The URL can be used to link to this page

11. Tantau office buildingCity of Cupertino 10300 Torre A~°enue Cupertino, CA 95014 0108) 777--,3308 Fax_ (-108) 777 33.3.3 CUPERTINO Community Development Department Summary Agenda Item 11-0. ~ ~ ._ Agenda Date: Tanuary- 8, ~~ Application: Li-200-09 (F~-X00710), A~:~-20(Y7-1~, TR-?00~-06 Applicant: Larry Wallerstein, Tantau Investments, LLC Property Owner_ Tantau Investments, LLC Properly Location: 10900 ~. Tantau Avenue Application Summary: 1_ tTSE PER~iI1' and ARCHITECTtl`R.~L Al'~~D SIIE', APPROVAL to construct a 100,000 square foot, tiro-story ofi~nce building c~rith site improvements. 2 TREE RE1~sIOV ~L PIIZAoIlT for the removal of 37 trees to construct a 100,000 square foot, two-story ofEce building with site improvements_ 3. El I~IRO~I".r~L D~ATIO~. 1~8egati~-e Declaration recommended. The project gill have no significant, adverse environmental impacts with the proposed mitigation measures. RECOI~i~III11DATI01~: The Planni~,g Commi«aon recommends on a 3-0 rote that the City Council approve: 1_ negative Declaration (E~~ 200! 10) 2. Ilse Permit (L1-200-09) and Architectural and Site Approval (ASS 2007-1~) to rnnstruct a 100,000 square foot, tv--o-story office building with site improvements, in accordance with Resolution 1~os. 6497 and (2198_. 3_ Tree Re>~o~-al (TR-2007-06) for the re>mnoval of 37 trees, in accordance with Resolution 1~0. Ea499_ Project Data: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Specific Plan: Acreage Cl~let): Proposed Building SF: First Floor SF: Second Floor SF: Industrial/Residential P (~t1P) forth Vallco Spedal Center 6.6 saes 100,000 square feet 50,320 square feet 49,680 square feet 11-1 U-2007-09 Page 2 January 8, 2007 Proposed Building Height: Total Parking Proposed: Project Consistency with: General Plan: Zoning: North Vallco Park Special Center: 35.5 feet 416 spaces (up to 500 spaces in future) Yes Yes Yes Environmental Assessment: Negative Declaration BACKGROUND On December 11, 2007, the Planning Commission recommended approval of a Use Permit and Architectural and Site Approval to the City Council on a 3-0 vote (Commissioner Miller was absent) , to construct a new 100,000 square foot, two-story office building, with additional conditions of approval pertaining to tree planting and green building requirements. The Commission also recommended a Tree Removal permit to remove 37 trees to accommodate the new development. The applicant is voluntarily proposing to obtain LEED Silver certification for the project, and will be incorporating a number of green building features, including a cool wall exterior, sun shading and insulating glass windows. The LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) New Construction Rating System is a point based rating system allowing up to a maximum of 69 points for various green building features that are incorporated into a project. Each green building feature is assigned a certain point value. In order to obtain LEED silver certification, the applicant will be attaining between 33 and 38 points of the 69 points. The project site is a 6.6 acre property located on the east side of N. Tantau Avenue, south of Homestead Road and Forge Drive. The site is currently vacant, except for a groundwater extraction treatment system located on the northeast corner of the site. The site was identified as part of a 15-acre U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Superfund site that also includes other surrounding properties due to chlorinated VOCs (volatile organic compounds) that were found within the soil and groundwater. The soil contamination on the site was completely mitigated in 1993; however, the groundwater extraction treatment system will continue to operate. The site was previously developed with a 94,874 square foot building that was occupied between 1967 -1988 by a company that fabricated integrated circuits and semiconductor devices and between 1992 - 1998 by General Electric. The building was demolished in 1998 and has subsequently been vacant. DISCUSSION Planning Commission Comments The Planning Commission recommended two additional conditions of approval that were incorporated into Resolution Nos. 6497, 6498 and 6499. The Commission recommended that all new trees planted on site be native species of trees and that the 11 -2 U-2007-09 Page 3 January 8, 2007 LEED Silver green building certification the applicant will be obtaining for the development is for the New Construction category. These conditions of approval have been incorporated into Condition Nos. 6, 7, and 16 of the Use Permit and Architectural and Site approval resolutions, and into Condition No. 4 of the Tree Removal resolution. Public Comments During the public hearing, the Commission also heard from two members of the public. One person asked for clarifications on the estimated construction duration of the project, what new tree species would be planted, and when the applicant would be holding the neighborhood meeting. The other member of the public stated that she was pleased with the plans for the building. The applicant responded to the questions stating that the anticipated start of construction would begin in April and last for 11 months, and that the neighborhood meeting would take place on Monday, December 17, 2007. The Commission clarified that they would be recommending that any new trees planted on site would be native trees. ENCLOSURES Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 6497, 6498, and 6499. Exhibit A: Planning Commission staff report dated December 11, 2007 (with attachments). Exhibit B: Negative Declaration Prepared by: Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Planner Sub itte Steve Piasecki ' Director, Community Development Approved by: ~~~~~ David W. Knapp City Manager G:\Planning\PDREPORT\CC\U-2007-09 CC Report.doc 11 -3 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6497 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 100,000 SQUARE FOOT, TWO-STORY OFFICE BUILDING SECTION I: FINDINGS ~~ WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with'the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1j The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; and 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of the Conditional Use Permits Chapter of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 3) The proposed development is consistent with the ~ North Vallco Park Special Center Area and North Vallco Master Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for a Use Permit is hereby approved, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beguining on Page 2 thereof; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. U-2007-09 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of December 11, 2007, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: U-2007-09 Applicant: Larry Wallerstein, Tantau Investments, LLC Location: 10900 N. Tantau Avenue 11 -4 Resolution No. 6497 U-2007-09 December 11, 2007 Page 2 SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS The approval is based on Exhibits submitted by Devcon Construction, Inc., titled: "10900 N. Tantau, Cupertino, CA," consisting of 18 pages labeled A0.1 through A9.1, Civil 1-3, LP-1, TS-1, E2.1, E2.2, and Land Title Survey, and a colored rendering of the project, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. 2. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Approval is granted to construct a 100,000 square foot, two-story office building and associated site improvements as shown iri the approved exhibits. 3. DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION The applicant shall receive an allocation of 5,126 square feet of office square footage from the North Vallco Park Special Center area allocation. 4. PARKING .. The applicant shall provide a minimum of 416 parking spaces on site in accordance with the approved site plan. The applicant may convert the parking islands in the rear parking lot behind the building for additional parking spaces in accordance with the approved site plan. 5. BICYCLE PARKING The applicant shall provide bicycle parking and bike racks for the proposed office building in accordance with the City's Parking Regulations under Chapter 19.100 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 6. LANDSCAPE PLAN The applicant shall submit detailed landscape and irrigation plans to be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. The landscape plan shall provide the following: a. The landscape plan shall include water conservation and pesticide reduction measures in conformance with Chapter 14.15, Xeriscape Landscaping, and the pesticide control measures referenced in Chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the Cupertino Municipal Code. b. Plant minimum 24-inch box trees where trees are specified to be planted on site. All trees shall be native species of trees. 7. GREEN BUILDING The applicant will obtain LEED Silver New Construction certification for the building in accordance with the U.S. Green Building Council standards and the City's Green Building policies. 11-5 Resolution No. 6497 U-2007-09 December 11, 2007 Page 3 8. PLAZA AREAS The applicant shall provide decorative pavement treatment in the plaza areas along the frontage and sides of the building. 9. SIDEWALKS a. Prior to final occupancy, the applicant shall repair or replace any portions of the sidewalk along N. Tantau Ave. in front of the project site that are in disrepair; as determined by the Director of Public Works. 10. SIGNAGE •~ Signage is not approved with this use permit application. Signage shall conform to the City's Sign Ordinance. 11. SIGN PROGRAM A sign program shall be required for the new office building in accordance with the City's Sign Ordinance. 12. BUILDING COLORS AND MATERIALS The building colors and materials shall be consistent with the materials board submitted by the applicant. 13. TREE REMOVAL The applicant is approved to remove a total of 37 trees on site in accordance with the proposed tree survey/removal plan dated November 14, 2007. For any additional trees on site that are removed due to hazardous conditions or are considered dead, the applicant shall be required to replace these trees in accordance with the City's Protected Trees Ordinance. 14. TREE PROTECTION As part of the building permit drawings, a tree protection plan shall be prepared by a certified arborist for the trees to be retained. The applicant shall be required to install tree protection measures before and during development in accordance with the City Arborist's report dated September 12, 2007. In addition, the following measures shall be added to the protection plan: a. For trees to be retained, chain link fencing and other root protection shall be installed around the dripline of the tree .prior to any project site work. b. No parking or vehicle parking shall be allowed under root zones, unless using buffers approved by the project arborist. c. No trenching within the critical root zone area is allowed. If trenching is needed in the vicinity of trees to be retained, the City Abborist shall be consulted before any trenching or root cutting beneath the dripline of the tree. d. Tree protection conditions shall be posted on the tree protection barriers. e. Retained trees shall be watered to maintain them in good health. 11-6 Resolution No. 6497 U-2007-09 December 11, 2007 Page 4 15. TREE PROTECTION BOND The applicant shall provide a tree protection bond in the amount of $100,000 to ensure protection of trees slated for preservation prior to issuance of grading, demolition or building permits. The bond shall be returned after completion of construction, subject to a letter from the City Arborist indicating that the trees are in good condition. 16. TREE REPLACEMENTS The applicant is required to plant a minimum of 68 24-inch box replacement trees on site in conjunction witlr~the removal of 37 trees on site, in accordance with the City's Protected Trees Ordinance. All replacement trees shall be native species of trees. The applicant may be able to reduce the number of replacement trees on site, if larger size trees are proposed, in accordance with the tree replacement standards of the ordinance. For any additional trees that are removed due to hazardous conditions or are considered. dead, the applicant shall be required to replace these trees in accordance with the Protected Trees Ordinance. Species and size of replacement trees shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department. - 17. TREE REPLACEMENT IN-LIEU FEE The applicant shall pay an in-lieu fee for any trees that cannot be replaced on site in accordance with the City's Protected Trees Ordinance. 18. SCREENING All mechanical and other equipment on the retail building or on the site shall be screened so they are not visible from public street areas or adjoining developments. Screening materials/colors shall match building features and materials. The height of the screening shall be taller than the height of the mechanical equipment that it is designed to screen. The location of equipment and necessary screening shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. 19. TRASH AND DELIVERY ACTIVITIES A detailed refuge and truck delivery plan must be prepared by the applicant. The plan shall specify locations of trash. facilities, refuge pick up schedules and truck delivery schedules and routes. All trash facilities must be screened and enclosed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. The final plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 20. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN A construction management plan shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by staff prior to issuance of building permits. Staging of construction and equipment shall not occur within 250- feet of any residential property. 11-7 Resolution No. 6497 U-2007-09 December 11, 2007 Page 5 21. DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS AlI demolished building and site materials shall be recycled to the maximum extent feasible subject to the Building Official. The applicant shall provide evidence that materials will be recycled prior to issuance of final demolition permits. 22. PUBLIC ART The applicant shall install public art on the subject property prior to final occupancy. The public art, shall be valued at a minimum of one-quarter percent (1/4%) of the total project budget, not to exceed $100,000. The applicant shall submit a public art plan to be reviewed by the Fine Arts Commission prior to installation of the public art. 23. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period ,complying with all of the requirements of Section. 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. 24. OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks, streetlights, street widening and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. If street lighting is required, street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located. 25. TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the. City. 11 -8 Resolution No. 6497 U-2007-09 December 11, 2007 Page 6 26. STREET TREES Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125. 27. GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/or Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate. 28. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. * Pre and Post-development calculations must be provided to identify if storm drain facilities need to be constructed or renovated. 29. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and. regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. Ordinance No. 331 requires all overhead lines to be underground whether the lines are new or existing_ The developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. 30. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for under grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits. Fees: a. Grading Permit Fee: b. Checking and Inspection Fee c. Development Maintenance Deposit: d. Storm Drainage Fee: e. Power Cost: f. Map Checking Fees: g. Park Fees: $6% of On Site Improvement Costs or $ 2,163.00 minimum $ 5% of Off Site Improvement Costs or $ 2,304.00 minimum $1,000.00 $ 8,712.00 ** N/A N/A 11 -9 Resolution No. 6497 U-2007-09 December 11, 2007 Page 7 Bonds (Required): a. On-Site Improvements Bond: 100% Performance Bond b. Off-Site Improvements Bond: 100% Performance Bond; 100% Labor/Material Bond -The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. •~ ** Developer is required to pay for one-year power cost for streetlights 31.TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. 32. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as' required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. 33. NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT The applicant must file for a NOI (Notice of Intent) and must prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan with the State Water Resources Control Board. The city must obtain documentation that the process has been completed. For copies of the Construction General Permit, the NOI and additional permit information consult the state Water Resources Control Board web site at: http: / www. swrcb. ca. gov/ stormwtr / construction.html 34. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) REQUIREMENTS a. Permanent Stormwater Quality BMPs Required In accordance with chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City Code, all development and redevelopment projects shall include permanent BMPs in order to reduce the water quality impacts of stormwater runoff from the entire site for the life of the project. b. Stormwater Management Plan Required The applicant shall submit a Stormwater Management Plan for this project. The permanent storm water quality best management practices (BMPs) included in this plan shall be selected and designed in accordance with chapter 11-10 Resolution No. 6497 U-2007-09 December.ll, 2007 Page 8 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City Code. c. BMP Agreements The applicant and the City shall enter into a recorded agreement and covenant running-with the land for perpetual BMP maintenance by the property owners(s). In addition, the owner(s) and the City shall enter into a recorded easement agreement and covenant running with the land allowing City access at the site for BMP inspection. 35.MAINTENANCE AGRERMENT The applicant will be required to maintain all items, which are non-standard within the City's right of way. The applicant and the City must enter into a recorded agreement for this aforementioned work. 36. GARBAGE AND RECYCLING The applicant will be required to gain approval from the Environmental Programs Department prior to obtaining a building permit for the overall garbage and recycling of the subject development. A refuge truck access plan must be approved by the Environmental Programs Department. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of December 2007, at a Regular Meeting of the -Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Giefer, Kaneda, Rose NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Vice Chair Miller . ATTEST: /s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development APPROVED: _/s/Lisa Giefer . Lisa Giefer, Chair Planning Commission G: tPlanninglPDREPOR7IRESIZ0071 U-2007-09 res.doc 11-11 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, Califorrua 95014 RESOLUTION N0.6498 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A 100,000 SQUARE FOOT, TWO-STORY OFFICE BUILDING SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for an Architectural and Site Approval, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; and 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of the Architectural and Site Review Chapter of the Cupertino Municipal Code; and 3) The proposed development is consistent with the North Vallco Park Special Center Area and North Vallco Master Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Architectural and Site Approval is hereby approved, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. ASA-2007-14 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of December 11, 2007, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. ii-iz Resolution No. 6498 ASA-2007-14 December 11, 2007 Page 2 SECTION II: PROT ECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: ASA-2007-14 Applicant: Larry Wallerstein, Tantau Investments, LLC Location: 10900 N. Tantau SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS The approval is based on exhibits submitted by Devcon Construction, Inc., titled: "10900 N. Tantau, Cupertino, CA," consisting of 18 pages labeled A0.1 through A9.1, Civil 1-3, LP-1, TS-1, E2.1, E2.2, and Land Title Survey, and a colored rendering of the project, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. 2. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Approval is granted to construct a 100,000 square foot, two-story office building and associated site improvements as shown in the approved exhibits. 3. DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION The applicant shall receive an allocation of 5,126 square feet of office square footage from the North Vallco Park Special Center area allocation. 4. PARKING The applicant shall provide a minimum of 416 parking spaces on site in accordance with the approved site plan. The applicant may convert the parking islands in the rear parking lot behind the building for additional parking spaces in accordance with the approved site plan. 5. BICYCLE PARKING The applicant shall provide bicycle parking and bike racks for the proposed office building in accordance with the City's Parking Regulations under Chapter 19.100 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 6. LANDSCAPE PLAN The applicant shall submit detailed landscape and irrigation plans to be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. The landscape plan shall provide the following: 1. The landscape plan shall include water conservation and pesticide reduction measures in conformance with Chapter 14.15, Xeriscape Landscaping, and the pesticide control measures referenced in Chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 2. Plant minimum 24-inch box trees where trees are specified to be planted on site. All trees shall be native species of trees. 11 - 13 Resolution No. 6498 ASA-2007-14 December 11, 2007 Page 3 7. GREEN BUILDING The applicant will obtain LEED Silver New Construction certification for the building in accordance with the U.S. Green Building Council standards and the City's Green Building policies. 8. PLAZA AREAS The applicant shall provide decorative pavement treatment in the plaza areas along the frontage and sides of the building. 