B - Environmental Site Assessment — Cupertino City Council, July 7, 2026

Phase I Environmental Site
AssessmentREPORT DATE: February 2, 2026
PROPERTY INFORMATION:
10480 Finch Avenue
Cupertino, Santa Clara County, California 95014
PROJECT INFORMATION:

AEI Project No. 522669
Site Assessment Date: January 23, 2026
PREPARED FOR:

City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
PREPARED BY:

AEI Consultants - Corporate Headquarters
2500 Camino Diablo
Walnut Creek, California 94597
February 2, 2026
Chad Mosley
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
Subject: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
10480 Finch Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
AEI Project No. 522669
Dear Chad Mosley:

AEI Consultants is pleased to provide the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the above referenced property. This assessment was authorized and performed in accordance with the scope of services engaged.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide services to you. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we can assist you in any other matter, please contact me at (804) 389-2641 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Chad Matthews
Business Development Manager
AEI Consultants

PROJECT SUMMARY
10480 Finch Avenue, Cupertino, Santa Clara County, California 95014 AEI Project No. 522669
REC: Recognized Environmental Condition
CREC: Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition
HREC: Historical Recognized Environmental Condition
OEC: Other Environmental Concerns (business environmental risks & de minimis conditions) SDG: Significant Data Gap
Report Section REC CREC HREC OEC SDG Recommended Action

1.0 Introduction None

2.0 Site and Vicinity Description None

3.0 Historical Records Review  None

4.0 Regulatory Agency Records Review  None

5.0 Regulatory Database Records Review  None

6.0 Interviews and User Provided Information None

7.0 Site Reconnaissance None

8.1 Asbestos-Containing Building Materials None

8.2 Lead-Based Paint None

8.3 Naturally-Occurring Radon None

8.4 Suspect Mold or Microbial Growth Conditions None
Project No. 522669
February 2, 2026

Page 1 ends

TABLE OF CONTENTS
REPORT VIABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Findings and Opinions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1.1 Scope of Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1.2 Additional Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1.3 Significant Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1.4 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1.5 Limiting Conditions/Deviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

1.6 Data Failure and Data Gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

1.7 Reliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.0 SITE AND VICINITY DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.1 Site Location and Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.2 On-Site Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.3 Site and Vicinity Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.4 Physical Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3.0 HISTORICAL RECORDS REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3.1 Aerial Photographs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3.2 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

3.3 City Directories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

3.4 Historical Topographic Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

3.5 Chain of Title . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

4.0 REGULATORY AGENCY RECORDS REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

4.1 Local Environmental Health Department and/or State Environmental Agency . . . . . . . . . . . 19

4.2 Fire Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

4.3 Building Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

4.4 Planning Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

4.5 Assessor's Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

4.6 Other Agencies Searched . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

4.7 Oil and Gas Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

4.8 Oil and Gas Pipelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

5.0 REGULATORY DATABASE RECORDS REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

5.1 Records Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

5.2 Vapor Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

5.3 Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

6.0 INTERVIEWS AND USER PROVIDED INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

6.1 Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

6.2 User Provided Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

6.3 Previous Reports and Other Provided Documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

6.4 Environmental Lien and AUL Search Information Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

7.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

7.1 Subject Property Reconnaissance Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

7.2 Adjoining Property Reconnaissance Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

8.0 NON-ASTM SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

8.1 Asbestos-Containing Building Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

8.2 Lead-Based Paint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

8.3 Naturally-Occurring Radon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

8.4 Suspect Mold or Microbial Growth Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

9.0 SIGNATURE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

10.0 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Project No. 522669
February 2, 2026

Page 2 ends

TABLE OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: FIGURES
APPENDIX B: PROPERTY PHOTOGRAPHS
APPENDIX C: REGULATORY DATABASE
APPENDIX D: HISTORICAL SOURCES
APPENDIX E: REGULATORY AGENCY RECORDS - SUBJECT PROPERTY APPENDIX F: OTHER SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
APPENDIX G: QUALIFICATIONS
APPENDIX H: COMMONLY USED ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS
Project No. 522669
February 2, 2026

Page 3 ends

REPORT VIABILITY
Regulatory Database January 13, 2026
Site Visit January 23, 2026
Interview(s) Property Owner: N/A
Key Site Manager: January 23, 2026
EP Declaration February 2, 2026
Environmental Lien Search
(if conducted by AEI)
N/A
Report Viability per ASTM E1527-21 July 12, 2026
The dates listed are required for Users who are using the report in connection with CERCLA liability protections. The User may have their own criteria when the report is being used for business risk purposes, and not CERCLA liability protections.

Project No. 522669
February 2, 2026

Page 4 ends

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AEI Consultants (AEI) was retained by City of Cupertino to conduct a Phase I ESA in conformance with AEI's contract and the scope and limitations of ASTM Standard Practice E1527-21 and the EPA Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR Part 312), for the property located at 10480 Finch Avenue, Cupertino, Santa Clara County, California (the "subject property"). Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Sections 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6 of this report.

Pertinent subject property information is noted below:

Property Information
Site Address(es) 10480 Finch Avenue, Cupertino, Santa Clara County, California 95014
Property ID (APN or Block/Lot) 375-40-067
Location South side of Phil Lane, immediately southeast of Finch Avenue and Phil Lane intersection
Site and Building Information
Approximate Site Acreage/Source 1.48/Assessor
Number of Buildings None; vacant land
Building Construction Date(s)/Source N/A
Building Square Footage (SF)/Source N/A
Number of Floors/Stories N/A
Basement or Subgrade Area(s) None identified
Use/Occupancy of Basement or
Subgrade Area(s)
N/A
Number of Units N/A
Additional Improvements Metal fencing
Property Type Vacant Land
On-site Occupant(s) None identified
Current On-site Operations/Use None identified
Current Use of Hazardous Substances None identified
Regulatory Information
Regulatory Database Listing(s) ENVIROSTOR, RGA LUST (x2), LUST, HIST LUST, SCH, Cortese, HIST CORTESE, UST FINDER RELEASE, CERS, HWTS,
HAZNET, RCRA NonGen/NLR, FINDS (x2), ECHO
A chronological summary of historical subject property information is as follows:

Page 5 ends

Date Range Subject Property Description and Occupancy (Historical Addresses) Source(s)
2018-Present Vacant land Aerial photographs, city
directories, site
observation
The immediately surrounding properties consist of the following:

Direction Tenant/Use (Address) Regulatory Database Listing(s) North Phil Lane followed by:

Single-Family Residences (19241-19271 Phil Lane,
10455 Finch Avenue)
None identified
East D. J. Sedgewick Elementary School (19200 Phil
Lane)
None identified
South D. J. Sedgewick Elementary School (19200 Phil
Lane)
None identified
West Single-Family Residences (602-644 Stendhal Lane) Yes; RCRA NonGen/NLR (630 Stendhal Lane), refer to Section 5.1
Northwest Phil Lane followed by:

Single-Family Residence (10465 Finch Avenue)
None identified

FINDINGS AND OPINIONS
Significant Data Gap(s) is defined by the current ASTM Standard E1527 as a data gap that affects the ability of the environmental professional to identify a recognized environmental condition.

AEI did not identify significant data gaps which affected our ability to identify RECs.

Recognized Environmental Condition (REC) is defined by the current ASTM Standard E1527 as (1) the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property due to a release to the environment; (2) the likely presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property due to a release or likely release to the environment; or (3) the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment.
• AEI did not identify evidence of RECs during the course of this assessment.

Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition (CREC) is defined by the current ASTM Standard E1527 as a recognized environmental condition affecting the subject property that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or authorities with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to implementation of required controls (for example, activity and use limitations or other property use limitations).
• AEI did not identify evidence of CRECs during the course of this assessment.

Project No. 522669
February 2, 2026

Page 6 ends

Historical Recognized Environmental Condition (HREC) is defined by the current ASTM Standard E1527 as a previous release of hazardous substances or petroleum products affecting the subject property that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or authorities and meeting unrestricted use criteria established by the applicable regulatory authority or authorities without subjecting the subject property to any controls (for example, activity and use limitations or other property use limitations). • The property is listed as a closed LUST site (March 1997) related to a 500-gallon gasoline UST removed in 1996. Confirmation sampling showed petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations below current residential screening levels. The case was closed with no redevelopment conditions, constituting an HREC.
• The property is listed as a certified School Cleanup site (February 2019) under DTSC oversight. Contaminated soils containing chlordane and lead were excavated and disposed of in 2018. DTSC certified that cleanup goals were achieved and no further action is required. The unrestricted land use certification constitutes an HREC.

