin ND 0.00042 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 07:43
Endrin aldehyde ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 07:43
Endrin ketone ND 0.00013 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 07:43
Heptachlor ND 0.00021 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 07:43
Heptachlor epoxide 0.0016 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 07:43 Hexachlorobenzene ND 0.00027 0.010 1 07/18/2015 07:43
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ND 0.00040 0.020 1 07/18/2015 07:43 Methoxychlor ND 0.00089 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 07:43
Toxaphene ND 0.035 0.050 1 07/18/2015 07:43
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): SS
Decachlorobiphenyl 98 70-130 07/18/2015 07:43
CDPH ELAP 1644 ♦ NELAP 4033ORELAP Angela Rydelius, Lab Manager (Cont.)

164
CC 07/01/2025
164 of 1130
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Padre Associates. Inc.

Project: #1401-2171; CUPERTINO (SEDGWICK PEA)
Date Received: 7/13/15 17:18
Date Prepared: 7/13/15-7/16/15
WorkOrder: 1507427
Extraction Method: SW3550B
Analytical Method: SW8081A
Unit: mg/kg
Organochlorine Pesticides (Basic Target List)
P-5 (1-1.5') 1507427-010A Soil 07/09/2015 13:20 GC40 107573 Analytes Result Qualifiers MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Aldrin ND 0.00027 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 04:29
a-BHC ND 0.00010 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 04:29
b-BHC ND 0.00025 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 04:29
d-BHC ND 0.00037 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 04:29
g-BHC ND 0.000097 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 04:29
Chlordane (Technical) ND 0.016 0.025 1 07/16/2015 04:29 a-Chlordane 0.0014 0.00047 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 04:29
g-Chlordane 0.00054 J 0.00021 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 04:29 p,p-DDD ND 0.00014 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 04:29
p,p-DDE 0.00093 J 0.00032 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 04:29
p,p-DDT 0.0011 0.00043 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 04:29
Dieldrin ND 0.00033 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 04:29
Endosulfan I ND 0.00065 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 04:29
Endosulfan II ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 04:29
Endosulfan sulfate ND 0.00063 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 04:29 Endrin ND 0.00042 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 04:29
Endrin aldehyde ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 04:29
Endrin ketone ND 0.00013 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 04:29
Heptachlor ND 0.00021 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 04:29
Heptachlor epoxide ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 04:29 Hexachlorobenzene ND 0.00027 0.010 1 07/16/2015 04:29
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ND 0.00040 0.020 1 07/16/2015 04:29 Methoxychlor ND 0.00089 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 04:29
Toxaphene ND 0.035 0.050 1 07/16/2015 04:29
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): SS
Decachlorobiphenyl 98 70-130 07/16/2015 04:29
CDPH ELAP 1644 ♦ NELAP 4033ORELAP Angela Rydelius, Lab Manager (Cont.)

165
CC 07/01/2025
165 of 1130
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Padre Associates. Inc.

Project: #1401-2171; CUPERTINO (SEDGWICK PEA)
Date Received: 7/13/15 17:18
Date Prepared: 7/13/15-7/16/15
WorkOrder: 1507427
Extraction Method: SW3550B
Analytical Method: SW8081A
Unit: mg/kg
Organochlorine Pesticides (Basic Target List)
P-6 (SURF) 1507427-011A Soil 07/09/2015 13:33 GC22 107573 Analytes Result Qualifiers MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Aldrin ND 0.0027 0.010 10 07/20/2015 15:25
a-BHC ND 0.0010 0.010 10 07/20/2015 15:25
b-BHC ND 0.0025 0.010 10 07/20/2015 15:25
d-BHC ND 0.0037 0.010 10 07/20/2015 15:25
g-BHC ND 0.00097 0.010 10 07/20/2015 15:25
Chlordane (Technical) 3.4 0.16 0.25 10 07/20/2015 15:25 a-Chlordane 0.39 0.0047 0.010 10 07/20/2015 15:25
g-Chlordane 0.28 0.0021 0.010 10 07/20/2015 15:25
p,p-DDD ND 0.0014 0.010 10 07/20/2015 15:25
p,p-DDE 0.12 0.0032 0.010 10 07/20/2015 15:25
p,p-DDT 0.21 0.0043 0.010 10 07/20/2015 15:25
Dieldrin ND 0.0033 0.010 10 07/20/2015 15:25
Endosulfan I ND 0.0065 0.010 10 07/20/2015 15:25
Endosulfan II ND 0.0020 0.010 10 07/20/2015 15:25
Endosulfan sulfate ND 0.0063 0.010 10 07/20/2015 15:25
Endrin ND 0.0042 0.010 10 07/20/2015 15:25
Endrin aldehyde ND 0.0020 0.010 10 07/20/2015 15:25
Endrin ketone ND 0.0013 0.010 10 07/20/2015 15:25
Heptachlor ND 0.0021 0.010 10 07/20/2015 15:25
Heptachlor epoxide 0.0060 J 0.0020 0.010 10 07/20/2015 15:25 Hexachlorobenzene ND 0.0027 0.10 10 07/20/2015 15:25
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ND 0.0040 0.20 10 07/20/2015 15:25 Methoxychlor ND 0.0089 0.010 10 07/20/2015 15:25
Toxaphene ND 0.35 0.50 10 07/20/2015 15:25
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): CK
Decachlorobiphenyl 130 70-130 07/20/2015 15:25
CDPH ELAP 1644 ♦ NELAP 4033ORELAP Angela Rydelius, Lab Manager (Cont.)

166
CC 07/01/2025
166 of 1130
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Padre Associates. Inc.

Project: #1401-2171; CUPERTINO (SEDGWICK PEA)
Date Received: 7/13/15 17:18
Date Prepared: 7/13/15-7/16/15
WorkOrder: 1507427
Extraction Method: SW3550B
Analytical Method: SW8081A
Unit: mg/kg
Organochlorine Pesticides (Basic Target List)
P-6 (1-1.5') 1507427-012A Soil 07/09/2015 13:37 GC23 107728 Analytes Result Qualifiers MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Aldrin ND 0.00027 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 07:06
a-BHC ND 0.00010 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 07:06
b-BHC ND 0.00025 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 07:06
d-BHC ND 0.00037 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 07:06
g-BHC ND 0.000097 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 07:06
Chlordane (Technical) ND 0.016 0.025 1 07/18/2015 07:06 a-Chlordane 0.00094 J 0.00047 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 07:06 g-Chlordane 0.00073 J 0.00021 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 07:06 p,p-DDD ND 0.00014 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 07:06
p,p-DDE ND 0.00032 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 07:06
p,p-DDT ND 0.00043 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 07:06
Dieldrin ND 0.00033 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 07:06
Endosulfan I ND 0.00065 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 07:06
Endosulfan II ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 07:06
Endosulfan sulfate ND 0.00063 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 07:06 Endrin ND 0.00042 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 07:06
Endrin aldehyde ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 07:06
Endrin ketone ND 0.00013 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 07:06
Heptachlor ND 0.00021 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 07:06
Heptachlor epoxide ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 07:06 Hexachlorobenzene ND 0.00027 0.010 1 07/18/2015 07:06
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ND 0.00040 0.020 1 07/18/2015 07:06 Methoxychlor ND 0.00089 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 07:06
Toxaphene ND 0.035 0.050 1 07/18/2015 07:06
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): SS
Decachlorobiphenyl 102 70-130 07/18/2015 07:06
CDPH ELAP 1644 ♦ NELAP 4033ORELAP Angela Rydelius, Lab Manager (Cont.)

167
CC 07/01/2025
167 of 1130
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Padre Associates. Inc.

Project: #1401-2171; CUPERTINO (SEDGWICK PEA)
Date Received: 7/13/15 17:18
Date Prepared: 7/13/15-7/16/15
WorkOrder: 1507427
Extraction Method: SW3550B
Analytical Method: SW8081A
Unit: mg/kg
Organochlorine Pesticides (Basic Target List)
P-7 (SURF) 1507427-013A Soil 07/09/2015 13:52 GC22 107573 Analytes Result MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Aldrin ND 0.0027 0.010 10 07/20/2015 16:00
a-BHC ND 0.0010 0.010 10 07/20/2015 16:00
b-BHC ND 0.0025 0.010 10 07/20/2015 16:00
d-BHC ND 0.0037 0.010 10 07/20/2015 16:00
g-BHC ND 0.00097 0.010 10 07/20/2015 16:00
Chlordane (Technical) 1.9 0.16 0.25 10 07/20/2015 16:00 a-Chlordane 0.25 0.0047 0.010 10 07/20/2015 16:00
g-Chlordane 0.15 0.0021 0.010 10 07/20/2015 16:00
p,p-DDD ND 0.0014 0.010 10 07/20/2015 16:00
p,p-DDE 0.12 0.0032 0.010 10 07/20/2015 16:00
p,p-DDT 0.11 0.0043 0.010 10 07/20/2015 16:00
Dieldrin ND 0.0033 0.010 10 07/20/2015 16:00
Endosulfan I ND 0.0065 0.010 10 07/20/2015 16:00
Endosulfan II ND 0.0020 0.010 10 07/20/2015 16:00
Endosulfan sulfate ND 0.0063 0.010 10 07/20/2015 16:00
Endrin ND 0.0042 0.010 10 07/20/2015 16:00
Endrin aldehyde ND 0.0020 0.010 10 07/20/2015 16:00
Endrin ketone ND 0.0013 0.010 10 07/20/2015 16:00
Heptachlor ND 0.0021 0.010 10 07/20/2015 16:00
Heptachlor epoxide 0.026 0.0020 0.010 10 07/20/2015 16:00 Hexachlorobenzene ND 0.0027 0.10 10 07/20/2015 16:00
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ND 0.0040 0.20 10 07/20/2015 16:00 Methoxychlor ND 0.0089 0.010 10 07/20/2015 16:00
Toxaphene ND 0.35 0.50 10 07/20/2015 16:00
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): CK
Decachlorobiphenyl 122 70-130 07/20/2015 16:00
CDPH ELAP 1644 ♦ NELAP 4033ORELAP Angela Rydelius, Lab Manager (Cont.)