9. SIDEWALKS •~ 1. Prior to final occupancy, the applicant shall repair or replace any portions of the sidewalk along N. Tantau Ave. in front of the project site that are in disrepair, as determined by the Director of Public Works. 10. SIGNAGE Signage is not approved with this use permit application. Signage shall conform to the City's Sign Ordinance. •4 11. SIGN PROGRAM A sign program shall be required for the new office building in accordance with the City's Sign Ordinance. 12. BUILDING COLORS AND MATERIALS The building colors and materials shall be consistent with the materials board submitted by the applicant. 13. TREE REMOVAL The applicant is approved to remove a total of 37 trees on site in accordance with the proposed tree survey/removal plan dated November 14, 2007. For any additional trees on site that are removed due to hazardous conditions or are considered dead, the applicant shall be required to replace these trees in accordance with the City's Protected Trees Ordinance. 14. TREE PROTECTION As part of the building permit drawings, a tree protection plan shall be prepared by a certified arborist for the trees to be retained. The applicant shall be required to install tree protection measures before and during development in accordance with the City Arborist's report dated September 12, 2007. In addition, the following measures shall be added to the protection plan: 1. For trees to be retained, chain link fencing and other root protection shall be installed around the dripline of the tree prior to any project site work. 2. No parking or vehicle parking shall be allowed under root zones, unless using buffers approved by the project arborist. 11 - 14 Resolution No. 6498 ASA-2007-14 December 11, 2007 Page 4 3. No trenching within the critical root zone area is allowed. If trenching is needed in the vicinity of trees to be retained, the City Arborist shall be consulted before any trenching or root cutting beneath the dripline of the tree. 4. Tree protection conditions shall be posted on the tree protection barriers. 5. Retained trees shall be watered to maintain them in good health. 15. TREE PROTECTION BOND The applicant shall provide a tree protection bond in the amount of $100,000 to ensure protection of trees slated for preservation .prior to issuance of grading, demolition or building permits. The bond shall be returned after completion of construction, subject to a letter from the City Arborist indicating that the trees are in good .condition. 16. TREE REPLACEMENTS The applicant is required to plant a minimum of 68 24-inch box replacement trees on site in conjunction with the removal of 37 trees on site, in accordance with the City's Protected Trees Ordinance. All replacement trees shall be native species of trees. The applicant may be able to reduce the number of replacement trees on site, if larger size trees are proposed, in accordance with the tree replacement standards of the ordinance. For any additional trees that are removed due to hazardous conditions or are considered dead, the applicant shall be required to replace these trees in .accordance with the Protected Trees Ordinance. Species and size of replacement trees shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Departrnent. 17. TREE REPLACEMENT IN-LIEU FEE The applicant shall pay an in-lieu fee for any trees that cannot be replaced on site in accordance with the City's Protected Trees Ordinance. 18. SCREENING All mechanical and other equipment on the retail building or'on the site shall be screened so they are not visible from public street areas or adjoining developments. Screening materials/colors shall match building features and materials. The height of the screening shall be taller than the height of the mechanical equipment that it is designed to screen. The location of equipment and necessary screening shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. 11 - 15 Resolution No. 6498 ASA-2007-14 December 11, 2007 Page 5 19. TRASH AND DELIVERY ACTIVITIES A detailed refuge and truck delivery plan must be prepared by the applicant. The plan shall specify locations of trash facilities, refuge pick up schedules and truck delivery schedules and routes. All trash facilities must be screened and enclosed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. The final plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 20. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN A construction management plan shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by staff prior to issuance of building permits. Staging of construction and equipment shall not occur within 250 feet of any residential property. 21. DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS All demolished building and site materials shall be recycled to the maximum extent feasible subject to the Building Official. The applicant shall provide evidence that materials will be recycled prior to issuance of final demolition permits. 22. PUBLIC ART The applicant shall install public art on the subject property prior to final occupancy. The public art shall be valued at a minimum of one-quarter percent (1/4%) of the total project budget, not to exceed $100,000. The applicant shall submit a public art plan to be reviewed by the Fine Arts Commission prior to installation of the public art. 23. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. 11 - 16 Resolution No. 6498 ASA-2007-14 December 11, 2007 Page 6 SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. 24. OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks, streetlights, street widening acid related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. If street lighting is required, street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located. 25. TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City. 26. STREET TREES Street trees shall be planted witfun the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125. 27. GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/or Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate. 28. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. * Pre and Post-development calculations must be provided to identify if storm drain facilities need to be constructed or renovated. 29. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices..Ordinance No. 331 requires all overhead lines to be underground whether the lines are new or existing. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. >> -» Resolution No. 6498 ASA-2007-14 December 11, 2007 Page 7 30. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for under grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits. Fees: a. Grading Permit Fee: b. Checking and Inspection Fee: c. Development Maintenance Deposit: d. Storm Drainage Fee: e. Power Cost: f. Map Checking Fees: g. Park Fees: .5 $6% of On Site Improvement Costs or $ 2,163.00 minimum $ 5 % of Off Site Improvement Costs or $ 2,304.00 minimum $1,000.00 $ 8,712.00 ** N/A N/A Bonds (Required): a. On-Site Improvements Bond: 100% Performance Bond b. Off-Site Improvements Bond: 100% Performance Bond; 100% Labor/Material Bond -The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. ** Developer is required to pay for one-year power cost for streetlights 31.TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. 32. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. 11 - 18 Resolution No. 6498 ASA-2007-14 December 11, 2007 Page 8 33. NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT The applicant must file for a NOI (Notice of Intent) and must prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan with the State Water Resources Control Board. The city must obtain documentation that the process has been completed. For copies of the Construction General Permit, the NOI and additional permit information consult the state Water Resources Control Board web site at: http: / www. swrcb. ca.gov / stormwtr / construction.html 34. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) REQUIREMENTS a. Permanent Stormwater Quality BMPs Required In accordance with chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City Code, all development and redevelopment projects shall include permanent BMPs in order to reduce the water quality impacts of stormwater runoff from the entire site for the life of the project. b. Stormwater Management Plan Required The applicant shall submit a Stormwater Management Plan for this project. The permanent storm water quality best management practices (BMPs) included in this plan shall be selected and designed in accordance with chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City Code. BMP Agreements The applicant and the City shall enter into a recorded agreement and covenant running with the land for perpetual BMP maintenance by the property owners(s). In addition, the owner(s) and the City shall enter into a recorded easement agreement and covenant running with the land allowing City access at the site for BMP inspection. 35.MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT The applicant will be required to maintain all items, which are non-standard within the City's right of way. The applicant and the City must enter into a recorded agreement for this aforementioned work. 36. GARBAGE AND RECYCLING The applicant will be required to gain approval from the Environmental Programs Department prior to obtaining a building permit for the overall garbage and recycling of the subject development. A refuge truck access plan must be approved by the Environmental Programs Department. 11 - 19 Resolution No. 6498 ASA-2007-14 December 11, 2007 Page 9 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of December 2007, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Giefer, Kaneda, Rose NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Vice Chair Miller ATTEST: /s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development APPROVED: /s/Lisa Giefer Lisa Giefer, Chair Planning Commission G.•lPlanninglPDREPOR71RES120071ASA-2007-14 res.doc 11 - 20 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION N0.6499 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TREE REMOVAL PERMIT FOR THE REMOVAL OF 37 TREES TO CONSTRUCT A 100,000 SQUARE . FOOT, TWO-STORY OFFICE BUILDING SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: TR-2007-06 Applicant: Larry Wallerstein, Tantau Investments, LLC Location: 10900 N. Tantau SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for the removal of 37 trees in conjunction with the development of a 100,000 square foot, two-story office building; and WHEREAS, the 37 trees are part of an approved landscape plan, subject to Chapter 14.18 of the Municipal Code, pertaining to Heritage and Specimen Trees; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices Have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, application for a tree removal is hereby approved; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application TR-2007-06, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of December 11, 2007 are incorporated by reference herein. 11 -21 Resolution No. 6499 TR-2007-06 December 11, 2007 Page 2 SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVAL ACTION The applicant is approved to remove a total of 37 trees on site in accordance with the applicant's tree survey/removal plan identified as page TS-1 dated November 14, 2007 in the approved exhibits for U-2007-09 and ASA-2007-14, except as may be amended by the conditions of this Resolution. 2. TREE PROTECTION '~ As part of the building permit drawings, a tree protection plan shall be prepared by a certified arborist for the trees to be retained. The applicant shall be required to install tree protection measures before and during development in accordance with the City Arborist's report dated September 12, 2007. In addition, the following measures shall be added to the protection plan: a. For trees to be retained, chain link fencing and other root protection shall be installed around the dripline of the tree prior to any project site work. b. No parking or vehicle parking shall be allowed under root zones, unless using buffers approved by the project arborist. c. No trenching within the critical root zone area is allowed. If trenching is needed in the vicinity of trees to be retained, the City Arborist shall be consulted before any trenching or root cutting beneath the dripline of the tree. d. Tree protection conditions shall be posted on the tree protection barriers. e. Retained trees shall be watered to maintain them in good health. 3. -TREE PROTECTION BOND The applicant shall provide a tree protection bond in the amount of $100,000 to ensure protection of trees slated for preservation prior to issuance of grading, demolition or building permits. The bond shall be returned after completion of construction, subject to a letter from the City Arborist indicating that the trees are in good condition. 4. TREE REPLACEMENTS The applicant is required to plant a minimum of 68 24-inch box replacement trees on site in conjunction with the removal of 37 trees on site, u1 accordance with the City's Protected Trees Ordinance. All replacement trees shall be native species of trees. The applicant may be able to reduce the number of replacement trees on site, if larger size trees are proposed, in accordance with the tree replacement standards of the ordinance. For any additional trees that are removed due to hazardous conditions or are considered dead, the applicant shall be required to replace these trees in accordance with the Protected Trees Ordinance. Species and size of replacement trees shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department. 11 - 22 Resolution No. 6499 TR-2007-06 December 11, 2007 Page 3 5. TREE REPLACEMENT IN-LIEU FEE The applicant shall pay an in-lieu fee for any trees that cannot be replaced on site in accordance with the City's Protected Trees Ordinance. 6. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount •of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period uz which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of December 2007, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Giefer,Kaneda, Rose NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Vice Chair Miller ATTEST: /s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development APPROVED: /s/Lisa Giefer Lisa Giefer, Chair Cupertino Planning Commission 11 - 23 Exhibit A CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: U-2007-09 (EA-2007-10), ASA-2007-14, Agenda Date: December 11, 2007 TR-2007-06 Applicant (s): Larry Wallerstein, Tantau Investments, LLC Property Location: 10900 N. Tantau East side of N. Tantau Avenue, south of Homestead Avenue and Forge Drive :. Application Summary: 1. USE PERMIT and ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL to construct a 100,000 square foot, two-story office building with site improvements. 2. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT for the removal of 37 trees to construct a 100,000 square foot, two-story office building with site improvements. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration recommended. The project will have no significant, adverse environmental impacts with the proposed mitigation measures. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of: 1. Use Permit (U-2007-09) and Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2007-14) to construct a 100,000 square foot, two-story office building in accordance with the model resolution. 2. Tree Removal Permit (TR-2007-06) to remove 37 trees to construct a 100,000 square foot, two-story office building with site improvements in accordance with the model resolution. Project Data: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Specific Plan: Acreage (Net): Proposed Building SF: First Floor SF: Second Floor SF: Industrial/ Residential P (MP) North Vallco Special Center 6.6 acres 100,000 square feet 50,320 square feet 49,680 square feet Proposed Building Height: Total Parking Proposed: 35.5 feet 416 spaces (up to 500 spaces in future)1 - 24 Applications: U-2007-09, ASA-2007-14 &TR-2007-06 10900 N. Tantau Avenue Page 2 Project Consistency with: General Plan: Yes Zoning: Yes North Vallco Park Special Center: Yes Environmental Assessment: Negative Declaration BACKGROUND: The project site is a vacant 6.6 acre property located on the east side of N. Tantau Avenue, south of Homestead Road and Forge Drive. The site is vacant, except for a groundwater extraction treatment system on the northeast corner of the site and remnants of a parking lot. The site was previously developed with a 94,874 square foot industrial building that was occupied by a company named Intersil between 1967 to 1988 that fabricated integrated circuits and semiconductor. devices. In 1992, General Electric acquired-the property. The building was demolished in 1998. The site is surrounded by Kaiser Permanente medical offices to the north across Forge Drive (a private driveway that provides access to the subject property as well as surrounding properties to the north and east), industrial/ office uses to the east, an industrial office and a single family residential neighborhood to the south in the City of Santa Clara, and the HP campus to the west across N. Tantau Avenue. DISCUSSION: Project Description The applicant is requesting approval of a use permit and architectural and site approval to construct a new 100,000 square foot, two-story office building that will consist of 50,320 square feet on the first floor and 49,680 square feet on the second floor. The applicant is constructing the building as a general office building that has the potential to also be used for medical office use. Site Layout The site layout places the building near the center of the site with a 79-foot front yard setback along N. Tantau Avenue and a 202-foot rear yard setback along the east property line. There is a 136-foot setback along the north side yard property line (that includes the half width of Forge Drive) and a 177-foot setback along the south side yard property line, which complies with an agreement between the City of Santa Clara and the City of Cupertino to provide a minimum 150-foot setback easement between any building development on the subject property and the adjacent single-family residential neighborhood to the south located in the City of Santa Clara. The site is also restricted by a covenant and environmental restriction recorded in 2005 requiring a 90-foot wide easement along Forge Drive that allows the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the United States Environmental Protection Agency the ability to access the existing groundwater extraction treatment system on the property. 11 - 25 Applications: U-2007-09, ASA-2007-14 &TR-2007-06 10900 N. Tantau Avenue Page 3 The covenant also restricts the site to industrial, commercial, office space (including medical offices), or recreational use, and prohibits residential, hospital, schools, and day care centers for children or senior citizens. Access to the site will be provided by three new driveways, two of which will be located along N. Tantau Avenue on each side of the building. The third driveway will be located along Forge Drive. The site will additionally be improved with a surface parking lot surrounding the new building, landscape planters between parking aisles, a large landscape strip behind the building that can be converted to additional parking spaces for future use (if medical offices are proposed), and plazas in front of the building. The plaza entryway will incorporate bench seating, planter walls and artwork. The applicant is also maintaining all landscape buffers along all perimeters of the property and most of the existing, mature perimeter trees on the property, including the grove of redwood trees along the south property line that buffers the site from the adjacent single-family residential neighborhood. Landscape planters will also be added around the new office building to soften the massing and appearance of~the building. The applicant has incorporated pedestrian links from the parking lot to the building and a widened planter area adjacent to the building to provide additional planting space for trees in response to the City Architectural Advisor's comments (See Exhibit B). Architectural Design The proposed building will be a 35.5 foot high, two-story building constructed of concrete tilt-up panels accented by rows of tinted and clear glass windows on each floor around the building. The windows will be inset four inches to provide some architectural dimension to the building. The architectural design features atwo-story high, stacked clear glass curtain wall along the building frontage to highlight the main entry to the building, and projecting corner towers at the ends of the building to break up the massing and length of the building. The building will be 344 feet in length. Additionally, the applicant has revised the architectural design of the building by incorporating sun shading on the windows and over the entryways to strengthen architectural detailing on the building and emphasize the entryways to the building. The sun shades will be comprised of angled flat bars with a brushed aluminum finish that will give the building a modern, updated look and provide practical use for sun shading. These changes have been incorporated into the plans in response to the City Architectural Advisor's comments (See Exhibit B). Green Building The applicant is voluntarily proposing to obtain LEED Silver certification for the project, and has submitted a list of green building features he intends to incorporate into the project to meet the certification requirements (See Exhibit C). The applicant has also included details of the cool wall exterior, sun shading and insulating glass 11 - 26 Applications: U-2007-09, ASA-2007-14 &TR-2007-06 10900 N. Tantau Avenue Page 4 windows as part of Exhibit C. The LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) New Construction Rating System is a point~based rating system allowing up to a maximum of 69 points for various green building features that are incorporated into a project. Each green building feature is assigned a certain point value. The different levels of LEED certification are certified buildings, LEED silver, LEED gold and LEED platinum. In order to obtain LEED silver certification, the applicant needs to attain between 33 and 38 points of the 69 points. The applicant is making a commitment to attain this certification and a condition of approval has been added to ensure this commitment. Tree Removal/Replacements The applicant is intending to remove a total of 37 trees on site, most of which are shamel and modesto ash trees that are located in the interior of the lot to accommodate the new office building. All existing, mature trees on the perimeter of the site consisting of the gingko trees along N. Tantau Avenue, the