Other Environmental Considerations (OEC) include, but are not limited to, de minimis conditions and/or business environmental risks such as the presence of ACMs, LBP, radon, mold, and lead in drinking water, which can have a material environmental or environmentally-driven impact on the business associated with the current or planned use of a parcel of commercial real estate, not necessarily limited to those environmental issues required to be investigated in the ASTM Standard. These may also affect the liabilities and financial obligations of the client, the health and safety of site occupants, and the value and marketability of the subject property.
• AEI did not identify evidence of OECs during the course of this assessment.

CONCLUSIONS
We have performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Standard Practice E1527-21, of 10480 Finch Avenue, Cupertino, Santa Clara County, California, the subject property . Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Sections 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6 of this report.

This assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions, controlled recognized environmental conditions, or significant data gaps in connection with the subject property.

RECOMMENDATIONS
AEI recommends no further investigation for the subject property at this time.

Project No. 522669
February 2, 2026

Page 7 ends

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report documents the methods and findings of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed in conformance with AEI's contract and scope and limitations of ASTM Standard Practice E1527-21 and the EPA Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR Part 312), for the property located at 10480 Finch Avenue, Cupertino, Santa Clara County, California (Appendix A: Figures and Appendix B: Property Photographs).

1.1 SCOPE OF WORK
The purpose of the Phase I ESA is to assist the client in identifying potential RECs, in accordance with the most current ASTM E1527 Standard associated with the presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products, their use, storage, and disposal at and in the vicinity of the subject property. Property assessment activities focused on: 1) a review of federal, state, tribal, and local databases that identify and describe underground fuel tank sites, leaking underground fuel tank sites, hazardous waste generation sites, and hazardous waste storage and disposal facility sites within the ASTM approximate minimum search distance; 2) a property and surrounding site reconnaissance, and interviews with the past and present owners and current occupants and operators to identify potential environmental contamination; and 3) a review of historical sources to help ascertain previous land use at the site and in the surrounding area.

1.2 ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Other Environmental Considerations such as ACMs, LBP, lead in drinking water, radon, mold, and wetlands can result in business environmental risks for property owners which may disrupt current or planned operations or cash flow and are generally beyond the scope of a Phase I assessment as defined by the current ASTM Standard E1527. Based upon the agreed-on scope of services this ESA did not include subsurface or other invasive assessments, business environmental risks, or other services not specifically identified and discussed herein.

1.3 SIGNIFICANT ASSUMPTIONS
The following assumptions are made by AEI in this report. AEI relied on information derived from secondary sources including governmental agencies, the client, designated representatives of the client, property contact, property owner, property owner representatives, computer databases, and personal interviews. AEI has reviewed and evaluated the thoroughness and reliability of the information derived from secondary sources including government agencies, the client, designated representatives of the client, property contact, property owner, property owner representatives, computer databases, or personal interviews.

It appears that all information obtained from outside sources and reviewed for this assessment is thorough and reliable. However, AEI cannot guarantee the thoroughness or reliability of this information.

Groundwater flow, unless otherwise specified by on-site well data or well data from the subject property or nearby sites, is inferred from contour information depicted on the USGS topographic maps. AEI assumes the property has been correctly and accurately identified by the client, designated representative of the client, property contact, property owner, and property owner's representatives.

Project No. 522669
February 2, 2026

Page 8 ends

1.4 LIMITATIONS
Property conditions, as well as local, state, tribal, and federal regulations can change significantly over time. Therefore, the recommendations and conclusions presented as a result of this assessment apply strictly to the environmental regulations and property conditions existing at the time the assessment was performed. Available information has been analyzed using currently accepted assessment techniques and it is believed that the inferences made are reasonably representative of the property. AEI makes no warranty, expressed or implied, except that the services have been performed in accordance with generally accepted environmental property assessment practices applicable at the time and location of the assessment.

Considerations identified by ASTM as beyond the scope of a Phase I ESA that may affect business environmental risk at a given property include the following: ACMs, radon, LBP, lead in drinking water, wetlands, regulatory compliance, cultural and historical resources, industrial hygiene, health and safety, ecological resources, endangered species, indoor air quality, mold, and high voltage lines. These environmental issues or conditions may warrant assessment based on the type of the property transaction; however, they are considered non-scope issues under the current ASTM Standard E1527.

If requested by the client, these non-scope issues are discussed herein. Otherwise, the purpose of this assessment is solely to satisfy one of the requirements for qualification of the innocent landowner defense, contiguous property owner or bona fide prospective purchaser under CERCLA. The current ASTM Standard E1527 and the United States EPA Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR Part 312) constitute the "all appropriate inquiry into the previous ownership and uses of the property consistent with good commercial or customary practice" as defined in:

1. 42 U.S.C. § 9601(35)(B), referenced in the current ASTM Standard E1527.

2. Sections 101(35)(B) (ii) and (iii) of CERCLA and referenced in the EPA Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR Part 312).

3. 42 U.S.C. § 9601(40) and 42 U.S.C. § 9607(q).

The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment is not, and should not be construed as, a warranty or guarantee about the presence or absence of environmental contaminants that may affect the property. Neither is the assessment intended to assure clear title to the property in question. The sole purpose of assessment into property title records is to ascertain a historical basis of prior land use. All findings, conclusions, and recommendations stated in this report are based upon facts, circumstances, and industry-accepted procedures for such services as they existed at the time this report was prepared (i.e., federal, state, and local laws, rules, regulations, market conditions, economic conditions, political climate, and other applicable matters). All findings, conclusions, and recommendations stated in this report are based on the data and information provided, current subject property use, and observations and conditions that existed on the date and time of the property reconnaissance.

Responses received from local, state, or federal agencies or other secondary sources of information after the issuance of this report may change certain facts, findings, conclusions, or circumstances to the report. A change in any fact, circumstance, or industry-accepted procedure upon which this report was based may adversely affect the findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this report.

Project No. 522669
February 2, 2026

Page 9 ends

AEI's limited radon screening, if included, is intended to provide a preliminary screening to evaluate the potential presence of elevated radon concentrations at the site. The proposed scope is not intended to define the full extent of the presence of radon at the subject property.

As such, the results should be used for lending purposes only. The recommendations and conclusions presented as a result of the limited preliminary radon screening apply strictly to the property conditions existing at the time the sampling was performed. The sample analytical results are only valid for the time, place, and condition of the site at the time of collection and AEI does not warrant that the results will be repeatable or are representative of past or future conditions.

1.5 LIMITING CONDITIONS/DEVIATIONS
The performance of this assessment was limited by the following:
• While additional assessments may have been conducted on the subject property, these documents must be provided for AEI's review in order for the information to be summarized/included in this report. Please refer to Section 6.3 for a summary of previous reports and other documentation provided to AEI during this assessment. • The User did not complete the ASTM User Questionnaire or provide the User information to AEI. AEI assumes that qualification for the LLPs is being established by the User in documentation outside of this assessment.
• At the time of the site reconnaissance, the subject property ground surface was covered with grass and fallen leaves and therefore could not be directly observed.

Based on information obtained from historical sources, including agency records, this limitation is not expected to significantly change the findings of this report. • The subject property owner was not interviewed during this assessment. Based on information obtained from other sources, including the key site manager, this limiting condition is not expected to alter the overall findings of this assessment. • The Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health was contacted for information on the subject property in order to identify historical tenants/use, property development, and/or hazardous substance/petroleum product handling . Due to the time frame of this assessment, records were not available for review. However, based on the quality of information obtained from other sources, this limitation is not expected to significantly alter the findings of this assessment.

1.6 DATA FAILURE AND DATA GAPS
According to the current ASTM Standard E1527, data gaps occur when the Environmental Professional is unable to obtain information required by the Standard, despite good faith efforts to gather such information. Pursuant to the current ASTM Standard E1527, only significant data gaps, defined as those that affect the ability of the Environmental Professional to identify RECs, need to be documented.

Data failure is one type of data gap. According to the current ASTM Standard E1527, data failure occurs when all of the standard historical sources that are reasonably ascertainable and likely to be useful have been reviewed and yet the objectives have not been met. Pursuant to the current ASTM Standard E1527, historical sources are required to document property use back to the property's first developed use or back to 1940, whichever is earlier, or periods of five years or greater.

Project No. 522669
February 2, 2026

Page 10 ends

1.6.1 DATA FAILURE
The following data failure was identified during the course of this assessment:

Data Failure As noted in Section 3.0, historical occupancy for the subject property was not available between the years 1903 and 1938. However, it is assumed that during this time period the subject property would have been agricultural and/or residential land, if not unimproved land. Therefore, this data failure is not expected to significantly alter the findings of this assessment.