168
CC 07/01/2025
168 of 1130
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Padre Associates. Inc.

Project: #1401-2171; CUPERTINO (SEDGWICK PEA)
Date Received: 7/13/15 17:18
Date Prepared: 7/13/15-7/16/15
WorkOrder: 1507427
Extraction Method: SW3550B
Analytical Method: SW8081A
Unit: mg/kg
Organochlorine Pesticides (Basic Target List)
P-7 (1-1.5') 1507427-014A Soil 07/09/2015 13:55 GC40 107573 Analytes Result Qualifiers MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Aldrin ND 0.00027 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 06:50
a-BHC ND 0.00010 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 06:50
b-BHC ND 0.00025 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 06:50
d-BHC ND 0.00037 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 06:50
g-BHC ND 0.000097 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 06:50
Chlordane (Technical) ND 0.016 0.025 1 07/16/2015 06:50 a-Chlordane 0.0014 0.00047 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 06:50
g-Chlordane 0.00054 J 0.00021 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 06:50 p,p-DDD ND 0.00014 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 06:50
p,p-DDE 0.0014 0.00032 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 06:50
p,p-DDT 0.0011 0.00043 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 06:50
Dieldrin ND 0.00033 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 06:50
Endosulfan I ND 0.00065 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 06:50
Endosulfan II ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 06:50
Endosulfan sulfate ND 0.00063 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 06:50 Endrin ND 0.00042 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 06:50
Endrin aldehyde ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 06:50
Endrin ketone ND 0.00013 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 06:50
Heptachlor ND 0.00021 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 06:50
Heptachlor epoxide ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 06:50 Hexachlorobenzene ND 0.00027 0.010 1 07/16/2015 06:50
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ND 0.00040 0.020 1 07/16/2015 06:50 Methoxychlor ND 0.00089 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 06:50
Toxaphene ND 0.035 0.050 1 07/16/2015 06:50
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): SS
Decachlorobiphenyl 81 70-130 07/16/2015 06:50
CDPH ELAP 1644 ♦ NELAP 4033ORELAP Angela Rydelius, Lab Manager (Cont.)

169
CC 07/01/2025
169 of 1130
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Padre Associates. Inc.

Project: #1401-2171; CUPERTINO (SEDGWICK PEA)
Date Received: 7/13/15 17:18
Date Prepared: 7/13/15-7/16/15
WorkOrder: 1507427
Extraction Method: SW3550B
Analytical Method: SW8081A
Unit: mg/kg
Organochlorine Pesticides (Basic Target List)
P-8 (SURF) 1507427-015A Soil 07/09/2015 14:07 GC40 107585 Analytes Result MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Aldrin ND 0.00027 0.0010 1 07/15/2015 23:45
a-BHC ND 0.00010 0.0010 1 07/15/2015 23:45
b-BHC ND 0.00025 0.0010 1 07/15/2015 23:45
d-BHC ND 0.00037 0.0010 1 07/15/2015 23:45
g-BHC ND 0.000097 0.0010 1 07/15/2015 23:45
Chlordane (Technical) 0.057 0.016 0.025 1 07/15/2015 23:45 a-Chlordane 0.010 0.00047 0.0010 1 07/15/2015 23:45
g-Chlordane 0.0045 0.00021 0.0010 1 07/15/2015 23:45
p,p-DDD ND 0.00014 0.0010 1 07/15/2015 23:45
p,p-DDE 0.014 0.00032 0.0010 1 07/15/2015 23:45
p,p-DDT 0.011 0.00043 0.0010 1 07/15/2015 23:45
Dieldrin ND 0.00033 0.0010 1 07/15/2015 23:45
Endosulfan I ND 0.00065 0.0010 1 07/15/2015 23:45
Endosulfan II ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/15/2015 23:45
Endosulfan sulfate ND 0.00063 0.0010 1 07/15/2015 23:45 Endrin ND 0.00042 0.0010 1 07/15/2015 23:45
Endrin aldehyde ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/15/2015 23:45
Endrin ketone ND 0.00013 0.0010 1 07/15/2015 23:45
Heptachlor ND 0.00021 0.0010 1 07/15/2015 23:45
Heptachlor epoxide 0.0033 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/15/2015 23:45 Hexachlorobenzene ND 0.00027 0.010 1 07/15/2015 23:45
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ND 0.00040 0.020 1 07/15/2015 23:45 Methoxychlor ND 0.00089 0.0010 1 07/15/2015 23:45
Toxaphene ND 0.035 0.050 1 07/15/2015 23:45
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): SS
Decachlorobiphenyl 78 70-130 07/15/2015 23:45
CDPH ELAP 1644 ♦ NELAP 4033ORELAP Angela Rydelius, Lab Manager (Cont.)

170
CC 07/01/2025
170 of 1130
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Padre Associates. Inc.

Project: #1401-2171; CUPERTINO (SEDGWICK PEA)
Date Received: 7/13/15 17:18
Date Prepared: 7/13/15-7/16/15
WorkOrder: 1507427
Extraction Method: SW3550B
Analytical Method: SW8081A
Unit: mg/kg
Organochlorine Pesticides (Basic Target List)
P-8 (1-1.5') 1507427-016A Soil 07/09/2015 14:09 GC40 107585 Analytes Result Qualifiers MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Aldrin ND 0.00027 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 07:26
a-BHC ND 0.00010 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 07:26
b-BHC ND 0.00025 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 07:26
d-BHC ND 0.00037 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 07:26
g-BHC ND 0.000097 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 07:26
Chlordane (Technical) ND 0.016 0.025 1 07/16/2015 07:26 a-Chlordane ND 0.00047 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 07:26
g-Chlordane 0.00027 J 0.00021 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 07:26 p,p-DDD 0.0011 0.00014 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 07:26
p,p-DDE 0.0039 0.00032 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 07:26
p,p-DDT 0.0034 0.00043 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 07:26
Dieldrin ND 0.00033 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 07:26
Endosulfan I ND 0.00065 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 07:26
Endosulfan II ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 07:26
Endosulfan sulfate ND 0.00063 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 07:26 Endrin ND 0.00042 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 07:26
Endrin aldehyde ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 07:26
Endrin ketone ND 0.00013 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 07:26
Heptachlor ND 0.00021 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 07:26
Heptachlor epoxide ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 07:26 Hexachlorobenzene ND 0.00027 0.010 1 07/16/2015 07:26
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ND 0.00040 0.020 1 07/16/2015 07:26 Methoxychlor ND 0.00089 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 07:26
Toxaphene ND 0.035 0.050 1 07/16/2015 07:26
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): SS
Decachlorobiphenyl 70 70-130 07/16/2015 07:26
CDPH ELAP 1644 ♦ NELAP 4033ORELAP Angela Rydelius, Lab Manager (Cont.)

171
CC 07/01/2025
171 of 1130
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Padre Associates. Inc.

Project: #1401-2171; CUPERTINO (SEDGWICK PEA)
Date Received: 7/13/15 17:18
Date Prepared: 7/13/15-7/16/15
WorkOrder: 1507427
Extraction Method: SW3550B
Analytical Method: SW8081A
Unit: mg/kg
Organochlorine Pesticides (Basic Target List)
P-9 (SURF) DUP 1507427-017B Soil 07/09/2015 14:20 GC22 107585 Analytes Result Qualifiers MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Aldrin ND 0.0027 0.010 10 07/21/2015 00:37
a-BHC ND 0.0010 0.010 10 07/21/2015 00:37
b-BHC ND 0.0025 0.010 10 07/21/2015 00:37
d-BHC ND 0.0037 0.010 10 07/21/2015 00:37
g-BHC ND 0.00097 0.010 10 07/21/2015 00:37
Chlordane (Technical) 1.8 0.16 0.25 10 07/21/2015 00:37 a-Chlordane 0.21 0.0047 0.010 10 07/21/2015 00:37
g-Chlordane 0.15 0.0021 0.010 10 07/21/2015 00:37
p,p-DDD ND 0.0014 0.010 10 07/21/2015 00:37
p,p-DDE 0.047 0.0032 0.010 10 07/21/2015 00:37
p,p-DDT 0.12 0.0043 0.010 10 07/21/2015 00:37
Dieldrin ND 0.0033 0.010 10 07/21/2015 00:37
Endosulfan I ND 0.0065 0.010 10 07/21/2015 00:37
Endosulfan II ND 0.0020 0.010 10 07/21/2015 00:37
Endosulfan sulfate ND 0.0063 0.010 10 07/21/2015 00:37
Endrin ND 0.0042 0.010 10 07/21/2015 00:37
Endrin aldehyde ND 0.0020 0.010 10 07/21/2015 00:37
Endrin ketone ND 0.0013 0.010 10 07/21/2015 00:37
Heptachlor ND 0.0021 0.010 10 07/21/2015 00:37
Heptachlor epoxide 0.0083 J 0.0020 0.010 10 07/21/2015 00:37 Hexachlorobenzene ND 0.0027 0.10 10 07/21/2015 00:37
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ND 0.0040 0.20 10 07/21/2015 00:37 Methoxychlor ND 0.0089 0.010 10 07/21/2015 00:37
Toxaphene ND 0.35 0.50 10 07/21/2015 00:37
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): CK
Decachlorobiphenyl 103 70-130 07/21/2015 00:37
CDPH ELAP 1644 ♦ NELAP 4033ORELAP Angela Rydelius, Lab Manager (Cont.)

172
CC 07/01/2025
172 of 1130
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Padre Associates. Inc.

Project: #1401-2171; CUPERTINO (SEDGWICK PEA)
Date Received: 7/13/15 17:18
Date Prepared: 7/13/15-7/16/15
WorkOrder: 1507427
Extraction Method: SW3550B
Analytical Method: SW8081A
Unit: mg/kg
Organochlorine Pesticides (Basic Target List)
P-9 (1-1.5') 1507427-018A Soil 07/09/2015 14:24 GC23 107728 Analytes Result Qualifiers MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Aldrin ND 0.00027 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 06:28
a-BHC ND 0.00010 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 06:28
b-BHC ND 0.00025 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 06:28
d-BHC ND 0.00037 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 06:28
g-BHC ND 0.000097 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 06:28
Chlordane (Technical) 0.038 0.016 0.025 1 07/18/2015 06:28 a-Chlordane 0.0032 0.00047 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 06:28
g-Chlordane 0.0024 0.00021 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 06:28
p,p-DDD 0.00035 J 0.00014 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 06:28
p,p-DDE 0.0039 0.00032 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 06:28
p,p-DDT 0.012 0.00043 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 06:28
Dieldrin ND 0.00033 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 06:28
Endosulfan I ND 0.00065 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 06:28
Endosulfan II ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 06:28
Endosulfan sulfate ND 0.00063 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 06:28 Endrin ND 0.00042 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 06:28
Endrin aldehyde ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 06:28
Endrin ketone ND 0.00013 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 06:28
Heptachlor ND 0.00021 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 06:28
Heptachlor epoxide ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 06:28 Hexachlorobenzene ND 0.00027 0.010 1 07/18/2015 06:28
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ND 0.00040 0.020 1 07/18/2015 06:28 Methoxychlor ND 0.00089 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 06:28
Toxaphene ND 0.035 0.050 1 07/18/2015 06:28
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): SS
Decachlorobiphenyl 93 70-130 07/18/2015 06:28
CDPH ELAP 1644 ♦ NELAP 4033ORELAP Angela Rydelius, Lab Manager (Cont.)