pine and redwood trees along the south property line adjacent, to the residential neighborhood, and the shamel ash and redwood trees along the east rear property line, are proposed to be preserved. The City Arborist, David Babby, surveyed the site and provided a tree inventory and evaluation report (See Exhibit D) dated September 12, 2007. In his report, he gave many of the trees on site a "low" rating, meaning he considers these trees to have weak structures prone to large limb failure, to be nearly dead, and/or to be irreversibly in poor or declining condition. Although many of these trees are located within the interior of the lot and are proposed to be removed by the applicant as a part of the development, several of the mature redwood and pine trees along the south side of the property are also given a low rating. The applicant intends to retain these mature redwood and pine trees along the south side of the property because he would like to maintain the additional privacy buffer these trees provide between the site and the adjacent residential neighborhood for as long as possible. However, the applicant is aware that any trees that need to be immediately removed due to hazardous reasons or are considered dead tree will have to be replaced per the City's Protected Trees ordinance. A condition of approval has been added to this effect. The applicant is also proposing to remove two shamel ash trees (Trees 1098 and 1081) and a liquid amber tree (Tree 92) that have been given higher ratings by the City Arborist for potential contribution to the site, but are located within the new parking lot area. Additionally, a redwood tree (Tree 95) is proposed to be removed that was given a high rating for long-term contribution to the site, despite the fact that it is proposed within the new driveway along N. Tantau Avenue. The applicant has reviewed the possibility of saving these four trees, but has concluded that they cannot be preserved without significant modification to the site plan. Additionally, one of the ash trees (Tree 1098) needs to be removed to allow for grading of the area around the tree to meet stormwater drainage requirements. ~i -z~ Applications: U-2007-09, ASA-2007-14 &TR-2007-06 10900 N. Tantau Avenue Page 5 The applicant is proposing to plant 92 new trees on site, which exceeds the total number of trees that would be required as replacement trees. The proposed removal of 37 trees on site will require a total of 68 24-inch box replacement trees on site, or a lesser number if 36-inch box trees are proposed per the City's Protected Trees Ordinance. Conditions of approval have been added to require these replacement trees. Groundwater Remediation The project site is a 6.6 acre site that is located within a 15 acre United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Superfund List. According to the Phase I and Phase II Environmental Conditions Report prepared by Environmental Resources Management in August of 2007 (See Exhibit E), the site was placed on this list in 1989 due to chlorinated VOC (volatile organic chemicals) contamination found in soil and groundwater within the project site. From 1967 through 1988; the site was used for industrial purposes for the fabrication of integrated circuits and other semiconductor devices. Since 1986, remediation activities have been initiated on the property to mitigate this contamination as required by the US EPA and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). A soil vapor extraction and treatment system was placed on site to mitigate the soil contamination, and in 1993 the soil contamination clean up was completed per the Regional Water Quality Control Board's (RWQCB) requirements. Therefore, the soil vapor extraction and treatment system was subsequently removed. According to the applicant, the soil was cleaned down to 100 feet below the surface by the soil vapor extraction. The only soil that was removed and replaced with clean imported soil was the soil around the location of the remediation equipment on the northeast corner of the site, which involved soil no deeper than 9 feet from the surface in this area. The ground. water extraction treatment system is still in operation at the northeast corner of the site since remediation activities are still in operation. The remediation activities have reduced concentration of VOCs in the ground water, but concentrations remain above the ground water clean up goals. The RWQCB anticipates that the ground water clean up goals may not be achieved for approximately 100 years with the current round of the water treatment system. A new ground water treatment system was installed in early 2007 to replace the previous ground water treatment system and consists of three 1,800 pound capacity tanks and associated piping. All remediation of this site will be separately overseen by the RWQCB under the federal jurisdiction of the US EPA. Therefore, the City has no jurisdiction regarding the remediation of this site and cannot include conditions of approval regarding this issue, since conditions set by federal jurisdiction supercede the City in this case. Additionally, the applicant is not the responsible party to perform the remediation activities. The previous property owner, General Electric, is the responsible party to perform the remediation activities in accordance with the RWQCB and US EPA standards. i~ -2s Applications: U-2007-09, ASA-2007-14 &TR-2007-06 10900 N. Tantau Avenue Page 6 North Vallco Park Special Center The property is located within the North Vallco Special Center of the City, which is a 240-acre area that is bound by Homestead Road to the north, Interstate 280 to the south, properties lining N. Tantau Avenue to the east and by development between Wolfe Road and asingle-family residential neighborhood to the west. The proposed project follows a number of guiding principles of the North Vallco Master Plan by developing this vacant site with an office building that is clustered among other businesses, such as HP across N. Tantau Avenue and Kaiser Permanente medical offices to the north, to stimulate interaction within the area. The following are the guiding principles that the proposed project will follow: ^ Retaining a "Workplace Core" ^ Providing "Settings for Interaction" ^ Incorporating "Walkability/Connectivity" within the development and to adjacent developments ^ Achieving "Sustainability" ^ Providing "Efficient Land Utilization" ^ Respecting the "Protection of Adjacent Neighborhoods" The project also complies with the General Plan policies for the Vallco Park North area, which emphasize that the area should be retained as an employment area of predominantly office and light industrial activities with neighborhood commercial uses. The project will require an allocation of 5,126 square feet of office square footage from the Vallco Park North area to accommodate the proposed office development. Although the site is currently vacant, the site was once developed with a 94,874 square foot building that was demolished in 1998, and is therefore given credit for this square footage. The Vallco Park North area has a current allocation of 143,708 square feet of office square footage. With this development, the remaining office allocation for this area will be 138,532 square feet. Parking The proposed project will provide a total of 416 parking spaces on site. For a general office use, the project is required to provide a total of 351 parking spaces; therefore, the project exceeds the number of parking spaces needed for general office use. The applicant has designed the site to convert landscaped islands behind the building within the parking lot to additional parking spaces. Conversion of this area to parking spaces will increase the total potential on site parking to 500 parking spaces. This design allows flexible use of the site for possible future medical office use. With this plan, a portion of the building could be used for medical office use based upon the additional parking that can be accommodated on site. However, at this time, the entire building could not be used for medical office use without a parking exception. If medical office is proposed for the entire building, a total of 571 parking spaces would be required per the parking ordinance. i~ -2s Applications: U-2007-09, ASA-2007-14 &TR-2007-06 10900 N. Tantau Avenue Page 7 Environmental Review Committee (ERC) At the November 28, 2007 meeting, the ERC recommended approval of a Negative Declaration for the project on a 2-0 vote, and recommended the following: 1. That the applicant recycle as much of the existing parking lot asphalt on site as possible. 