Information/Sources
Consulted
Aerial photographs, historical topographic maps, agency records, interviews

1.6.2 SIGNIFICANT DATA GAPS
AEI did not identify significant data gaps which affected our ability to identify RECs.

1.7 RELIANCE
All reports, both verbal and written, are for the benefit of City of Cupertino. This report has no other purpose and may not be relied upon by any other person or entity without the written consent of AEI. Either verbally or in writing, third parties may come into possession of this report or all or part of the information generated as a result of this work. In the absence of a written agreement with AEI granting such rights, no third parties shall have rights of recourse or recovery whatsoever under any course of action against AEI, its officers, employees, vendors, successors or assigns.

Reliance is provided in accordance with City of Cupertino and AEI's contract and Terms and Conditions dated January 6, 2026. The limitation of liability defined in the contracted terms is the aggregate limit of AEI's liability to the client and all relying parties.

Project No. 522669
February 2, 2026

Page 11 ends

2.0 SITE AND VICINITY DESCRIPTION

2.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
Property Information
Site Address(es) 10480 Finch Avenue, Cupertino, Santa Clara County, California 95014
Property ID (APN or Block/Lot) 375-40-067
Location South side of Phil Lane, immediately southeast of Finch Avenue and Phil Lane intersection
Site and Building Information
Approximate Site Acreage/Source 1.48/Assessor
Number of Buildings None; vacant land
Building Construction Date(s)/Source N/A
Building Square Footage (SF)/Source N/A
Number of Floors/Stories N/A
Basement or Subgrade Area(s) None identified
Use/Occupancy of Basement or
Subgrade Area(s)
N/A
Number of Units N/A
Additional Improvements Metal fencing
Property Type Vacant Land
On-site Occupant(s) None identified
Current On-site Operations/Use None identified
Current Use of Hazardous Substances None identified
Regulatory Information
Regulatory Database Listing(s) ENVIROSTOR, RGA LUST (x2), LUST, HIST LUST, SCH, Cortese, HIST CORTESE, UST FINDER RELEASE, CERS, HWTS,
HAZNET, RCRA NonGen/NLR, FINDS (x2), ECHO

2.2 ON-SITE UTILITIES
Utility Source/System Information
Heating System Vacant land (natural gas available for connection) Cooling System Vacant land (electricity available for connection) Potable Water San Jose Water
Sewage Disposal/Treatment City of Cupertino/Sanitary Sewer Utility source/system information listed in the table above is provided by the key site manager, unless otherwise noted above.

2.3 SITE AND VICINITY CHARACTERISTICS
The subject property is located in a residential and commercial area of Cupertino, California. The immediately surrounding properties consist of the following:

Direction Tenant/Use (Address) Regulatory Database Listing(s) North Phil Lane followed by:

Single-Family Residences (19241-19271 Phil Lane,
10455 Finch Avenue)
None identified
East D. J. Sedgewick Elementary School (19200 Phil
Lane)
None identified
Project No. 522669
February 2, 2026

Page 12 ends

Direction Tenant/Use (Address) Regulatory Database Listing(s) South D. J. Sedgewick Elementary School (19200 Phil
Lane)
None identified
West Single-Family Residences (602-644 Stendhal Lane) Yes; RCRA NonGen/NLR (630 Stendhal Lane), refer to Section 5.1
Northwest Phil Lane followed by:

Single-Family Residence (10465 Finch Avenue)
None identified

2.4 PHYSICAL SETTING
Geologic Unit Qa. 1 (surficial sediments): silt, fine-grained sand, and gravel deposited in an alluvial environment, represents alluvial fan deposits at base of slopes and upper fan areas, age Holocene
Source: Geologic Map of the Cupertino and San Jose West Quadrangles, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties, CA, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, 2007
Soil Series Urban land-Elpaloalto and Stevens Creek complexes (0 to 2 percent slopes) Native soil encountered during 1996 on-site tank removal activities consisted of medium brown, firm, sandy clay with medium to low plasticity Source: USDA Soil Survey
Groundwater Flow
Direction
Northeast
Source: Topographic map interpretation
Estimated Depth to
Groundwater
Greater than 80 feet bgs
Source: Envirostor online database (February 2019 Removal Action Completion Report for subject property)
Surface waters on the
subject property or
adjoining properties
None
Note: Groundwater flow direction can be influenced locally and regionally by the presence of local wetland features, surface topography, recharge and discharge areas, horizontal and vertical inconsistencies in the types and location of subsurface soils, and proximity to water pumping wells. Depth and gradient of the water table can change seasonally in response to variation in precipitation and recharge, and over time, in response to urban development such as storm water controls, impervious surfaces, pumping wells, cleanup activities, dewatering, seawater intrusion barrier projects near the coast, and other factors.

Project No. 522669
February 2, 2026

Page 13 ends

3.0 HISTORICAL RECORDS REVIEW
Reasonably ascertainable standard historical sources as outlined in the current ASTM Standard E1527 were used to determine previous uses and occupancies of the subject property that are likely to have led to RECs in connection with the subject property. A chronological summary of historical data found, including but not limited to aerial photographs, Sanborn fire insurance maps, historical city directories, historical topographic maps, and agency records, is as follows:

Date Range Subject Property Description and Occupancy (Historical Addresses) Source(s)
1897-1902 Undeveloped land Topographic maps
1903-1938 Unknown use/Data failure; refer to Section 1.6.1 Aerial photographs, city directories, historical
topographic
maps, agency records,
interviews
1939-1953 Agricultural and residential land Aerial
photographs, topographic
maps, interviews
1956-2018 Residential land Aerial photographs,
agency records, city
directories, topographic
maps, interviews
2018-Present Vacant land Aerial photographs, city
directories, site
observation
According to available historical sources, the subject property was identified to consist of undeveloped land as early as 1897 through at least 1902, agricultural (orchards) and residential land by 1939 to 1953, solely residential land by 1956 to 2018, and a vacant lot since 2018.

Potential environmental concerns identified in connection with subject property use are discussed in Section 4.6.

No potential environmental concerns to the subject property from adjoining or nearby properties were identified.

Based on a review of aerial photographs , there is potential that the subject property was historically used for agricultural purposes. There is a potential that agricultural chemicals, such as pesticides and fertilizers, were used on site, and that the subject property has been impacted by the use of such agricultural chemicals. The routine application of pesticides and fertilizers is not considered a release subject to CERCLA response costs. No evidence of spilling, dumping, emitting, and/or mishandling of pesticides and/or fertilizers was identified, and thus the former agricultural uses do not represent a REC.

The subject property, although currently vacant, was formerly utilized for residential purposes after cessation of agricultural (orchard) activities. Development of the subject property likely involved grading activities which would have removed near surface soils or would have potentially involved the addition of imported soils for the landscaped areas. If the subject property is redeveloped and groundbreaking activities are conducted, it would be prudent for the owner of the subject property to determine whether sampling relating to the former Project No. 522669
February 2, 2026

Page 14 ends

agricultural use of the subject property is required by the applicable oversight agency prior to the commencement of redevelopment activities. However, AEI was not informed of any pending redevelopment plans for the subject property. Based on the presence of the site improvements, no further action related to the former agricultural use of the subject property appears warranted at this time.

Based on a review of historical sources, agricultural uses ceased on or prior to the 1970s.

As such, it is considered unlikely that biosolids containing PFAS were spread at the subject property.

If available, copies of historical sources are provided in Appendix D.