173
CC 07/01/2025
173 of 1130
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Padre Associates. Inc.

Project: #1401-2171; CUPERTINO (SEDGWICK PEA)
Date Received: 7/13/15 17:18
Date Prepared: 7/13/15-7/16/15
WorkOrder: 1507427
Extraction Method: SW3550B
Analytical Method: SW8081A
Unit: mg/kg
Organochlorine Pesticides (Basic Target List)
P-10 (1-1.5') 1507427-020A Soil 07/09/2015 14:45 GC40 107585 Analytes Result MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Aldrin ND 0.00027 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 09:48
a-BHC ND 0.00010 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 09:48
b-BHC ND 0.00025 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 09:48
d-BHC ND 0.00037 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 09:48
g-BHC ND 0.000097 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 09:48
Chlordane (Technical) 0.040 0.016 0.025 1 07/16/2015 09:48 a-Chlordane 0.0051 0.00047 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 09:48
g-Chlordane 0.0052 0.00021 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 09:48
p,p-DDD ND 0.00014 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 09:48
p,p-DDE 0.0014 0.00032 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 09:48
p,p-DDT 0.0040 0.00043 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 09:48
Dieldrin ND 0.00033 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 09:48
Endosulfan I ND 0.00065 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 09:48
Endosulfan II ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 09:48
Endosulfan sulfate ND 0.00063 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 09:48 Endrin ND 0.00042 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 09:48
Endrin aldehyde ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 09:48
Endrin ketone ND 0.00013 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 09:48
Heptachlor ND 0.00021 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 09:48
Heptachlor epoxide ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 09:48 Hexachlorobenzene ND 0.00027 0.010 1 07/16/2015 09:48
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ND 0.00040 0.020 1 07/16/2015 09:48 Methoxychlor ND 0.00089 0.0010 1 07/16/2015 09:48
Toxaphene ND 0.035 0.050 1 07/16/2015 09:48
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): SS
Decachlorobiphenyl 71 70-130 07/16/2015 09:48
CDPH ELAP 1644 ♦ NELAP 4033ORELAP Angela Rydelius, Lab Manager (Cont.)

174
CC 07/01/2025
174 of 1130
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Padre Associates. Inc.

Project: #1401-2171; CUPERTINO (SEDGWICK PEA)
Date Received: 7/13/15 17:18
Date Prepared: 7/13/15-7/16/15
WorkOrder: 1507427
Extraction Method: SW3550B
Analytical Method: SW8081A
Unit: mg/kg
Organochlorine Pesticides (Basic Target List)
P-10 (1-1.5') DUP 1507427-020B Soil 07/09/2015 14:45 GC22 107585 Analytes Result MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Aldrin ND 0.00027 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 13:40
a-BHC ND 0.00010 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 13:40
b-BHC ND 0.00025 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 13:40
d-BHC ND 0.00037 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 13:40
g-BHC ND 0.000097 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 13:40
Chlordane (Technical) 0.038 0.016 0.025 1 07/20/2015 13:40 a-Chlordane 0.0052 0.00047 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 13:40
g-Chlordane 0.0040 0.00021 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 13:40
p,p-DDD ND 0.00014 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 13:40
p,p-DDE 0.0019 0.00032 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 13:40
p,p-DDT 0.0048 0.00043 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 13:40
Dieldrin ND 0.00033 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 13:40
Endosulfan I ND 0.00065 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 13:40
Endosulfan II ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 13:40
Endosulfan sulfate ND 0.00063 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 13:40 Endrin ND 0.00042 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 13:40
Endrin aldehyde ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 13:40
Endrin ketone ND 0.00013 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 13:40
Heptachlor ND 0.00021 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 13:40
Heptachlor epoxide 0.0010 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 13:40 Hexachlorobenzene ND 0.00027 0.010 1 07/20/2015 13:40
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ND 0.00040 0.020 1 07/20/2015 13:40 Methoxychlor ND 0.00089 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 13:40
Toxaphene ND 0.035 0.050 1 07/20/2015 13:40
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): CK
Decachlorobiphenyl 129 70-130 07/20/2015 13:40
CDPH ELAP 1644 ♦ NELAP 4033ORELAP Angela Rydelius, Lab Manager (Cont.)

175
CC 07/01/2025
175 of 1130
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Padre Associates. Inc.

Project: #1401-2171; CUPERTINO (SEDGWICK PEA)
Date Received: 7/13/15 17:18
Date Prepared: 7/13/15-7/16/15
WorkOrder: 1507427
Extraction Method: SW3550B
Analytical Method: SW8081A
Unit: mg/kg
Organochlorine Pesticides (Basic Target List)
P-11 (1-1.5') 1507427-022A Soil 07/09/2015 15:10 GC22 107585 Analytes Result Qualifiers MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Aldrin ND 0.00027 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 20:38
a-BHC ND 0.00010 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 20:38
b-BHC ND 0.00025 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 20:38
d-BHC ND 0.00037 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 20:38
g-BHC ND 0.000097 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 20:38
Chlordane (Technical) 0.095 0.016 0.025 1 07/20/2015 20:38 a-Chlordane 0.016 0.00047 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 20:38
g-Chlordane 0.0076 0.00021 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 20:38
p,p-DDD ND 0.00014 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 20:38
p,p-DDE 0.012 0.00032 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 20:38
p,p-DDT 0.024 0.00043 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 20:38
Dieldrin 0.00053 J 0.00033 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 20:38
Endosulfan I ND 0.00065 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 20:38
Endosulfan II ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 20:38
Endosulfan sulfate ND 0.00063 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 20:38 Endrin ND 0.00042 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 20:38
Endrin aldehyde ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 20:38
Endrin ketone ND 0.00013 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 20:38
Heptachlor ND 0.00021 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 20:38
Heptachlor epoxide 0.0018 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 20:38 Hexachlorobenzene ND 0.00027 0.010 1 07/20/2015 20:38
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ND 0.00040 0.020 1 07/20/2015 20:38 Methoxychlor ND 0.00089 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 20:38
Toxaphene ND 0.035 0.050 1 07/20/2015 20:38
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): CK
Decachlorobiphenyl 111 70-130 07/20/2015 20:38
CDPH ELAP 1644 ♦ NELAP 4033ORELAP Angela Rydelius, Lab Manager (Cont.)

176
CC 07/01/2025
176 of 1130
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Padre Associates. Inc.

Project: #1401-2171; CUPERTINO (SEDGWICK PEA)
Date Received: 7/13/15 17:18
Date Prepared: 7/13/15-7/16/15
WorkOrder: 1507427
Extraction Method: SW3550B
Analytical Method: SW8081A
Unit: mg/kg
Organochlorine Pesticides (Basic Target List)
P-12 (SURF) 1507427-023A Soil 07/09/2015 15:22 GC22 107585 Analytes Result MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Aldrin ND 0.00027 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 21:13
a-BHC ND 0.00010 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 21:13
b-BHC ND 0.00025 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 21:13
d-BHC ND 0.00037 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 21:13
g-BHC ND 0.000097 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 21:13
Chlordane (Technical) 0.11 0.016 0.025 1 07/20/2015 21:13 a-Chlordane 0.013 0.00047 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 21:13
g-Chlordane 0.011 0.00021 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 21:13
p,p-DDD ND 0.00014 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 21:13
p,p-DDE 0.012 0.00032 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 21:13
p,p-DDT 0.018 0.00043 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 21:13
Dieldrin ND 0.00033 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 21:13
Endosulfan I ND 0.00065 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 21:13
Endosulfan II ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 21:13
Endosulfan sulfate ND 0.00063 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 21:13 Endrin ND 0.00042 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 21:13
Endrin aldehyde ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 21:13
Endrin ketone ND 0.00013 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 21:13
Heptachlor ND 0.00021 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 21:13
Heptachlor epoxide 0.0012 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 21:13 Hexachlorobenzene ND 0.00027 0.010 1 07/20/2015 21:13
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ND 0.00040 0.020 1 07/20/2015 21:13 Methoxychlor ND 0.00089 0.0010 1 07/20/2015 21:13
Toxaphene ND 0.035 0.050 1 07/20/2015 21:13
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): CK
Decachlorobiphenyl 117 70-130 07/20/2015 21:13
CDPH ELAP 1644 ♦ NELAP 4033ORELAP Angela Rydelius, Lab Manager (Cont.)

177
CC 07/01/2025
177 of 1130
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Padre Associates. Inc.

Project: #1401-2171; CUPERTINO (SEDGWICK PEA)
Date Received: 7/13/15 17:18
Date Prepared: 7/13/15-7/16/15
WorkOrder: 1507427
Extraction Method: SW3550B
Analytical Method: SW8081A
Unit: mg/kg
Organochlorine Pesticides (Basic Target List)
P-12 (1-1.5') 1507427-024A Soil 07/09/2015 15:25 GC22 107585 Analytes Result Qualifiers MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Aldrin ND 0.00027 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 07:21
a-BHC ND 0.00010 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 07:21
b-BHC ND 0.00025 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 07:21
d-BHC ND 0.00037 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 07:21
g-BHC ND 0.000097 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 07:21
Chlordane (Technical) ND 0.016 0.025 1 07/21/2015 07:21 a-Chlordane 0.0012 0.00047 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 07:21
g-Chlordane 0.00059 J 0.00021 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 07:21 p,p-DDD 0.00041 J 0.00014 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 07:21
p,p-DDE 0.0027 0.00032 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 07:21
p,p-DDT 0.0063 0.00043 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 07:21
Dieldrin ND 0.00033 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 07:21
Endosulfan I ND 0.00065 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 07:21
Endosulfan II ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 07:21
Endosulfan sulfate ND 0.00063 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 07:21 Endrin ND 0.00042 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 07:21
Endrin aldehyde ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 07:21
Endrin ketone ND 0.00013 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 07:21
Heptachlor ND 0.00021 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 07:21
Heptachlor epoxide ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 07:21 Hexachlorobenzene ND 0.00027 0.010 1 07/21/2015 07:21
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ND 0.00040 0.020 1 07/21/2015 07:21 Methoxychlor ND 0.00089 0.0010 1 07/21/2015 07:21
Toxaphene ND 0.035 0.050 1 07/21/2015 07:21
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): CK
Decachlorobiphenyl 82 70-130 07/21/2015 07:21
CDPH ELAP 1644 ♦ NELAP 4033ORELAP Angela Rydelius, Lab Manager (Cont.)

178
CC 07/01/2025
178 of 1130
Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Padre Associates. Inc.

Project: #1401-2171; CUPERTINO (SEDGWICK PEA)
Date Received: 7/13/15 17:18
Date Prepared: 7/13/15-7/16/15
WorkOrder: 1507427
Extraction Method: SW3550B
Analytical Method: SW8081A
Unit: mg/kg
Organochlorine Pesticides (Basic Target List)
P-14 (1-1.5') 1507427-028A Soil 07/10/2015 08:31 GC23 107585 Analytes Result Qualifiers MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Aldrin ND 0.00027 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 08:57
a-BHC ND 0.00010 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 08:57
b-BHC ND 0.00025 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 08:57
d-BHC ND 0.00037 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 08:57
g-BHC ND 0.000097 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 08:57
Chlordane (Technical) ND 0.016 0.025 1 07/18/2015 08:57 a-Chlordane 0.0014 0.00047 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 08:57
g-Chlordane 0.00089 J 0.00021 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 08:57 p,p-DDD 0.00047 J 0.00014 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 08:57
p,p-DDE 0.014 0.00032 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 08:57
p,p-DDT 0.0090 0.00043 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 08:57
Dieldrin ND 0.00033 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 08:57
Endosulfan I ND 0.00065 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 08:57
Endosulfan II ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 08:57
Endosulfan sulfate ND 0.00063 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 08:57 Endrin ND 0.00042 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 08:57
Endrin aldehyde ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 08:57
Endrin ketone ND 0.00013 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 08:57
Heptachlor ND 0.00021 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 08:57
Heptachlor epoxide ND 0.00020 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 08:57 Hexachlorobenzene ND 0.00027 0.010 1 07/18/2015 08:57
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ND 0.00040 0.020 1 07/18/2015 08:57 Methoxychlor ND 0.00089 0.0010 1 07/18/2015 08:57
Toxaphene ND 0.035 0.050 1 07/18/2015 08:57
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): SS
Decachlorobiphenyl 96 70-130 07/18/2015 08:57
CDPH ELAP 1644 ♦ NELAP 4033ORELAP Angela Rydelius, Lab Manager (Cont.)