3.1 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
AEI reviewed aerial photographs of the subject property and surrounding area. A search was made of the EDR collection of aerial photographs. Aerial photographs were reviewed for the following years (1939-2022, non-inclusive):

Year(s) Subject Property Description Adjoining Property Descriptions 1939,
1948,
1950
Appears developed with agricultural land
(orchards) and residential dwelling at the
northwest corner
NORTH: Appears with roadway followed by
agricultural land and a farmstead
EAST: Appears with agricultural land
SOUTH: Appears with agricultural land
WEST: Appears with agricultural land
NORTHWEST: Appears with roadway
followed by agricultural land
1956 Appears with remodeled or new residential
dwelling at the northwest corner, remainder
of parcel appears with unimproved land
NORTH: Appears with existing roadway
followed by existing residences
EAST: Appears with construction of former
school buildings
SOUTH: Appears with unimproved land
WEST: No significant changes visible
NORTHWEST: Appears with existing roadway
followed by existing residence
1963,
1968,
1974,
1982,
1991
No significant changes visible with exception
of outbuildings on southeast portion of parcel
NORTH: No significant changes visible
EAST: Appears with a school with former
buildings
SOUTH: No significant changes visible
WEST: Appears with existing residences
NORTHWEST: No significant changes visible
1998,
2006,
2010,
2014,
2018
No significant changes visible NORTH: No significant changes visible EAST: Appears with a remodeled school
SOUTH: Appears with field associated with
school to the east
WEST: No significant changes visible
NORTHWEST: No significant changes visible
2022 Appears with existing unimproved lot NORTH: No significant changes visible EAST: No significant changes visible
SOUTH: No significant changes visible
WEST: No significant changes visible
NORTHWEST: No significant changes visible
Subject property:

Project No. 522669
February 2, 2026

Page 15 ends

• Historical agricultural land - refer to Section 3.0
Adjoining properties:
• No potential environmental concerns identified

3.2 SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAPS
Sanborn Fire Insurance maps were developed in the late 1800s and early 1900s for use as an assessment tool for fire insurance rates in urbanized areas. A search was made of the EDR collection of Sanborn Fire Insurance maps.

Sanborn map coverage was not available for the subject property.

3.3 CITY DIRECTORIES
A search of historical city directories was conducted for the subject property utilizing EDR.

Directories were reviewed in approximate five-year increments from 1962-2022, non-inclusive. Refer to the appendices for a complete list of historical subject property tenants identified by EDR.

The first listing for the subject property appeared in 1971. The following table summarizes the results of the city directory search for the subject property.

Subject Property
Year(s) Address - Occupant Listed
1962, 1968 Subject property street not listed
1971 10480 Finch Avenue - no listings
1976, 1981, 1985,
1992, 1995
10480 Finch Avenue - residential tenant (FA or Aida Pestarino) 2000 10480 Finch Avenue - no listings
2005, 2010, 2014 10480 Finch Avenue - residential tenant (Aida or Bart Pestarino) 2017, 2022 10480 Finch Avenue - no listings
If listed above, XXXX indicates that the address is valid but there is no occupancy information available.

The table below summarizes the search of historical city directories conducted for the adjoining properties. Refer to the appendices for a complete list of historical adjoining occupants identified during the review of city directories obtained from EDR.

Adjoining Properties
Direction Address(es) Potential Listings of Concern
North 19241-19271 Phil Lane
10455 Finch Avenue
None identified
East, South 19200 Phil Lane None identified
West 602-644 Stendhal Lane None identified
Northwest 10465 Finch Avenue None identified
Subject property:

Project No. 522669
February 2, 2026

Page 16 ends

• No potential environmental concerns identified
Adjoining properties:
• No potential environmental concerns identified

3.4 HISTORICAL TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS
AEI reviewed historical topographic maps of the subject property and surrounding area. A search was made of the EDR collection of topographic maps. Historical topographic maps were reviewed for the following years (1889-2021, non-inclusive):

Year(s) Subject Property Description Adjoining Property Descriptions 1889 No coverage depicted NORTH: No coverage depicted
EAST: No coverage depicted
SOUTH: No coverage depicted
WEST: No coverage depicted
NORTHWEST: No coverage depicted
1887,
1899,
1902
Depicted with undeveloped land NORTH: Depicted with undeveloped land EAST: Depicted with undeveloped land
SOUTH: Depicted with undeveloped land
WEST: Depicted with undeveloped land
NORTHWEST: Depicted with roadway
followed by undeveloped land
1943,
1947
Depicted with small structure at northwest
corner, remainder of parcel depicted with
unimproved land
NORTH: No significant changes depicted
EAST: No significant changes depicted
SOUTH: No significant changes depicted
WEST: No significant changes depicted
NORTHWEST: No significant changes depicted
1948 No significant changes depicted NORTH: Depicted with agricultural land EAST: No significant changes depicted
SOUTH: No significant changes depicted
WEST: No significant changes depicted
NORTHWEST: No significant changes
depicted
1953 Depicted with agricultural land (orchard) and
small structure at northwest corner
NORTH: Depicted with mixture of
agricultural and unimproved land
EAST: Depicted with agricultural land
SOUTH: Depicted with agricultural land
followed by unimproved land
WEST: Depicted with agricultural land
NORTHWEST: Depicted with roadway
followed by agricultural land
1961 Depicted with small structure at northwest
corner, remainder of parcel depicted with
unimproved land
NORTH: Depicted with roadway followed by
shading to depict general urban land
EAST: Depicted with Sedgwick School
SOUTH: Depicted with unimproved land
WEST: No significant changes depicted
NORTHWEST: Depicted with roadway
followed by shading to depict general urban
land
Project No. 522669
February 2, 2026

Page 17 ends

Year(s) Subject Property Description Adjoining Property Descriptions 1968,
1973,
1980
No significant changes depicted NORTH: No significant changes depicted EAST: No significant changes depicted
SOUTH: No significant changes depicted
WEST: Shaded to depict general urban land
NORTHWEST: No significant changes depicted
1995 Shaded to depict general urban land NORTH: No significant changes depicted EAST: No significant changes depicted
SOUTH: Shaded to depict general urban land
WEST: No significant changes depicted
NORTHWEST: No significant changes depicted
2012,
2015,
2021
No site-specific building improvements
depicted
Depicted with adjoining roadway only, no
site-specific building improvements depicted
Subject property:
• Historical agricultural land - refer to Section 3.0
Adjoining properties:
• No potential environmental concerns identified

3.5 CHAIN OF TITLE
Based on the quality of information obtained from other sources, a chain of title search was not performed as part of this assessment.

Project No. 522669
February 2, 2026

Page 18 ends

4.0 REGULATORY AGENCY RECORDS REVIEW
Local and state agencies, such as environmental health departments, fire prevention bureaus, and building and planning departments are contacted to identify any current or previous reports of hazardous substance use, storage, and/or unauthorized releases that may have impacted the subject property. In addition, information pertaining to AULs, defined as legal or physical restrictions, or limitations on the use of, or access to, a site or facility, is requested.

4.1 LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT AND/OR STATE ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCY Agency Date
Contacted
Method of
Contact
Name & Title
of Contact Agency Response
Santa Clara County Department of
Environmental Health (SCCDEH)
January
16, 2026
Online Tanaya Farahi Response pending,
refer to Section 1.5

4.2 FIRE DEPARTMENT
Agency Date
Contacted
Method of
Contact
Name & Title of
Contact Agency Response
Santa Clara County Fire
Department (SCCFD)
September 11,
2025
Email SCCFD Staff Records discussed
below
The only document on file was the case closure letter prepared by the Santa Clara Valley Water District for the on-site Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) case closed in March 1997; refer to Section 4.6 for further discussion.

EDR LIGHTBOX FIRE & EMERGENCY INCIDENT DATA
EDR Lightbox did not list any fire and emergency incidents for the subject property.

4.3 BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Agency Date
Contacted
Method of
Contact
Name & Title of
Contact Agency Response
Cupertino Building
Department (CBD)
January 16,
2026
Online September 11, 2025 Records discussed
below
Records Summary
Year(s) Owner/Applicant Description of Permit and Building Use 1991 Aida Pestarino Water heater/plumbing improvements
Evidence indicating current or prior use or storage of hazardous substances was not on file for the subject property with the CBD.

Records Summary - EDR LightBox Building Permits
Year(s) Owner/Applicant Description of Permit and Building Use 1993 Not available Re-roofing work
Evidence indicating current or prior use or storage of hazardous substances was not identified in the building permits available via EDR LightBox.

Project No. 522669
February 2, 2026

Page 19 ends

4.4 PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Agency Date
Contacted
Method
of
Contact
Name &
Title of
Contact
Agency Response
Cupertino
Planning
Department
(CPD)
January
16, 2026
Online September
11, 2025
The subject property is zoned "R1-6" for Single-Family
Residential land use. No evidence indicating the
existence of AULs on file for the subject property

4.5 ASSESSOR'S OFFICE
Agency Date
Contacted
Method of
Contact
Name & Title of
Contact Agency Response
Santa Clara County
Assessor's Office
January 26,
2026
Online N/A Information obtained is
discussed below
Records Summary
APN(s) 375-40-067
Acreage 1.48 acres
Construction Date 1956 (former building)
Building Square
Footage
2,754 square feet (former building)
Current Owner Not provided

4.6 OTHER AGENCIES SEARCHED
Agency Date
Contacted
Method
of
Contact
Name & Title of Contact Agency
Response
CA State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB)
GeoTracker
January
26, 2026
Online https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov Records
discussed
below
SWRCB GeoTracker PFAS Map January
26, 2026
Online N/A No
subject
property
records on
file
SWRCB GeoTracker Historical
Hazardous Substance Storage
Information
January
26, 2026
Online N/A No
subject
property
records on
file
CA Department of Toxic
Substances Control (DTSC)
Hazardous Waste Tracking
System (HWTS)
January
26, 2026
Online N/A Records
discussed
below
CA DTSC EnviroStor January
26, 2026
Online https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov Records
discussed
below
CalEPA Regulated Site Portal January
26, 2026
Online N/A Records
discussed
below
Project No. 522669
February 2, 2026

Page 20 ends

Agency Date
Contacted
Method
of
Contact
Name & Title of Contact Agency
Response
Bay Area Air Quality
Management District
(BAAQMD)
January
16, 2026
Email Rochele Henderson, Public Records
Section
No
subject
property
records on
file
Valley Water (formerly Santa
Clara Valley Water District)
Well Database
January
26, 2026
Online https://gis.valleywater.org/wellinfo/ No
subject
property
records on
file
Valley Water (formerly Santa
Clara Valley Water District)
Historic Solvent Case
Database
January
26, 2026
Online https://www.valleywater.org/
accordion/fuel-leaks-and-solvents
No
subject
property
records on
file
CA SWRCB GeoTracker Online Database
The subject property, identified as Ms. Aida M. Pestarino, is listed in the Geotracker database as a Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) site with a status of "Completed-Closed" as of March 1997 relating to a release of gasoline which impacted soil only. The following case history is based on information available on the Geotracker database, including the case closure summary.

One single-wall, bare steel 500-gallon gasoline UST, located on the northeast portion of the parcel, was removed in August 1996. At the time of its removal, the owner stated that the UST had been drained of its liquid at some time in the past and had not been used for approximately 20 years. Following removal of the UST, the resulting excavation cavity measured approximately 5 feet wide by 8 feet long by 7 feet deep. Only a minor odor of petroleum hydrocarbons was detected. No standing water was observed in the bottom or seeping from the sides of the excavation. In addition, about 10 feet of steel vent, fill and product lines were removed from the UST area. No product was observed in these lines during removal. A dispenser was not present at the time of the UST removal. Two confirmation soil samples were collected under the excavated UST, one from under the north end and one from under the south end. The samples were collected from native soils by backhoe bucket at depths of approximately one foot below the bottom of the UST. Considerable effort was made to retrieve these samples from the locations observed, believed, or most likely to contain the highest petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations. The two samples were analyzed for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPHg), benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, and methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). The excavation was backfilled to grade with approximately 15 cubic yards of clean native fill.

TPHg, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes were detected in the confirmation soil samples at maximum concentrations of 60 parts per million (ppm), 0.081 ppm, 0.030 ppm,

0.13 ppm, and 0.094 ppm, respectively. The maximum residual concentrations of benzene and ethylbenzene at concentrations of 0.081 ppm and 0.13 ppm, respectively, do not exceed 2025 shallow soil residential direct contact Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) prescribed by the SF Bay CSWRCB.

Project No. 522669
February 2, 2026

Page 21 ends

Based on review of work performed above and analytical results of the confirmation soil samples, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) concluded that due to the low levels of hydrocarbons reported at the site, the agency believed that with time residual pollution would naturally attenuate and did not require any further corrective action at the time. The SCVWD issued case closure with no redevelopment conditions for the LUST case in a letter dated March 26, 1997.

Based on the regulatory status and analytical results of the soil confirmation samples from native soil underlying the UST excavation cavity, the closed LUST case is not expected to represent evidence of a REC. The existence of a closed LUST case with no redevelopment conditions for the subject property constitutes an HREC.

CalEPA DTSC HWTS Online Database
According to the database, Aida Pestarino manifested 0.25-tons of other empty containers >= 30-gallons in 1996 and Sedgwick Elementary School manifested 0.69-tons of asbestos-containing waste in 2018. It is expected that the waste manifested in 1996 was generated as part of UST-removal activities (discussed above) while the waste manifested in 2018 was generated during demolition of the former on-site residential structures.

CalEPA DTSC Envirostor Online Database
The subject property, identified as Sedgwick Elementary School Expansion Project, is listed in the Envirostor database as a School Cleanup site with a status of "Certified" as of February 2019. The following case history is based on information available on the Envirostor database, including the September 2015 Preliminary Environmental Assessment (PEA) and the February 2019 certification letter.

In preparation for potential expansion of Sedgwick School, the Cupertino Union School District entered an Environmental Oversight Agreement (EPA) with the CalEPA DTSC in March 2015.

The expansion property will not increase the number of students or classrooms at the existing Sedgwick Elementary School. Potable water and sewer services will continue to be provided by the local municipality. Historically, the subject property operated as an orchard from 1939 to 1956 and had been used as residential property since 1956. Two small, single-room dwellings were located to the south of a workshop. The dwellings were of wood-frame construction, resting on concrete blocks. A 500-gallon gasoline UST was removed from the subject property in 1996. The Santa Clara Valley Water District subsequently issued a March 1997 case closure letter stating that no further action related to the UST release was required.

A Preliminary Environmental Assessment (PEA) and Supplemental Site Investigation (SSI) were completed to investigate and delineate, respectively, the subject property for the following environmental conditions that may pose a threat to human health or the environment: 1) organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) and arsenic in soils from historic agricultural use, 2) lead in soils from weathering of lead-based paint potentially used on existing and historic on-site building structures, 3) OCPs in soils from potential termiticide use around existing and historic on-site building structures with wood components, 4) polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in soils from the weathering of sealant compounds used in existing and historic building structures,and 5) volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline in soils from former on-site UST.

Project No. 522669
February 2, 2026

Page 22 ends

Results of the PEA soil gas assessment from a single soil vapor probe within the former UST tankhold 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 subject property was not warranted.

The results of the PEA screening level risk assessment estimated the total risk from chemicals of concern (COCs) identified in soils at the subject property to be 3.2 x 10(-5), which provides an increased cancer risk of greater than 1 in 1,000,000. The total health hazard from COCs identified in soils at the subject property was estimated to be 0.46, which does not provide an increased health hazard (i.e., >1 ). Therefore, a response action to reduce or eliminate the chlordane- and lead-impacted soils in the area of the workshop/single-room dwelling and residence was recommended. The purpose of the response action was to mitigate potential risk to human health and the environment by the excavation and off-site disposal of soils containing concentrations of chlordane and lead exceeding the DTSC-modified screening level for chlordane and lead of 0.43 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) and 80 mg/kg, respectively. A screening-level human health risk assessment was conducted using the unrestricted land-use scenario. The Removal Action Workplan (RAW) activities focused on excavating approximately 300 cubic yards of chlordane- and lead-contaminated soils. According to the Removal Action Completion Report (RACR), response action field activities were completed in October 2018.

Confirmation soil sampling and chemical analyses were conducted when the planned soil excavation activities were completed. Confirmation soil samples were collected from the bottom and side walls of the excavation areas and were chemically analyzed by an analytical laboratory for the presence of OCPs and lead. The results of the confirmation soil sampling and subsequent screening level risk assessment indicated that the objectives and cleanup goals of the response action had been met. Excavated soil was temporarily stockpiled on-site and characterized for waste disposal. Approximately 257 tons (approximately 160 cy) of soils classified as non-hazardous waste were transported to Republic Services, Inc. Newby Island Landfill Facility located in Milpitas, Santa Clara County, California for disposal. The actual volume of soils removed from the subject property was less than the estimated volume (300 cy) due to the discovery of deep concrete foundation walls, at several locations, that reduced the area of interior excavation and volume of soils requiring removal.

The total risk from OCPs identified in soil confirmation samples collected at the subject property was estimated to be 5.02 x 10-1, which does not present an increased cancer risk of greater than 1 in 1,000,000 (>1 o-6). The total health hazard index from COCs identified in soils at the subject property was estimated to be 0.01, which does not present an increased health hazard index (i.e., >1 ). Therefore, further remediation at the subject property for OCPs in soils was not warranted. Lead concentrations reported in confirmation soil samples collected at the subject property ranged from 8.2 to 55 mg/kg. Using the calculated 95 percent upper confidence limit for lead of 24 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 property will result in a 90th percentile blood lead concentration of 0.6 micrograms per deciliter in children, which is below the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment's blood toxicity level of 1 micrograms per liter.