179
CC 07/01/2025
179 of 1130

SUPPLEMENTAL SITE INVESTIGATION SUMMARY REPORT

SEDGWICK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EXPANSION PROJECT
10480 FINCH AVENUE

CUPERTINO, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
(Site Code: 204271)
Prepared for:

CUPERTINO UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
NOVEMBER 2015
Attachment B
180
CC 07/01/2025
180 of 1130
181
CC 07/01/2025
181 of 1130
November 2015
Project No. 1401-2172
- i -

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................. 1-1

2.0 BACKGROUND............................................................................................... 2-1

3.0 SSI ACTIVITIES.............................................................................................. 3-1 OCPs ............................................................................................................ 3-1 Lead ............................................................................................................ 3-2 SSI Field Variances......................................................................................... 3-2 Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) .................................................... 3-2

4.0 SSI RESULTS................................................................................................. 4-1 OCPs in Soil.................................................................................................... 4-1 Lead in Soil ..................................................................................................... 4-2 Duplicate Soil Samples.................................................................................... 4-2 Equipment Blank ............................................................................................. 4-3 Field Blank ...................................................................................................... 4-4 Laboratory QA/QC .......................................................................................... 4-4

5.0 RISK ASSESSMENT....................................................................................... 5-1

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................ 6-1

7.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................... 7-1 TABLES
4-1 Soil Results for OCPs ..................................................................................... 4-8 4-2 Soil Results for Lead ....................................................................................... 4-11 5-1 Soil Exposure Screening Evaluation................................................................ 5-2 182
CC 07/01/2025
182 of 1130
November 2015
Project No. 1401-2172
- ii -

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page
PLATES
1-1 Site Plan.......................................................................................................... 1-2 1-2 Site Location.................................................................................................... 1-3 2-1 PEA Chlordane Results .................................................................................. 2-3 2-2 PEA Lead Results (Surface Soil)..................................................................... 2-4 3-1 Step-out Soil Samples - OCPs......................................................................... 3-3 3-2 Step-out Soil Samples - OCPs......................................................................... 3-4 3-3 Step-out Soil Samples – Lead ......................................................................... 3-5 4-1A Chlordane Results (Surface Soil)..................................................................... 4-13 4-1B Chlordane Results (Subsurface Soil)............................................................... 4-14 4-2 Lead Results (Surface Soil)............................................................................. 4-15 6-1 Estimated Extent of OCP/Lead Impacts (Main Residence).............................. 6-2 6-2 Estimated Extent of OCP Impacts (Driveway area).......................................... 6-3

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: DTSC CORRESPONDENCE
APPENDIX B: QUALTITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN (QAPP)
APPENDIX C: ANALYTICAL LABORATORY REPORTS AND CHAIN-OF-CUSTODYS APPENDIX D: LEADSPREAD
183
CC 07/01/2025
183 of 1130
November 2015
Project No. 1401-2172
SSI Sum Rpt_Cupertino
1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This document presents the results of a Supplemental Site Investigation (SSI) that was completed by Padre Associates, Inc. (Padre), on behalf of the Cupertino Union School District (District), for the Sedgwick Elementary School Expansion Project located at 10480 Finch Avenue in Cupertino, Santa Clara County, California (Project Site). The Project Site is illustrated on Plate 1-1: Site Location and Plate 1-2: Site Plan.

The SSI was completed in accordance with the Padre document titled, Supplemental Site Investigation Technical Memorandum, Sedgwick Elementary Expansion Site, Cupertino Union School District, Cupertino, Ca (Site Code: 204271), dated October 14, 2015 and in general accordance with the following DTSC guidance documents:
• CALEPA, DTSC, Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual (January 1994, Interim Final – Final October 2013);
• DTSC, Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties (Third Revision), dated August 7, 2008; and
• DTSC, Interim Guidance, Evaluation of School Sites with Potential Contamination as a Result of Lead from Lead-Based-Paint, Organochlorine Pesticides from Temiticides, and Polychlorinated Biphenyls from Electrical Transformers, revised June 9, 2006.

Padre previously submitted the report titled Preliminary Environmental Assessment, Sedgwick Elementary School Expansion Project, 10480 Finch Avenue, Cupertino, Santa Clara County California, dated September 2015. Based on the results of the PEA, elevated concentrations of chlordane and lead were identified in soil at the Project Site requiring further remedial investigations. Due to the presence of elevated concentrations of chlordane and lead, the potential cancer risk for the Project Site is greater than 1E-06, and a response action to reduce or eliminate the impact of the contaminants is recommended.

Recently, the risk screening level for chlordane was decreased from 1,700 micrograms per kilogram (μg/kg) to 430 μg/kg. Due to this revision, several soil sample locations were identified requiring further assessment. Therefore, the purpose of the SSI was to further assess and delineate the lateral and vertical extent of contaminated soil identified at the Project Site.

The SSI consisted of step-out and step-down soil samples to further delineate the extent of organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) and lead contamination in the area of the main residence and to further evaluate elevated lead concentrations identified at the southeast portion of the Project Site. The results of the SSI will be used to determine the extent of a response action at the Project Site.
184
CC 07/01/2025
184 of 1130
185
CC 07/01/2025
185 of 1130
186
CC 07/01/2025
186 of 1130
November 2015
Project No. 1401-2172
SSI Sum Rpt_Cupertino
2-1

2.0 BACKGROUND
The Project Site consists of approximately 1.48 acres of residential land and, which is identified by the Santa Clara County Assessor’s Office as Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 375- 40-067. The Project Site is located adjacent to the northwest corner of the Sedgwick Elementary School property at 10480 Finch Avenue in Cupertino, Santa Clara County, California.

Cupertino Union School District (District) intends to purchase the property as part of the Sedgwick Elementary School Expansion Project. The expansion project will not result in an addition of classrooms or students to the existing elementary school. Public water and sewer will be provided to the Project Site by the San Jose Water Company and the Sunnyvale Sanitation District, respectively.

Padre reviewed the document titled Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Preliminary Soil Quality Evaluation, 10480 Finch Avenue, Cupertino, California dated July 1, 2014. A copy of the Phase I ESA has previously been provided to DTSC. The Phase I ESA was prepared by Cornerstone Earth Group (Cornerstone) on behalf of David J. Powers & Associates, and a copy was provided to DTSC. Below is a summary of the findings presented in the Phase I ESA:

The property is currently owned by F.A. Pestarino Jr. Trustee, and has been owned by the Pestarino family since the 1930s. The property historically contained a prune tree orchard.

According to a review of available historical aerial photographs, the Project Site was planted as an orchard from at least 1939 through the late 1950s. The existing residential building is present in a 1956 aerial photograph. In addition to the residence, the Project Site contains a workshop (wood-framed with corrugate metal roof) located at the southeast corner of the Project Site. Located south and adjacent to the workshop are two, small, single-room dwellings that are wood-framed and situated on concrete blocks.

In 1996 a 500-gallon gasoline underground storage tank (UST) was removed from the Project Site. Reportedly, the UST had been empty for approximately 20 years prior to removal.

Reportedly, two soil samples were collected below the ends of the UST at depths of approximately 7-feet below grade surface (bgs). Total petroleum hydrocarbons identified as gasoline (TPHg) were identified in soil at concentrations up to 60 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). The Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) subsequently issued a case-closure letter for the UST dated March 26, 1997 stating that “Due to the low levels of hydrocarbons detected and the site location, Santa Clara Valley Water District staff believes that with time the residual pollution will naturally attenuate and does not require any further corrective action at this time.”
Due to recognized environmental conditions (RECs) identified by the Phase I ESA, Cornerstone conducted preliminary soil assessment activities at the Project Site. Based on the historic agricultural use (orchard) at the Project Site and the age/construction of the existing structures, a total of sixteen surface soil samples were collected throughout the Project Site and 187
CC 07/01/2025
187 of 1130
November 2015
Project No. 1401-2172
SSI Sum Rpt_Cupertino
2-2
chemically analyzed for the presence of pesticides, arsenic, lead, and mercury. Five of the soil samples were collected at the perimeter of the residence, and two soil samples were collected at the perimeter of the workshop. Below is summary of the analytical results:
• Chlordane was reported at a maximum concentration of 2,800 micrograms per kilogram (µg/kg) at the location of soil sample SS-5 located along the western side of the residence;
• Arsenic was reported at concentrations ranging from 5.2 mg/kg to 15 mg/kg. The highest arsenic concentration was identified at the location of soil sample SS-6 located along the northwest property boundary; and
• Lead was reported at a maximum concentration of 100 mg/kg at the location of soil sample SS-2 located along the western side of the workshop.

The soil assessment activities included the advancement of one drill hole using directpush drilling technology to an approximate depth of 20 feet at the location of the former UST.

Soil samples were collected from approximate depths of 8 feet and 12 feet, which were chemically analyzed for the presence of TPHg, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes (BTEX) and methyl-tert butyl ether (MTBE). Reportedly, TPHg, BTEX, or MTBE concentrations were not identified in the soil sample collected from a depth of 8 feet below ground surface (bgs). However, TPHg, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes were identified at concentrations of 1,300 mg/kg, 27 mg/kg, and 180 mg/kg, respectively in the 12-foot soil sample.

During July 2015 Padre conducted a Preliminary Environmental Assessment (PEA) to further assess the chemicals of concern identified as part of Cornerstone’s preliminary soil assessment activities. The results of the PEA were documented in the Padre report titled Preliminary Environmental Assessment, Sedgwick Elementary School Expansion Project, 10480 Finch Avenue, Cupertino, Santa Clara County, California, dated September 2015. Based on the results of the PEA, elevated concentrations of pesticides and lead were identified at the Project Site requiring further investigation and/or remediation.

Based on the results of the PEA, chlordane and was identified in surface soils at the Project Site at concentrations exceeding their respective human health screening levels. The total increased cancer risk from chlordane identified in soils at the Project Site is estimated to be

3.2 x 10-5, which exceeds DTSC’s “point of departure” of 1 in 1,000,000 (>10-6). Chlordane concentrations identified in soil during the course of the PEA are presented on Plate 2-1.

Concentrations of lead ranged from 9.0 to 310 mg/kg in surface soil samples collected at the Project Site. Using DTSC’s lead risk assessment spreadsheet model (LeadSpread Version 8), exposure to the lead concentrations identified at the Project Site would result in a 90th percentile blood lead concentration of 8.0 micrograms per deciliter (µg/dl) in children, which exceeds the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) blood toxicity level of 1 µg/dl. Lead concentrations identified in surface soil during the course of the PEA are presented on Plate 2-2.
188
CC 07/01/2025
188 of 1130
189
CC 07/01/2025
189 of 1130
190
CC 07/01/2025
190 of 1130
November 2015
Project No. 1401-2172
SSI Sum Rpt_Cupertino
3-1

3.0 SSI ACTIVITIES
On October 27, 2015 soil samples were collected in accordance with the sample collection procedures outlined in the Project Site PEA Work Plan, dated May 2015; and the SSI Technical Memorandum dated October 2015 and approved by DTSC. A copy of the SSI Technical Memorandum approval letter are presented in Appendix A.

During the completion of the PEA, elevated concentrations of chlordane were identified around the perimeter of the main residence building at concentrations exceeding the DTSCmodified screening level of 430 µg/kg. Additionally, lead was identified in several locations at concentrations exceeding DTSC’s screening level of 80 mg/kg. The SSI field sampling plan is summarized below:

OCPs
• At the location of sample point P-4 (west side of residence), chlordane was identified at a concentration of 1,100 µg/kg at a depth of 1.0 to 1.5 feet. At this location, discrete step-down soil samples were collected from approximate depths of 2.0 to 2.5 feet and 3.0 to 3.5 feet. The 2.0 to 2.5-foot sample was chemically analyzed for OCPs and the 3.0 to 3.5-foot sample was placed on-hold with the analytical laboratory. The step-down soil sample location are presented on Plate 3-1.
• At the location of sample points P-10 and P-11 (north side of residence) and P-15 (east side of residence), chlordane was identified in surface soil samples exceeding 430 µg/kg. At these locations, step-out samples were collected at the surface to 0.5 feet and depths of 1.0 to 1.5 feet and chemically analyzed for OCPs. The step-out soil sample locations are presented on Plate 3-1. • At the location of surface soil sample SS-6 collected during the June 2014 preliminary soil assessment conducted by Cornerstone, chlordane was identified at a concentration of 520 µg/kg which exceeds the revised DTSC-modified screening level of 430 µg/kg. Since this location is not near a structure, Padre collected step-out soil samples on 5 and 10-foot centers from SS-6. Soil samples were collected at the surface to 0.5 feet, depths of 1.0 to 1.5 feet and

2.0 to 2.5 feet. The surface and 1.0 to 1.5-foot samples were chemically analyzed for OCPs and the 2.0 to 2.5-foot samples were placed on-hold with the analytical laboratory. Additionally, the 10-foot step-out samples were placed onhold pending the results of the 5-foot step-out soil samples. The step-out soil sample locations are presented on Plate 3-2.
191
CC 07/01/2025
191 of 1130
November 2015
Project No. 1401-2172
SSI Sum Rpt_Cupertino
3-2
Lead
• At the location of sample points P-13 and P-15 (residence courtyard) step-out samples were collected at the surface to 0.5 feet and chemically analyzed for lead. The step-out soil sample locations are presented on Plate 3-3. • At the location of sample points P-17 and P-28 (single-room dwelling) step-out samples were collected at the surface to 0.5 feet and chemically analyzed for lead. The step-out soil sample locations are presented on Plate 3-3.

SSI Field Variances
During the course of sampling activities, one additional soil sample (P-29A (SURF)) was collected and chemically analyzed for lead to further characterize this area of the Project Site.

Quality Assurance / Quality Control (QA/QC)
For quality control/quality assurance (QA/QC) measures, approximately 10% of the discrete soil samples (OCPs, lead) were split by the analytical laboratory and chemically analyzed as duplicate samples. Additionally, one equipment blank (water sample) and field blank (water sample) per sample event were chemically analyzed for the presence of arsenic and lead. Them, collection of these samples is discussed in more detail in the quality assurance project plan (QAPP) is presented in Appendix B.

192
CC 07/01/2025
192 of 1130
193
CC 07/01/2025
193 of 1130
194
CC 07/01/2025
194 of 1130
195
CC 07/01/2025
195 of 1130
November 2015
Project No. 1401-2172
SSI Sum Rpt_Cupertino
4-1

4.0 SSI RESULTS
The following sections of this document present the results of field sampling activities performed by Padre at the Project Site on October 27th, 2015. The laboratory analytical results are summarized in Table 4-1 and Table 4-2. Additionally, chlordane concentrations identified at the Project Site are presented on Plates 4-1A (surface soil) and 4-1B (subsurface soil), and lead concentrations identified in surface soil are presented on Plate 4-2. Certified analytical laboratory reports and chain-of-custody documentation are provided in Appendix D.

OCPs in Soil
Main Residence. Discrete step-out soil samples were collected at locations of previously collected soil samples around the main residence structure where concentrations of OCPs were identified exceeding their respective screening levels. Results of the laboratory analysis are summarized below:

The following OPCs were identified at concentrations exceeding regulatory screening levels:
• Chlordane (technical) was reported at concentrations ranging from less than 25 to 4,800 µg/kg. The highest concentration of chlordane was identified in soil sample P-10D (SURF).

The following OPCs were identified at concentrations below regulatory screening levels:
• DDD was reported at concentrations ranging from less than 1.0 to 6.4 µg/kg; • DDE was reported at concentrations ranging from less than 1.0 to 150 µg/kg; • DDT was reported at concentrations ranging from less than 1.0 to 81 µg/kg; • Dieldrin was reported at concentrations ranging from less than 1.0 to 1.7 µg/kg; • Endrin was reported at a concentration 2.1 µg/kg;
• Heptachlor was reported at concentrations ranging from less than 1.0 to

5.4 µg/kg; and
• Heptachlor epoxide was reported at concentrations ranging from less than 1.0 to 30 µg/kg.

Soil Sample SS-6. At the approximate location of surface soil sample SS-6, a soil sample (SS-6A) was collected at the surface to 0.5 feet and 1.0 to 1.5 feet and chemically analyzed for OCPs. Additionally, step-out soil samples were collected on 5 and 10-foot centers 196
CC 07/01/2025
196 of 1130
November 2015
Project No. 1401-2172
SSI Sum Rpt_Cupertino
4-2
with the 10-foot sample placed on-hold pending the results of the 5-foot step-out soil samples.

Results of the laboratory analysis are summarized below:

The following OPCs were identified at concentrations below regulatory screening levels:
• Chlordane (technical) was reported at concentrations ranging from less than 25 to 44 µg/kg;
• DDD was reported at concentrations ranging from less than 1.0 to 2.5 µg/kg; • DDE was reported at concentrations ranging from 0.45J to 25 µg/kg; • DDT was reported at concentrations ranging from less than 1.0 to 20 µg/kg; • Heptachlor was reported at concentrations ranging from less than 1.0 to 0.65J µg/kg; • Heptachlor epoxide was reported at concentrations ranging from less than 1.0 to

1.0 µg/kg; and
• Toxaphene was reported at concentrations ranging from less than 50 to 410 µg/kg.

Lead in Soil
At the location of PEA sample points P-13 and P-15 (residence courtyard) step-out samples were collected at the surface to 0.5 feet and chemically analyzed for lead. The results are summarized below:
• Lead was reported at concentration ranging from 31 to 68 mg/kg.

At the location of sample points P-17 and P-28 (single-room dwelling) step-out samples were collected at the surface to 0.5 feet and chemically analyzed for lead. The results are summarized below:
• Lead was detected at concentration ranging from 60 to 73 (mg/kg).

Duplicate Soil Samples
Two discrete soil samples were split by the analytical laboratory and chemically analyzed for the presence of OCPs by U.S. EPA Method 8081A. The analytical results are presented in Table 4-1 and summarized below.

For discrete soil sample P-11B (SURF) and the associated duplicate soil sample:
• Chlordane was reported at concentrations of 650 and 470 µg/kg, respectively. The results are comparable;
• DDD was reported at concentrations of 4.3 and 4.4 µg/kg, respectively. The results 197
CC 07/01/2025
197 of 1130
November 2015
Project No. 1401-2172
SSI Sum Rpt_Cupertino
4-3
are comparable;
• DDE was reported at concentrations of 26 and 21 µg/kg, respectively. The results are comparable;
• DDT was reported at concentrations of 55 and 44 µg/kg, respectively. The results are comparable;
• Dieldrin was not reported at a concentration of less than 1.0 and 1.7 µg/kg in the associated duplicate soil sample which is slightly above the reporting limit of

1.0 µg/kg. The results are comparable;
• Heptachlor was reported at concentrations of less than 1.0 and 0.71J, respectively.

The results are comparable; and
• Heptachlor epoxide was reported at concentrations of 4.7 and 3.8 µg/kg, respectively. The results are comparable.

For discrete soil sample P-15A (1.0-1.5’) and the associated duplicate soil sample:
• DDD was reported at concentrations of 1.7 and 0.99J, respectively. The results are comparable;
• DDE was reported at concentrations of 9.2 and 6.2 µg/kg, respectively. The results are comparable;
• DDT was reported at concentrations of 7.1 and 6.5 µg/kg, respectively. The results are comparable;
• Heptachlor was reported at concentrations of 0.34J and less than 1.0 µg/kg, respectively. The results are comparable.

One discrete soil sample was split by the analytical laboratory and chemically analyzed for the presence of lead by U.S. EPA Method 6020. The analytical results are presented in Table 4-1 and summarized below.

For discrete soil sample P-17A (SURF) and the associated duplicate soil sample:
• Lead was reported at concentrations of 73 and 60 mg/kg, respectively. The results are comparable.

Equipment Blank
Distilled water was used as rinseate for decontaminating sampling equipment. The equipment blank sample was collected by carefully pouring rinseate water over and through recently cleaned equipment, and collected directly into the appropriate sample container. 198
CC 07/01/2025
198 of 1130
November 2015
Project No. 1401-2172
SSI Sum Rpt_Cupertino
4-4
One equipment blank sample was collected for each sample event and chemically analyzed for lead by U.S. EPA Method 200.8. The results of the laboratory analysis are summarized below.
• The laboratory analysis did not identify lead at or above the analytical reporting limit.

Field Blank
One field blank sample was collected for each sampling event and chemically analyzed for lead by U.S. EPA Method 200.8. The results of the laboratory analysis are summarized below.
• The laboratory analysis did not identify lead at or above the analytical reporting limit.

Laboratory QA/QC
A cover letter with the signature of the lab director of CLS accompanies every laboratory report received for this project. According to the lab director, samples were analyzed utilizing EPA or other ELAP approved methodologies, and that the results are in compliance both technically and for completeness. The data quality objectives (DQO) met by laboratory for this project was level II. Copies of the CLS laboratory reports are presented in Appendix C.