Therefore, further remediation for lead in soils at the property was not warranted.

Project No. 522669
February 2, 2026

Page 23 ends

Confirmation soil sample results verified that removal action objectives and cleanup goals were achieved and that the subject property no longer poses an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment.

The DTSC approved the revised RACR and certified that all response actions have been completed and further removal/remedial actions are not necessary for the subject property in a letter dated February 28, 2019.

Based on the regulatory status and soil gas/soil human health screening discussed above, the closed Envirostor case is not expected to represent evidence of a REC. The certification was based on unrestricted land use which constitutes an HREC for the subject property.

CalEPA Regulated Site Portal
The subject property, identified as Pestarino Property, is listed as a LUST site issued closure by local regulatory authorities in March 1997; refer to the above LUST case for further discussion.

The subject property, identified as Sedgwick Elementary School Expansion Project, is listed as a School Cleanup site issued closure by local regulatory authorities; refer to the above Envirostor case for further discussion.

No other agencies were contacted during the course of this assessment.

4.7 OIL AND GAS WELLS
Agency Date
Referenced Resource Oil or gas wells located within 500 feet of the subject property
California Geologic Energy
Management Division (CalGEM)
January 26,
2026
CalGEM
Map
No

4.8 OIL AND GAS PIPELINES
Agency Date
Referenced Resource Pipelines located within 500 feet of the subject property
National Pipeline Mapping
System (NPMS)
January 26,
2026
NPMS Public Map
Viewer
No
Project No. 522669
February 2, 2026

Page 24 ends

5.0 REGULATORY DATABASE RECORDS REVIEW
AEI contracted EDR to conduct a search of publicly available information from federal, state, tribal, and local databases containing known and suspected sites of environmental contamination and sites of potential environmental significance. Data gathered during the current regulatory database search is compiled by EDR into one regulatory database report.

Location information for listed sites is designated using geocoded information provided by federal, state, or local agencies and commonly used mapping databases with the exception of "Orphan" sites. Due to poor or inadequate address information, Orphan sites are identified but not geocoded/mapped by EDR, rather, information is provided based upon vicinity zip codes, city name, and state. The minimum search distance from the federal and state environmental records database listings specified in the current ASTM Standard E1527 is included in Section

5.1. A copy of the regulatory database report, which includes detailed descriptions of the databases noted below as well as the total number of sites identified, is included in Appendix C of this report.

In determining if a listed site is a potential environmental concern to the subject property, AEI generally applies the following criteria to classify the site as lower potential environmental concern: 1) the site only holds an operating permit (which does not imply a release), 2) the site's distance from, and/or topographic position relative to, the subject property, and/or 3) the site has recently been granted "No Further Action" by the appropriate regulatory agency.

Regulatory database listings associated with the subject property, adjoining properties and/ or nearby sites of concern that were determined to warrant additional discussion, if any, are identified and further discussed in Section 5.1.

5.1 RECORDS SUMMARY
Database
Search
Distance
(Miles)
Subject
Property
Adjoining
Property
Other Nearby Sites
of Concern
Federal NPL (Superfund) sites 1.0
Federal Delisted NPL sites 0.5
Federal CERCLA removals/orders
sites

0.5 Federal CERCLA sites with NFRAP 0.5
Federal RCRA facilities undergoing
Corrective Action

1.0 Federal RCRA TSD facilities 0.5
Federal RCRA generators (LQG,

SQG, VSQG)
SP/ADJ
Federal RCRA NonGen/NLR sites SP/ADJ  
Federal IC/EC sites SP
Federal ERNS sites SP
State/tribal "Superfund" equivalent
sites

1.0 State/tribal hazardous waste
facilities

0.5 
State/tribal landfill and solid waste
disposal facilities

0.5 State/tribal leaking storage tanks 0.5 
State/tribal registered storage
tanks
SP/ADJ
Project No. 522669
February 2, 2026

Page 25 ends

Database
Search
Distance
(Miles)
Subject
Property
Adjoining
Property
Other Nearby Sites
of Concern
State/tribal voluntary cleanup sites 0.5
State/tribal IC/EC registries SP
State/tribal brownfield sites 0.5
Orphans N/A
Additional Environmental Record
lists
SP/ADJ 
Facility Name Pestarino Property, Sedgwick Elementary
Address 10480 Finch Avenue
Distance & Direction Subject Property
Hydrologic Position N/A
Databases Listed ENVIROSTOR, RGA LUST (x2), LUST, HIST LUST, SCH, Cortese, HIST CORTESE, UST FINDER RELEASE, CERS, HWTS, HAZNET, RCRA NonGen/NLR, FINDS (x2), ECHO
Comments According to the regulatory database, Pestarino Property is listed as a LUST site issued closure by a Santa Clara County agency in March 1997. Aida Pestarino manifested other empty containers >= 30-gallons in 1996, expected to have been generated as part of UST removal activities.

Sedgwick Elementary School is listed as a School Cleanup site with a status of "Certified" issued by the CalEPA DTSC in February 2019. Sedgwick Elementary manifested asbestos-containing waste in 2018, expected to have been generated during demolition of the former on-site residential structures.

Listings are discussed in detail in Section 4.6.

Review of the above information did not reveal any evidence of RECs, although HRECs were identified as a result of the case closures.

Facility Name 630 Stendhal Lane
Address 630 Stendhal Lane
Distance & Direction Adjoining to the west
Hydrologic Position Up-gradient
Databases Listed RCRA NonGen/NLR
Comments According to the regulatory database, 630 Stendhal Lane is listed as a non- generator of RCRA waste in January 2019 with no historic generator or violation data. No other pertinent information is included.

No unauthorized releases are associated with the above facility name. Based on the lack of a documented release, the review of regulatory agency files for this site was not deemed necessary, and the site does not represent a REC.

5.2 VAPOR MIGRATION
A vapor encroachment condition (VEC) is the presence or likely presence of Chemical(s) of Concern (COC) vapors in the vadose zone of the subject property caused by the release of vapors from contaminated soil and/or groundwater either on or near the subject property.

Project No. 522669
February 2, 2026

Page 26 ends

AEI conducted a limited screening for potential VECsthat may affect the subject property. The VEC screening focused on the current and historical usage of the subject property and also utilized the aforementioned regulatory agency database report provided by EDR to evaluate identified Chemicals of Concern (COCs), including petroleum hydrocarbons.

Determination of AOC
To identify the area of concern (AOC) for contaminated sites with non-petroleum hydrocarbon COCs, AEI utilized the approximate minimum search distance defined by the current ASTM E2600 of 1,760 feet (1/3 mile) from the subject property boundary for COC-contaminated sites. For sites contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbon COCs, AEI utilized the AOC approximate minimum search distance of 528 feet (1/10 mile). The AOC was adjusted accordingly based on review of physical setting characteristics, known release information, property and land features, groundwater flow direction, and soil type, et al.

ASTM's Vapor Encroachment guidance indicates that when groundwater flow direction can be estimated or determined, the cross-gradient or downgradient radius distances can be significantly reduced. AEI calculated the reduced AOC distances when considering groundwater flow direction by utilizingthe following default distances, which were determined using the Buonicore Methodology:

Non-petroleum hydrocarbon COCs:
• 1,760 feet in the upgradient direction
• 365 feet in the cross-gradient direction
• 100 feet in the downgradient direction
Petroleum hydrocarbon COCs if Light, Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid, (LNAPL, i.e. floating product) is suspected:
• 528 feet in the upgradient direction
• 165 feet in the cross-gradient direction
• 100 feet in the downgradient direction
Petroleum hydrocarbon COCs if LNAPL is not suspected:
• 528 feet in the upgradient direction
• 95 feet in the cross-gradient direction
• 30 feet in the downgradient position
Additional adjustment of the AOC may be conducted based on AEI's professional judgment.

Conclusions
Source VEC
Identified
VEC Not
Identified Comments
Subject Property  N/A
Adjoining and/or Nearby Site(s)  N/A
Project No. 522669
February 2, 2026

Page 27 ends

5.3 PER- AND POLYFLUOROALKYL SUBSTANCES (PFAS)
As defined in Section 3.2.36 of the current ASTM Standard E1527, hazardous substance means “those substances defined as a hazardous substance pursuant to CERCLA 42 USC § 9601(14), as interpreted by EPA regulations and the courts.” Hazardous substances that are not defined (or not yet defined) as hazardous substances under CERCLA are outside of the scope of the current ASTM Standard E1527.

On July 8, 2024, the Final EPA rule became effective that designates perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) as CERCLA hazardous substances. Per the current ASTM Standard E1527, once this rule went into effect, these substances are evaluated within the scope of this standard, and a release or likely release of PFOA and/or PFOS is considered a REC.

Other than PFOA/PFOS, compounds classified as PFAS are not currently classified as hazardous substances under CERCLA, and thus the potential presence of PFAS (other than PFOA/PFOS) is outside of the scope of the current ASTM Standard E1527, and does not constitute a REC at this time. However, the report User should be aware that regulatory criteria and classifications are subject to change.

AEI's research of potential PFAS contamination focuses on the release/likely release of PFOA/ PFOS. However, if additional information pertaining to other PFAS is identified, AEI will also assess/discuss these compounds, as deemed applicable/appropriate within the scope of this investigation.

It should be noted that AEI's screening of PFOA/PFOS and other PFAS is based solely on review of the resources cited within this report. Identification, or lack thereof, is not a warranty that PFOA/PFOS or other PFAS contamination is present or absent at a site. Additionally, it should be noted that given the evolving nature of science and regulatory oversight of PFOA/PFOS and other PFAS, additional sources of contamination may exist at the subject property, adjoining properties and/or other nearby sites that were not identified by thelimited data and screening tools cited within this report.

5.3.1 POTENTIAL ON-SITE PFAS SOURCES/CONCERNS
AEI researched the standard historical and regulatory sources cited within this report to determine if a release or likely release of PFOA/PFOS has occurred at the subject property.

A voluntary industry phaseout of PFOA and PFOS was first implemented in the late 1990s and was fully implemented for PFOS by 2002 and PFOA by 2015. Although PFOA and PFOS have been generally phased out since 2015, studies have found that precursor PFAS in wastewater treatment systems may form PFOA and PFOS. As such, even after 2015, the presence of PFAS in wastewater discharges is considered a likely source of PFOA and PFOS contamination.

Potential Source Yes No
Past or present industrial operations that potentially included the use of PFAS (if "yes" see Potential PFAS Sources from Industrial Uses section/table below)  The use or discharge of AFFF (if "yes" see Potential Sources of AFFF section/table below)  Electroplating (1950s-present)
NOTE: Electroplating (specifically hard chromium plating) is an industrial activity where PFAS-containing mist suppressants may have been used

Agricultural uses, specifically 1970s-present that included application of biosolids/WWTP sludge that potentially contained PFAS  Project No. 522669
February 2, 2026

Page 28 ends

Potential Source Yes No
Wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) (1960s-present) 
Landfill operations / waste disposal areas (1960s-present)  Mining / quarrying / oil production 
Commercial carwash (1989-2010) 
Dry cleaner and/or commercial laundry (1970s-2010) 
Based on a review of historical sources, the subject property was historical used for agricultural uses. However, agricultural uses ceased on or prior to the 1970s. As such, it is considered unlikely that biosolids containing PFAS were spread at the subject property.

Project No. 522669
February 2, 2026

Page 29 ends

6.0 INTERVIEWS AND USER PROVIDED INFORMATION

6.1 INTERVIEWS
Pursuant to the current ASTM Standard E1527, the following interviews were performed during this assessment in order to obtain information indicating RECs in connection with the subject property.

6.1.1 INTERVIEW WITH OWNER
Name Cupertino Union School District, c/o Superintendent Date Interviewed N/A
Method of Contact N/A
Year First Associated
w/Property
2017 (per PropertyShark.com)
Notes Not interviewed; refer to Section 1.5

6.1.2 INTERVIEW WITH KEY SITE MANAGER
Name Mr. Jason Bocanegra, Cupertino Union School District, Maintenance & Grounds Operations Manager
Date Interviewed January 23, 2026
Method of Contact Telephone
Year First Associated
w/Property
2019
Notes Interviewed; see below
Interview Summary Mr. Bocanegra stated that the subject property was historically occupied by a single-family residence. Mr. Bocanegra was not aware of any environmental issues associated with the subject property, nor any existing or former UST, ASTs, oil-water separators, sumps, septic tanks, or wells.

Mr. Jason Bocanegra, Cupertino Union School District, Maintenance & Grounds Operations Manager was asked if they were aware of any of the following:

Yes No
Any knowledge of USTs, clarifiers or oil/water separators, sumps, or other subsurface features. 
Any knowledge of previous environmental investigations conducted on site.  Any knowledge of current or past industrial operations and/or other operations which would involve the use of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products.

Any known plans for site redevelopment or change in site use.  Any pending, threatened, or past litigation relevant to hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or from the property. 
Any pending, threatened or past administrative proceedings relevant to hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or from the property.  Any notices from any governmental entity regarding any possible violation of environmental laws or possible liability relating to hazardous substances or petroleum products.

Any incidents of flooding, leaks, or other water intrusion, and/or complaints related to indoor air quality. 
Project No. 522669
February 2, 2026

Page 30 ends

6.1.3 PAST OWNERS, OPERATORS, AND OCCUPANTS
AEI did not attempt to interview past owners, operators, and occupants of the subject property because information from these sources would likely be duplicative of information already obtained from other sources.

6.1.4 INTERVIEW WITH OTHERS
Information obtained during interviews with local government officials is incorporated into the appropriate segments of this report.

6.2 USER PROVIDED INFORMATION
User provided information is intended to help identify the possibility of RECs in connection with the subject property. According to the current ASTM Standard E1527 and the EPA Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR Part 312), certain items should be researched by the prospective landowner or grantee, and the results of such inquiries may be provided to the Environmental Professional. The responsibility for qualifying for LLPs by conducting the inquiries ultimately rests with the User, and providing the information to the Environmental Professional would be prudent if such information is available.

The User did not complete the ASTM User Questionnaire or provide the User information to AEI.

AEI assumes that qualification for the LLPs is being established by the User in documentation outside of this assessment.

Question Response/ Comment

1. Environmental liens that are filed or recorded against the property (40 CFR 312.25)
Did a search of recorded land title records (or judicial records where appropriate) identify any environmental liens filed or recorded against the property under federal, tribal, state or local law?
Information not
provided

2. Activity and use limitations that are in place on the property or that have been filed or recorded against the property (40 CFR 312.26(a)(1)(v) and vi)).

Did a search of recorded land title records (or judicial records where appropriate) identify any AULs, such as engineering controls, land use restrictions or institutional controls that are in place at the property and/or have been filed or recorded against the property under federal, tribal, state or local law?
Information not
provided

3. Specialized knowledge or experience of the person seeking to qualify for the LLP (40 CFR 312.28).

Do you have any specialized knowledge or experience related to the property or nearby properties? For example, are you involved in the same line of business as the current or former occupants of the property or an adjoining property so that you would have specialized knowledge of the chemicals and processes used by this type of business?
Information not
provided

4. Relationship of the purchase price to the fair market value of the property if it were not contaminated (40 CFR 312.29).

Does the purchase price being paid for this property reasonably reflect the fair market value of the property? If you conclude that there is a difference, have you considered whether the lower purchase price is because contamination is known or believed to be present at the property?
Information not
provided
Project No. 522669
February 2, 2026

Page 31 ends

Question Response/ Comment

5. Commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information about the property (40 CFR 312.30).

Are you aware of commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information about the property that would help the environmental professional to identify conditions indicative of releases or threatened releases? For example:
(a) Do you know the past uses of the property?
(b) Do you know of specific chemicals that are present or once were present at the property?
(c) Do you know of spills or other chemical releases that have taken place at the property?
(d) Do you know of any environmental cleanups that have taken place at the property?
Information not
provided

6. The degree of obviousness of the presence or likely presence of contamination at the property, and the ability to detect the contamination by appropriate investigation (40 CFR 312.31).

Based on your knowledge and experience related to the property, are there any obvious indicators that point to the presence or likely presence of contamination at the property?
Information not
provided
Purpose/reason for conducting Phase I ESA: Information not provided; AEI
assumes the purpose
is to qualify for an
LLP to CERCLA
liability

6.3 PREVIOUS REPORTS AND OTHER PROVIDED DOCUMENTATION
No prior reports or other relevant documentation in association with the subject property was made available to AEI during the course of this assessment.

6.4 ENVIRONMENTAL LIEN AND AUL SEARCH INFORMATION REPORTS To meet the requirements of 40 CFR 312.20 and 312.25, a search for the existence of environmental liens and AULs that are filed or recorded against the subject property must be conducted. The current ASTM Standard E1527 recognizes two acceptable methods to meet this requirement:
• Method 1 consists of a review of title documents by the User (or a title professional engaged by the User) for environmental liens and AULs.