CLS Work Order # 1510A30 – Report dated October 28, 2015 The laboratory reported the following notes regarding lead analysis:
• The matrix spike, matrix spike duplicate recovery, and relative percent deviation for lead was out of acceptance criteria but was validated by the post digestion spike.
• The relative percent deviation for the surrogate recovery was out of acceptance criteria but was validated by the post digestion spike.

The laboratory reported the following notes regarding Organochlorine Pesticides by U.S.

EPA Method 8081A for the following discrete soil samples:

The laboratory reported the following notes regarding discrete soil sample SS-6A (SURF):
• The concentration of DDD is less than the minimum level of quantitation (ML) but greater than the minimum detection limit (MDL). The reported concentration of DDD is an estimate.
• The concentration of dieldrin is less than the ML but greater than the MDL. The reported concentration of dieldrin is an estimate.
• The concentration of heptachlor is less than the ML but greater than the MDL.

The reported concentration of heptachlor is an estimate. 199
CC 07/01/2025
199 of 1130
November 2015
Project No. 1401-2172
SSI Sum Rpt_Cupertino
4-5
The laboratory reported the following notes regarding discrete soil sample SS-6A (1.0-

1.5’):
• The concentration of DDD is less than the ML but greater than the MDL. The reported concentration of DDD is an estimate.

The laboratory reported the following notes regarding discrete soil sample SS-6B (SURF):
• The concentration of DDD is less than the ML but greater than the MDL. The reported concentration of DDD is an estimate.
• The concentration of dieldrin is less than the ML but greater than the MDL. The reported concentration of dieldrin is an estimate.

The laboratory reported the following notes regarding discrete soil sample SS-6C (SURF):
• The concentration of dieldrin is less than the ML but greater than the MDL. The reported concentration of dieldrin is an estimate.
• The concentration of heptachlor epoxide is less than the ML but greater than the MDL. The reported concentration of heptachlor epoxide is an estimate.

The laboratory reported the following notes regarding discrete soil sample SS-6D (SURF):
• The concentration of DDD is less than the ML but greater than the MDL. The reported concentration of DDD is an estimate.
• The concentration of heptachlor epoxide is less than the ML but greater than the MDL. The reported concentration of heptachlor epoxide is an estimate.

The laboratory reported the following notes regarding discrete soil sample SS-6B (1.0-

1.5’):
• The concentration of DDE is less than the ML but greater than the MDL. The reported concentration of DDE is an estimate.

The laboratory reported the following notes regarding discrete soil sample SS-6E (SURF):
• The concentration of dieldrin is less than the ML but greater than the MDL. The reported concentration of dieldrin is an estimate.
200
CC 07/01/2025
200 of 1130
November 2015
Project No. 1401-2172
SSI Sum Rpt_Cupertino
4-6
The laboratory reported the following notes regarding discrete soil sample SS-6E (1.0-

1.5’):
• The concentration of DDE is less than the ML but greater than the MDL. The reported concentration of DDE is an estimate.
• The concentration of heptachlor is less than the ML but greater than the MDL.

The reported concentration of heptachlor is an estimate.

The laboratory reported the following notes regarding discrete soil sample P-4A (SURF):
• The concentration of chlordane (technical) is less than the ML but greater than the MDL. The reported concentration of chlordane is an estimate. • The concentration of DDE is less than the ML but greater than the MDL. The reported concentration of DDE is an estimate.

The laboratory reported the following notes regarding discrete soil sample P-10A (1.0-

1.5’):
• The concentration of heptachlor is less than the ML but greater than the MDL.

The reported concentration of heptachlor is an estimate.

The laboratory reported the following notes regarding discrete soil sample P-10B (SURF):
• The concentration of heptachlor is less than the ML but greater than the MDL.

The reported concentration of heptachlor is an estimate.

The laboratory reported the following notes regarding discrete soil sample P-10B (1.0-

1.5’):
• The concentration of heptachlor epoxide is less than the ML but greater than the MDL. The reported concentration of heptachlor epoxide is an estimate.

The laboratory reported the following notes regarding discrete soil sample P-10C (SURF):
• The concentration of heptachlor for is less than the ML but greater than the MDL.

The reported concentration of heptachlor is an estimate.

The laboratory reported the following notes regarding discrete soil sample P-10D (1.0-

1.5’):
• The concentration of heptachlor epoxide is less than the ML but greater than the MDL. The reported concentration of DDE is an estimate.
201
CC 07/01/2025
201 of 1130
November 2015
Project No. 1401-2172
SSI Sum Rpt_Cupertino
4-7
The laboratory reported the following notes regarding discrete soil sample P-10D (1.0-

1.5’):
• The concentration of DDD is less than the ML but greater than the MDL. The reported concentration of DDD is an estimate.
• The concentration of heptachlor epoxide is less than the ML but greater than the MDL. The reported concentration of DDE is an estimate.

The laboratory reported the following notes regarding discrete soil sample P-11B (SURF):
• The concentration of dieldrin is less than the ML but greater than the MDL. The reported concentration of dieldrin is an estimate.

The laboratory reported the following notes regarding discrete soil sample P-11B (SURF) DUPE:
• The concentration of heptachlor is less than the ML but greater than the MDL.

The reported concentration of heptachlor is an estimate.

The laboratory reported the following notes regarding discrete soil sample P-11B (1.0-

1.5’):
• The concentration of heptachlor is less than the ML but greater than the MDL.

The reported concentration of heptachlor is an estimate. • The concentration of heptachlor epoxide is less than the ML but greater than the MDL. The reported concentration of heptachlor epoxide is an estimate.

The laboratory reported the following notes regarding discrete soil sample P-15A (1.0-

1.5’):
• The concentration of heptachlor is less than the ML but greater than the MDL.

The reported concentration of heptachlor is an estimate.

The laboratory reported the following notes regarding discrete soil sample P-15A (1.0-

1.5’) DUPE:
• The concentration of DDD is less than the ML but greater than the MDL. The reported concentration of DDD is an estimate.
202
CC 07/01/2025
202 of 1130
Cupertino USD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2172
4-8
Table 4-1 - Soil Results for OCPs
(results in µg/kg)
Sample
Identification
Aldrin
(a,b,d)-BHC
Gamma-BHC
Chlordanetechnical
DDD
DDE
DDT
Dieldrin
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan
Sulfate
Endrin
Endrin
Aldehyde
Endrin Ketone
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Epoxide
Methoxychlor
Hexachloro
benzene
Hexachloro
cyclopentadiene
Toxaphene
PEA (July 2015) P-1 (SURF) <10 <10 <10 3,700 <10 350 260 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 23 <10 <100 <200 <500 P-1 (SURF)DUPE <20 <20 <20 2,800 <20 290 210 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 31 <20 <200 <400 <1,000 P-1 (1-1.5’) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 87 <1.0 9.5 5.9 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 0.86J <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-2 (SURF) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 120 <1.0 77 44 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 4.8 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-2 (1-1.5’) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <25 <1.0 0.46J <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-3 (SURF) <10 <10 <10 1,200 <10 56 46 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 4.0J <10 <100 <200 <500 P-3 (1-1.5’) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 220 <1.0 6.5 8.2 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-4 (SURF) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 2,900 <1.0 140 130 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 7.4 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-4 (1-1.5’) <10 <10 <10 1,100 <10 44 38 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 7.8J <10 <100 <200 <500 P-5 (SURF) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 63 0.76 J 24 24 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.6 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-5 (1-1.5’) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <25 <1.0 0.93J 1.1 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-6 (SURF) <10 <10 <10 3,400 <10 120 210 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 6.0J <10 <100 <200 <500 P-6 (1-1.5’) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <25 <1.0 0.94J 0.73J <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-7 (SURF) <10 <10 <10 1,900 <10 120 110 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 26 <10 <100 <200 <500 P-7 (1-1.5’) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <25 <1.0 1.4 1.1 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-8 (SURF) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 57 <1.0 14 11 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 3.3 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-8 (1-1.5’) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <25 1.1 3.9 3.4 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-9 (SURF) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 2,100 <1.0 53 120 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 13 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-9 (SURF) DUPE <10 <10 <10 1,800 <10 47 120 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 8.3J <10 <100 <200 <500 P-9 (1-1.5’) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 38 0.35J 3.9 12 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-10 (SURF) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 13,000 <1.0 39 160 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 21 57 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-10 (1-1.5’) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 40 <1.0 1.4 4.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-10 (1-1.5’) DUPE <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 38 <1.0 1.9 4.8 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.0 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-11 (SURF) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 930 <1.0 35 93 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 4.0 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-11 (1-1.5’) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 95 <1.0 12 24 0.53J <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.8 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-12 (SURF) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 110 <1.0 12 18 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.2 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-12 (1-1.5’) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <25 0.41J 2.7 6.3 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-14 (SURF) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 60 2.2 97 61 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 0.25J 0.71J <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-14 (1-1.5’) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <25 0.47J 14 9.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-15 (SURF) <1.0 <1.0 0.49J 1,500 <1.0 410 160 6.8 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 11 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-15 (1-1.5’) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <25 9.3 50 36 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.4 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 HHRA NOTE #3 430
RSLs 39 -- 570 1,700 2,300 2,000 1,900 34 -- -- -- -- -- -- 130 70 -- 210 -- 490 203
CC 07/01/2025
203 of 1130
Cupertino USD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2172
4-9
Table 4-1 - Soil Results for OCPs (cont’)
(results in µg/kg)
Sample
Identification
Aldrin
(a,b,d)-BHC
Gamma-BHC
Chlordanetechnical
DDD
DDE
DDT
Dieldrin
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan
Sulfate
Endrin
Endrin
Aldehyde
Endrin Ketone
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Epoxide
Methoxychlor
Hexachloro
benzene
Hexachloro
cyclopentadiene
Toxaphene
P-15 (1-1.5’) DUPE <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <25 8.9 50 31 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.5 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-16 (SURF) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 170 3.3 4.5 18 2.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.3 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-25 (SURF) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <25 0.49J 62 25 0.43J <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-25 (1-1.5’) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <25 <1.0 2.6 2.7 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-26 (SURF) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <25 <1.0 43 23 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-26 (1-1.5’) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <25 <1.0 3.1 1.8 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-27 (SURF) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <25 2.8 150 62 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-27 (1-1.5’) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <25 <1.0 1.3 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 SSI (October 2015) SS-6A (SURF) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <25 0.54J 12 6.5 0.42J <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 0.65J <1.0 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 SS-6A (1-1.5’) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <25 0.53J 6.9 4.6 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 SS-6B (SURF) <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <50 1.2J 25 15 1.5 J <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <20 <40 410 SS-6B (1-1.5’) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <25 <1.0 0.98J 1.4 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 SS-6C (SURF) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <25 1.2 17 16 0.85J <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 0.35J <1.0 <10 <20 <50 SS-6C (1-1.5’) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <25 <1.0 5.0 2.1 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 SS-6D (SURF) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 37 0.87J 11 14 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 0.39J <1.0 <10 <20 <50 SS-6D (1-1.5’) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <25 <1.0 4.2 1.3 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 SS-6E (SURF) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 44 2.5 21 20 0.54J <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.0 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 SS-6E (1-1.5’) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <25 <1.0 0.45J <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 0.26 J <1.0 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-4A (2-2.5’) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 20J <1.0 0.99J 1.2 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-10A (SURF) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 130 1.6 6.5 7.3 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-10A (1-1.5’) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <25 <1.0 2.2 7.8 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 0.29 J <1.0 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-10B (SURF) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 500 1.6 7.8 8.5 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 0.94 J 5.2 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-10B (1-1.5’) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <25 <1.0 1.0 1.7 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 0.23J <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-10C (SURF) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1,700 <1.0 5.3 5.8 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 2.1 <1.0 <1.0 0.76 J 19 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-10C (1-1.5’) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 410 2.8 6.1 4.3 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 4.8 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-10D (SURF) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 4,800 <1.0 28 81 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 5.4 30 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-10D (1-1.5’) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 31 0.33J 2.7 7.4 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 0.28J <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-11A (SURF) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 100 1.8 12 27 0.76J <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.2J <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-11A (1-1.5’) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 83 2.1 6.9 14 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 HHRA NOTE #3 430 RSLs 39 -- 570 1,700 2,300 2,000 1,900 34 -- -- -- -- -- -- 130 70 -- 210 -- 490 204
CC 07/01/2025
204 of 1130
Cupertino USD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2172
4-10
Table 4-1 - Soil Results for OCPs (cont’)
(results in µg/kg)
Sample
Identification
Aldrin
(a,b,d)-BHC
Gamma-BHC
Chlordanetechnical
DDD
DDE
DDT
Dieldrin
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan
Sulfate
Endrin
Endrin
Aldehyde
Endrin Ketone
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Epoxide
Methoxychlor
Hexachloro
benzene
Hexachloro
cyclopentadiene
Toxaphene
P-11B (SURF) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 650 4.3 26 55 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 4.7 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-11B (SURF) DUPE <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 470 4.4 21 44 1.7 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 0.71J 3.8 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-11B (1-1.5’) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 58 <1.0 3.8 9.8 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 0.32J 0.55 J <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-15A (SURF) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 190 6.4 150 55 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 2.4 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-15A (1-1.5’) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <25 1.7 9.2 7.1 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 0.34J <1.0 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 P-15A (1-1.5’) DUPE <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <25 0.99J 6.2 6.5 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <10 <20 <50 Phase II (July 2014) SS-1* <9.9 <9.9 <9.9 <200 21 320 87 <9.9 <9.9 9.9 <9.9 <9.9 <9.9 <9.9 <9.9 <9.9 <9.9 -- -- <200 SS-2* <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <40 26 280 33 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 -- -- <40 SS-3* <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <39 26 280 33 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 -- -- <39 SS-4* <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 180 31 230 26 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 -- -- <39 SS-5* <20 400 280 2,800 26 360 91 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 -- -- <400 SS-6* <2.0 86 50 520 28 55 26 8.7 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 12 <2.0 -- -- <40 SS-7* <2.0 5.9 3.7 <40 29 240 26 2.9 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 -- -- <40 SS-8* <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <40 21 120 14 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 -- -- <40 SS-9* <2.0 7.0 5.5 67 48 260 29 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 -- -- <40 SS-10* <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <40 31 220 16 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 -- -- <40 SS-11* <2.0 3.2 3.5 <39 32 180 21 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 -- -- <39 SS-12* <9.7 25 31 240 17 150 60 <9.7 <9.7 <9.7 <9.7 <9.7 <9.7 <9.7 <9.7 <9.7 <9.7 -- -- <190 SS-13* <2.0 15 12 110 21 42 14 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 -- -- <40 SS-14* <9.8 <9.8 <9.8 <200 28 410 88 <9.8 <9.8 <9.8 <9.8 <9.8 <9.8 <9.8 <9.8 <9.8 <9.8 -- -- <200 SS-15* <2.0 3.5 3.9 <40 47 190 26 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 -- -- <40 SS-16* <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <39 <1.9 8.8 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 <1.9 -- -- <39 HHRA NOTE #3 430
RSLs 39 -- 570 1,700 2,300 2,000 1,900 34 -- -- -- -- -- -- 130 70 -- 210 -- 490 Notes:
µg/kg – micrograms per kilogram
* Surface soil sample (Cornerstone, June 2014)
-- Not reported HHRA – Human Health Risk Assessment Note #3, Table 1 (May 2015).

RSL – U.S. EPA Regional Screening Levels (June, 2015) 3,700 – above screening level 205
CC 07/01/2025
205 of 1130
Cupertino USD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2172
4-11
Table 4-2 - Soil Results for Arsenic and Lead
(results in mg/kg)
Sample
Identification Arsenic Lead
U.S. EPA Method 6020 6020
PEA (July 2015)
SS-6A (1-1.5’) 11 --
AS-1 (SURF) 13 --
AS-2 (SURF) 7.2 --
AS-3 (SURF) 5.7 --
P-7 (SURF) -- 39
P-7 (1-1.5’) -- 79
P-10 (SURF) -- 29
P-10 (1-1.5’) -- 9.3
P-11 (SURF) -- 24
P-11 (1-1.5’) -- 13
P-13 (SURF) -- 92
P-13 (1-1.5’) -- 17
P-14 (SURF) -- 36
P-15 (SURF) -- 220
P-17 (SURF) -- 310
P-17 (SURF) DUP -- 310
P-17 (1-1.5’) -- 43
P-18 (SURF) -- 93
P-18 (1-1.5’) -- 17
P-19 (SURF) -- 180
P-19 (1-1.5’) -- 31
P-19 (1-1.5’) DUPE -- 27
P-20 (SURF) -- 35
P-20 (1-1.5’) -- 11
P-21 (SURF) -- 40
P-21 (1-1.5’) -- 9.4
P-23 (SURF) -- 42
P-23 (1-1.5’) -- 13
Screening Level 12A 80B
206
CC 07/01/2025
206 of 1130
Cupertino USD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2172
4-12
Table 4-2 - Soil Results for Arsenic and Lead (cont’)
(results in mg/kg)
Sample
Identification Arsenic Lead
U.S. EPA Method 6020 6020
P-24 (SURF) -- 83
P-24 (1-1.5’) -- 10
P-24 (1-1.5’) DUP -- 9.0
P-25 (SURF) -- 47
P-25 (1-1.5’) -- 9.8
P-26 (SURF) -- 29
P-26 (1-1.5’) -- 12
P-27 (SURF) -- 64
P-27 (SURF) DUP -- 39
P-27 (1-1.5’) -- 14
P-28 (SURF) -- 150
P-28 (1-1.5’) -- 12
SSI (October 2015)
P-13A (SURF) -- 68
P-13B (SURF) -- 62
P-15A (SURF) -- 31
P-17A (SURF) -- 73
P-17A (SURF) DUPE -- 60
P-28A (SURF) -- 65
P-29 (SURF) -- 39
P-29A (SURF) -- 36
P-30 (SURF) -- 65
P-31 (SURF) -- 41
P-32 (SURF) -- 42
P-33 (SURF) -- 49
Screening Level 12A 80B
207
CC 07/01/2025
207 of 1130
Cupertino USD - PEA
Project No. 1401-2172
4-13
Table 4-2 - Soil Results for Arsenic and Lead (cont’)
(results in mg/kg)
Sample
Identification Arsenic Lead
U.S. EPA Method 6020 6020
Phase II (June 2014)
SS-1 11 40
SS-2 12 100
SS-3 8.7 20
SS-4 7.3 23
SS-5 13 51
SS-6 15 75
SS-7 8.0 20
SS-8 7.8 18
SS-9 7.8 42
SS-10 8.9 27
SS-11 6.4 19
SS-12 8.2 72
SS-13 5.2 52
SS-14 8.9 33
SS-15 6.6 22
SS-16 6.8 9.0
Screening Level 12A 80B
Notes:
mg/kg milligrams per kilogram
‘--‘ Not analyzed
150 Above screening level
A School Site Screening level from DTSC Guidance (4/30/08) B OEHHA Leadspread Version 8
208
CC 07/01/2025
208 of 1130
209
CC 07/01/2025
209 of 1130
210
CC 07/01/2025
210 of 1130
211
CC 07/01/2025
211 of 1130
November 2015
Project No. 1401-2172
SSI Sum Rpt_Cupertino
5-1

5.0 RISK ASSESSMENT
The chemical of potential concern (COCs) used in the human health screening-level evaluation for the Project Site included those compounds that were further evaluated as part of the PEA (pesticides and metals). Therefore, the following COPCs in soil were evaluated:
• Organochlorine Pesticides: Chlordane, DDD, DDE, DDT, Dieldrin, gamma-BHC (lindane), Endrin, Heptachlor, Heptachlor Epoxide, and Toxaphene • Metals: Lead
The DTSC-modified screening levels or the U.S. EPA RSLs (if DTSC-modified screening levels were not available) were used to conduct a screening-level human health risk assessment using the residential land-use scenario. Carcinogenic screening levels are typically based on a predicted excess long-term cancer risk of one in a million. Non-carcinogenic screening levels are based on maintaining the daily COC intake below the level at which deleterious health effects are considered possible.

In accordance with PEA guidance documents and DTSC’s Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Note No.3, dated May 2015, the maximum detected chemical concentrations in soil were evaluated as potential exposure point concentrations (EPCs). The EPCs were compared to their respective screening levels. The ratio of an EPC to the corresponding carcinogenic screening level was multiplied by 1E-06 to estimate the chemicalspecific screening cancer risk. For noncarcinogens, the chemical-specific hazard index is the ratio of the EPC to the screening level based on noncarcinogenic effects. The sums of the chemical-specific screening cancer risk and screening hazard index are the cumulative screening cancer risk and hazard index, respectively.

The total risk from OCPs identified in soils at the Project Site was estimated to be

3.3 x 10-5, which provides an increased cancer risk of greater than 1 in 1,000,000 (>10-6). The total health hazard from OCPs identified in soils at the Project Site was estimated to be 0.46, which does not present an increased health hazard (i.e., >1). Therefore, a response action to reduce or eliminate the pesticides identified in surficial soils at the Project Site is recommended.

The results of the screening-level evaluation are presented in Table 5-1.