Note: this method must be completed by the User (or a title professional engaged by the User), and thus cannot be completed by AEI.

Refer to Section 6.2 User Provided Information for information (if any) provided by the User via the User Questionnaire.
• Method 2 consists of obtaining and relying on title search information reports designed to search for environmental liens and AULs.

Project No. 522669
February 2, 2026

Page 32 ends

Note: these reports are not included within the scope of the current ASTM E1527 Standard. Thus, these reports can only be obtained by a consultant if explicitly added to the agreed upon scope of work between the consultant and the client.

The inclusion of a title search information report designed to search for environmental liens and AULs was not part of AEI’s approved scope of services.

Project No. 522669
February 2, 2026

Page 33 ends

7.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE
Site Reconnaissance Date January 23, 2026
AEI Site Assessor(s) Adrian Angel
Property Escort(s)/
Relationship(s) to Property
Mr. Jason Bocanegra/Maintenance & Grounds Operations Manager for the Cupertino Union School District
Units/Areas Observed Ground surface of subject property Area(s) not accessed and
reason(s)
None
Other Physical Constraints
• Volume of vegetation
Refer to Section 1.5 for discussion of limiting condition(s) General Observations The subject property consists of vacant land on a roughly square- shaped parcel. No improvements were observed with the exception of metal perimeter fencing. No hazardous materials or features of concern were observed on-site.

Reconnaissance Findings Summary
Feature
Observed on
Subject Property
(see Section 7.1)
Observed on
Adjoining Property
(see Section 7.2)
Regulated Hazardous Substances/Wastes and/or Petroleum
Products in Connection with Property Use (including drums, totes, and intermediate bulk containers)
Aboveground/Underground Hazardous Substance or
Petroleum Product Storage Tanks (ASTs/USTs)
Hazardous Substance and Petroleum Product Containers Not in Connection with Property Use
Unidentified Substance Containers
Electrical or Mechanical Equipment Likely to Contain Fluids Interior Stains or Corrosion
Strong, Pungent, or Noxious Odors
Pools of Liquid
Drains, Sumps, and Clarifiers 
Pits, Ponds, and Lagoons
Stained Soil or Pavement
Stressed Vegetation
Solid Waste Disposal or Evidence of Fill Materials
Waste Water Discharges
Wells
Septic Systems or Cesspools
Biomedical Wastes
Other

7.1 SUBJECT PROPERTY RECONNAISSANCE FINDINGS
During the site reconnaissance, AEI did not observe any of the items listed in the above Reconnaissance Findings Summary table.

Project No. 522669
February 2, 2026

Page 34 ends

7.2 ADJOINING PROPERTY RECONNAISSANCE FINDINGS
During the site reconnaissance, AEI observed the items listed in the above Reconnaissance Findings Summary table, which are further discussed below.

7.2.1 DRAINS, SUMPS, AND CLARIFIERS
Several storm drains were observed in the parking areas of the adjoining properties and adjoining roadways. AEI did not observe evidence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in the vicinity of the drains. Based on the use of the drain s solely for storm water runoff, the presence of the drains is not considered evidence of a REC.

Project No. 522669
February 2, 2026

Page 35 ends

8.0 NON-ASTM SERVICES

8.1 ASBESTOS-CONTAINING BUILDING MATERIALS
The subject property is currently vacant land or lacks structures. Consequently, no building components containing suspect asbestos containing materials were identified during the site inspection.

8.2 LEAD-BASED PAINT
The subject property is currently vacant land or lacks structures. Consequently, AEI did not observe building components likely to contain suspect LBP during the site reconnaissance.

8.3 NATURALLY-OCCURRING RADON
Radon is a naturally-occurring, odorless, and invisible radioactive gas. According to the United States EPA, radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer. Natural radon levels vary and are closely related to geologic formations, soils, and foundation construction. Radon may enter buildings through basement sumps or other openings such as cracks and other holes in foundations.

US EPA Map
In 1993 the United States EPA prepared a map to assist national, state, and local organizations to target their resources and to implement radon-resistant building codes. The Map of Radon Zones should not be used to determine if individual buildings need to be tested. The map identifies counties of the US with the greatest potential for elevated indoor radon levels based on indoor radon measurement data, geology, soil parameters, and foundation types. The map divides the country into three radon zones based on potential radon accumulation, but is not to be considered predictive of radon accumulation.

The 1993 EPA map identifies the following three radon zones:
• Zone 1 - Average indoor radon levels may be greater than 4.0 pCi/L • Zone 2 - Average indoor radon levels may be between 2.0 and 4.0 pCi/L • Zone 3 - Average indoor radon levels may be less than 2.0 pCi/L It is important to note that elevated levels of radon can be found in all three zones, and the EPA and other agencies recommend site-specific testing to determine radon levels at a specific property.

It should also be noted that EPA's 1993 Map of Radon Zones was based on limited data collected prior to 1993 and therefore may be supplemented with available state-developed or other data to further understand the radon potential for a specific area.

According to the US EPA, the assigned radon zone level for the County is Zone 2, which predicts an average indoor screening level between 2.0 pCi/L and 4.0 pCi/L, which is below or at the action level of 4.0 pCi/L assigned by the US EPA.

California Department of Health Services Radon Database Project No. 522669
February 2, 2026

Page 36 ends

According to additional data obtained from California Department of Health Services Radon Database, of 93 tests conducted in the subject property zip code (95014) in 2016, 4of the tests were above 4.0 pCi/L. While a relatively small percentage of the test results exceeded the EPA threshold, the majority of the locations sampled were below 4.0 pCi/L.

Radon sampling would be necessary to determine site-specific radon conditions. Radon sampling was not requested as part of this assessment.

8.4 SUSPECT MOLD OR MICROBIAL GROWTH CONDITIONS
The subject property is currently vacant land or lacks structures. Consequently, suspect mold was not addressed as part of this assessment.

Project No. 522669
February 2, 2026

Page 37 ends

9.0 SIGNATURE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS
We declare that, to the best of our professional knowledge and belief, we meet the definition of Environmental Professional as defined in § 312.10 of 40 CFR Part 312.

We have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history and setting of the subject property. We have developed and performed the all appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312.

Prepared By: Reviewed By:

Adrian Angel Cameron Stanley, PG
Associate Geoscientist Senior Author
Project No. 522669
February 2, 2026

Page 38 ends

10.0 REFERENCES
Item Date(s) Source
Soils Information Accessed January 2026 USDA Web Soil Survey http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/
app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx
Depth to Groundwater
Information
February 2019 Removal Action Completion Report,
Sedgwick Elementary School
Expansion Project, 10480 Finch
Avenue, Cupertino, CA, prepared by
Padre Associates Inc.

Aerial Photographs 1939-2022, non-inclusive EDR
Sanborn Map Report/Search September 10, 2025 EDR
City Directories 1962-2022, non-inclusive EDR
Historical Topographic Maps 1889-2021, non-inclusive EDR Environmental Health Department January 16, 2026 Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health
Fire Department September 11, 2025 Santa Clara County Fire Department Building Department January 16, 2026 Cupertino Building Department Planning Department January 16, 2026 Cupertino Planning Department Assessor's Information and Parcel
Map
January 26, 2026 Santa Clara County
Other Agencies Searched January 16, 2026 (BAAQMD)
January 26, 2026 (others)
SWRCB GeoTracker, DTSC
HWTS, DTSC EnviroStor, CalEPA
Regulated Site Portal, and Valley
Water (formerly Santa Clara Valley
Water District)
Oil and Gas Wells January 26, 2026 California Geologic Energy Management Division
Oil and Gas Pipelines January 26, 2026 NPMS Public Map Viewer https://www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov/
PublicViewer/composite.jsf
Regulatory Database Report January 13, 2026 EDR
Interview with Key Site Manager January 23, 2026 Mr. Jason Bocanegra, Cupertino Union School District, Maintenance
& Grounds Operations Manager
Radon Zone Information 1993 US EPA Map of Radon Zones
https://www.epa.gov/radon
Additional Radon Information 2016 California Department of Health Services Radon Database
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/
Programs/CEH/DRSEM/Pages/EMB/
Radon/Radon-Test-Results.aspx
Project No. 522669
February 2, 2026

Page 39 ends

Cupertino City CouncilJuly 7, 2026

Cupertino City Council
July 7, 2026