Lead concentrations ranged from 9.0 mg/kg to 310 mg/kg in soil samples collected across the Project Site which exceeds DTSC’s screening level of 80 mg/kg. A risk assessment was performed using the DTSC lead risk assessment spreadsheet model (LeadSpread Version 8). Based on the LeadSpread output, exposure to the lead concentrations detected at the Project Site will result in a 90th percentile blood lead concentration of 8.0 µg/dl in children which exceeds OEHHA’s blood toxicity level of 1 µg/l. Therefore, a response action to reduce or eliminate the lead-impacted soil is recommended. A copy of the LeadSpread Risk Assessment Spreadsheet is presented in Appendix D.
212
CC 07/01/2025
212 of 1130
Table 5‐1
Soil Exposure Screening Evaluation
Sedgwick Elementary School Expansion Project
Cupertino Union School District
Screening
Level (mg/kg) Source Cancer            Risk Screening  Level (mg/kg) Source Hazard      Index Chlordane 13 0.43 HHRA Note #3 3.02E‐05 34 RSL 3.82E‐01 DDD 0.0093 2.3 RSL 4.04E‐09 37 Surrogate RSL 2.51E‐04
DDE 0.41 2 RSL 2.05E‐07 37 Surrogate RSL 1.11E‐02DDT 0.26 1.9 RSL 1.37E‐07 37 RSL 7.03E‐03 Dieldrin 0.0068 0.034 RSL 2.00E‐07 3.2 RSL 2.13E‐03
Endrin 0.0027 nc RSL NA 19 RSL 1.42E‐04g‐BHC (lindane) 0.00049 0.57 RSL 8.60E‐10 21 RSL 2.33E‐05 Heptachlor 0.021 0.13 RSL 1.62E‐07 39 RSL 5.38E‐04
Heptachlor Epoxide 0.057 0.07 RSL 8.14E‐07 1 RSL 5.70E‐02Toxaphene 0.41 0.49 RSL 8.37E‐07 NE NA NA Total Risk: 3.26E‐05 Total Hazard: 4.61E‐01
Notes:COPC = chemical of potential concernEPC = exposure point concentrationExposure Point Concentration = maximum detected concentration in soil samples collected at the site HHRA = Human Health Risk Assessment Note #3, Table 1 (DTSC HERO, May 2015)RSL = regional screening level for residential soil (U.S.EPA June 2015)mg/kg = milligrams per kilogramSurrogate RSL = RSL not established for DDD, DDE.  RSL for DDT was used as a surrogate value.nc = non‐carcinogenic NE = not establishedNA = not applicable COPC
Exposure‐Point
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Carcinogenic Risk Non‐carcinogenic Hazard
213
5-2
CC 07/01/2025
213 of 1130
November 2015
Project No. 1401-2172
SSI Sum Rpt_Cupertino
6-1

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The organochlorine pesticides chlordane, DDD, DDE, DDT, dieldrin, gamma-BHC (lindane), endrin heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide, and toxaphene were identified in surface soils at the Project Site. Using the highest concentration for each COC identified at the Project Site, the total risk index was estimated to be 3.3 x 10-5, which provides an increased cancer risk of greater than 1 in 1,000,000 (>10-6). Chlordane is the predominant pesticide of concern with the impacted areas identified to be located at the north, west and southeast perimeters of the main residence structure. The estimated extent of pesticide-impacted soil identified at the Project Site is presented on Plate 6-1.

Concentrations of lead ranged from 9 to 310 mg/kg in surface soil samples collected at the Project Site, which exceeds DTSC’s screening level of 80 mg/kg. Additionally, using DTSC’s LeadSpread risk evaluation model, exposure to the lead concentrations identified at the Project Site could result in a 90th percentile blood lead concentration of 8.0 µg/dl in children, which exceeds OEHHA’s blood toxicity level of 1 µg/dl. The estimated extent of lead-impacted soil identified at the Project Site is presented on Plate 6-2.

Due to elevated concentrations of COCs identified in surface soil around existing structures located at the Project Site, Padre recommends further action to reduce or eliminate the potential impact of these contaminants. The recommended remedial action is excavation, transportation and off-site disposal at an appropriate landfill. The estimated quantity of OCP and lead-impacted soil is approximately 300 cubic yards. 214
CC 07/01/2025
214 of 1130
215
CC 07/01/2025
215 of 1130
216
CC 07/01/2025
216 of 1130
November 2015
Project No. 1401-2172
SSI Sum Rpt_Cupertino
7-1

7.0 REFERENCES
Cornerstone Group, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Preliminary Soil Quality Evaluation, 10480 Finch Avenue, Cupertino, California, July 11, 2014.

Department of Toxic Substances Control, Interim Guidance, Evaluation of School Sites with Potential Contamination as a Result of Lead from Lead-Based-Paint, Organochlorine Pesticides from Temiticides, and Polychlorinated Biphenyls from Electrical Transformers, revised June 9, 2006.

Department of Toxic Substances Control, Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties (Third Revision), August 7, 2008.

Department of Toxic Substances Control, Preliminary Environmental Assessment Guidance Manual, January 1994, Interim Final – Final October 2013.

Padre Associates, Inc., Preliminary Environmental Assessment, Sedgwick Elementary School Expansion Project, 10480 Finch Avenue, Cupertino, Santa Clara County, California, September 2015.

Padre Associates, Inc., Preliminary Environmental Assessment Workplan, Sedgwick Elementary School Expansion Project, 10480 Finch Avenue, Cupertino, Santa Clara County, California, May 2015.

Padre Associates, Inc., Technical Memorandum, Sedgwick Elementary School Expansion Project, 10480 Finch Avenue, Cupertino, Santa Clara County, California Cupertino Union School District, September 2015.
217
CC 07/01/2025
217 of 1130

APPENDIX A

DTSC CORRESPONDANCE
218
CC 07/01/2025
218 of 1130
219
CC 07/01/2025
219 of 1130
220
CC 07/01/2025
220 of 1130

APPENDIX B

QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN
221
CC 07/01/2025
221 of 1130
May 2015
Project No. 1401-2171
B - 1

APPENDIX B

QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL
(QA/QC) PROCEDURES
The QA/QC procedures will be employed in both the field and the laboratory. QA/QC samples include the collection of equipment rinseate samples, field blank samples, and duplicate split samples.

FIELD QA/QC PROCEDURES
Field QA/QC procedures will be performed at the site and consist of the following measures:
• Chain-of-Custody (COC) forms will be used for sample submittal to the laboratory; and
• Daily information regarding sample collection will be recorded by Padre in Field Logbooks. Sample types, soil descriptions, sample identification numbers, and sample times will be collected and recorded on Field Data Sheets and in the Field Logbooks. Pages will be numbered, dated, and signed by the person performing data entry.

Field QA/QC samples will be collected and submitted for analysis along with the discrete soil samples using the following sampling frequency:
• Equipment blanks - One equipment rinsate blank per sample event; • Field blanks - One field blank sample per sample event; and • Field duplicates – Approximately 10% of the collected samples will be analyzed as duplicate samples for select chemical analyses.

Equipment Rinseate Blanks
An equipment rinseate blank (equipment blank) will be collected from the final water rinsed over equipment after cleaning activities have been performed. The equipment blank will be collected from non-dedicated (reusable) sampling equipment such as soil sampling tools.

The equipment blank will be analyzed for arsenic using the same analytical method used on the unique soil samples.

To collect an equipment blank sample, rinse water will be carefully poured over or through the recently cleaned equipment, and collected directly into an appropriate sample container held over a bucket. Equipment blank samples will be labeled and handled in the same manner as all other samples.
222
CC 07/01/2025
222 of 1130
May 2015
Project No. 1401-2171
B - 2
Field Blanks
Field blank samples consist of a sample of the deionized water that was used to rinse sampling equipment during equipment cleaning activities. The purpose of the field blank sample is to evaluate the rinse water for compounds detected in the soil samples. A field blank sample will be collected by pouring rinse water into the appropriate sample container. The field blank will be analyzed for arsenic using the same analytical method used on the unique soil samples, and the field blank samples will be handled in the same manner as all other samples.

Duplicate Samples
Duplicate soil sample(s) will be analyzed in order to evaluate the analytical procedures and methods employed by the laboratory. The field duplicate sample(s) will be selected from the original soil samples, and split by the laboratory. Duplicate soil samples will be analyzed for OCPs and lead.

Duplicate soil gas sample(s) will be collected immediately after the original sample, in separate sample containers, at the same location and depth. Duplicate soil gas samples will be analyzed for VOCs.

Laboratory QA/QC Procedures
Laboratory QA/QC procedures include the following:
• Laboratory analyses will be performed within the required holding time for all samples;
• Appropriate minimum reporting limits (RLs) will be used for each analysis; • A state-certified hazardous waste testing laboratory will conduct the required analysis;
• The laboratory will provide the following information for each sample:
- Method blank data;
- Surrogate recovery, instrument tuning, and calibration data; and - Signed laboratory reports including the sample designation, date of sample collection, date of sample analysis, laboratory analytical method employed, sample volume, and the minimum RL.

To determine whether Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) requirements for sampling and analysis were met for the project, and to determine whether the data are usable for risk assessment purposes, a cursory data validation review will be done on the data summary package provided by the laboratory. This review will include an evaluation of chain-ofcustody documentation, holding times, reporting limits, precision and accuracy of goals, 223
CC 07/01/2025
223 of 1130
May 2015
Project No. 1401-2171
B - 3
representativeness, and completeness of the data. QA/QC requirements that are not met will be evaluated in the ‘uncertainty’ portion of the risk assessment. Documentation of the data validation review will be included with the PEA report.

Detection Limits
Detection limits for OCPs and metals that will be met by the analytical laboratory are listed in the following DTSC document(s), and are attached:
• DTSC’s Advisory – Active Soil gas Investigations, dated April 2012, and • DTSC, Interim Guidance, Evaluation of School Sites with Potential Contamination as a Result of Lead from Lead-Based-Paint, Organochlorine Pesticides from Temiticides, and Polychlorinated Biphenyls from Electrical Transformers, revised June 9, 2006.

Padre proposes to utilize McCampbell Analytical Inc. (McCampbell) located in Pittsburg, California to provide the required chemical analyses of collected soil, soil gas, and water samples. McCampbell is certified (No. 1644) by the California State Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program Branch to provide the required chemical analyses. 224
CC 07/01/2025
224 of 1130

APPENDIX C

ANALYTICAL LABORATORY REPORTS AND CHAIN-OF CUSTODYS
225
CC 07/01/2025
225 of 1130
WorkOrder:

Report Created for: Padre Associates. Inc.
555 University Ave., Suite 110
Sacramento, CA 95825
Project Contact: Alan J. Klein
Project Name: 1401-2172; Cupertino (Sedgwick SSI)
Project P.O.:

Project Received: 10/28/2015
Analytical Report reviewed & approved for release on 11/05/2015 by:

Angela Rydelius,
Laboratory Manager
1510A30
The report shall not be reproduced except in full, without the written approval of the laboratory.

The analytical results relate only to the items tested. Results reported conform to the most current NELAP standards, where applicable, unless otherwise stated in the case narrative.

Amended: 11/10/2015
Analytical Report
1534 Willow Pass Rd. Pittsburg, CA 94565 ♦ TEL: (877) 252-9262 ♦ FAX: (925) 252-9269 ♦ www.mccampbell.com NELAP: 4033ORELAP ♦ ELAP: 1644 ♦ ISO/IEC: 17025:2005 ♦ WSDE: C972-11 ♦ ADEC: UST-098 ♦ UCMR3 McCampbell Analytical, Inc.
"When Quality Counts"