2. That the applicant attempt to hold a preliminary meeting with the adjacent residential neighborhood to the south in the City of Santa Clara. ENCLOSURES Model Resolutions ;. Exhibit A: Environmental Summary from Applicant Exhibit B: Comments from Larry Cannon, Architectural Advisor Exhibit C: Green building feature information provided by the Applicant Exhibit D: City Arborist report prepared by David Babby, dated September 12, 2007 Exhibit E Phase I and Phase II report prepared by Environmental Resources Management dated August 2007 Exhibit F: Initial Study/Negative Declaration Exhibit G: Letter from Vivian and Gregory Krodel, Sunnyvale residents Plan Set Submitted by: Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme G: ~ Planning ~ PDREPORT ~ pcUsereports ~ U-2007-09.doc 11 - 30 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 MODEL RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 100,000 SQUARE FOOT, TWO-STORY OFFICE BUILDING SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit,,as described in Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; and 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of the Conditional Use Permits Chapter of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 3) The proposed development is consistent with the North Vallco Park Special Center Area and North Vallco Master Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for a Use Permit is hereby approved, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. U-2007-09 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of December 11, 2007, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: U-2007-09 Applicant: Larry Wallerstein, Tantau Investments, LLC Location: 10900 N. Tantau Avenue 11 -31 Model Resolution U-2007-09 December 11, 2007 Page 2 SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS The approval is based on Exhibits submitted by Devcon Construction, Inc., titled: "10900 N. Tantau, Cupertino, CA;' consisting of 18 pages labeled A0.1 through A9.1, Civil 1-3, LP-1, TS-1, E2.1, E2.2, and Land Title Survey, and a colored rendering of the project, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. 2. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Approval is granted to construct a 100,000 square foot, two-story office building and associated.site improvements as shown in the approved exhibits. 3. DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION The applicant shall receive an allocation of 5,126 square feet of office square footage from the North Vallco Park Special Center area allocation. 4. PARKING The applicant shall provide a minimum of 416 parking spaces on site in accordance with the approved site plan. The applicant may convert the parking islands in the rear parking lot behind the building for additional parking spaces in accordance with the approved site plan. 5. BICYCLE PARKING The applicant shall provide "bicycle parking and bike racks for the proposed office building in accordance with the City's Parking Regulations under Chapter 19.100 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 6. LANDSCAPE PLAN The applicant shall submit detailed .landscape and irrigation plans to be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. The landscape plan shall provide the following: a. The landscape plan shall include water conservation and pesticide reduction measures in conformance with Chapter 14.15, Xeriscape Landscaping, and the pesticide control measures referenced in Chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the Cupertino Municipal Code. b. Plant minimum 24-inch box trees where trees are specified to be planted on site. 7. GREEN BUILDING The applicant will obtain LEED Silver certification for the building in accordance with the U.S. Green Building Council standards and the City's Green Building policies. 11 - 32 Model Resolution U-2007-09 December 11, 2007 Page 3 8. PLAZA AREAS The applicant shall provide decorative pavement treatment in the plaza areas along the frontage and sides of the building. 9. SIDEWALKS a. Prior to final occupancy, the applicant shall repair or replace any portions of the sidewalk along N. Tantau Ave. in front of the project site that are in disrepair, as determined by the Director of Public Works. 10. SIGNAGE '~ Signage is not approved with this use permit application. Signage shall conform to the City's Sign Ordinance. 11. SIGN PROGRAM A sign program shall be required for the new office building in accordance with the City's Sign Ordinance. 12. BUILDING COLORS AND MATERIALS The building colors and materials shall be consistent with the materials board submitted by the applicant. 13. TREE REMOVAL The applicant is approved to remove a total of 37 trees on site in accordance with the proposed tree survey/removal plan dated November 14, 2007. For any additional trees on site that are removed due to hazardous conditions or are considered dead, the applicant shall be required to replace these trees in accordance with the City's Protected Trees Ordinance. 14. TREE PROTECTION As part of the building permit drawings, a tree protection plan shall be prepared by a certified arborist for the trees to be retained. The applicant shall be required to install tree protection measures before and during development in accordance with the City Arborist's report dated September 12, 2007. In addition, the following measures shall be added to the protection plan: a. For trees to be retained, chain link fencing and other root protection shall be installed around the dripline of the tree prior to any project site work. b. No parking or vehicle parking shall be allowed under root zones, unless using buffers approved by the project arborist. c. No trenching within the critical root zone area is allowed. If trenching is needed in the vicinity of trees to be retained, the City Arborist shall be consulted before any trenching or root cutting beneath the dripline of the tree. d. Tree protection conditions shall be posted on the tree protection barriers. e. Retained trees shall be watered to maintain them in good health. 11 - 33 Model Resolution U-2007-09 December 11, 2007 Page 4 15. TREE PROTECTION BOND The applicant shall provide a tree protection bond in the amount of $100,000 to ensure protection of trees slated for preservation prior to issuance of grading, demolition or building permits. The bond shall be returned after completion of construction, subject to a letter from the City Arborist indicating that the trees are in good condition. 16. TREE REPLACEMENTS The applicant is required to, plant a minimum of 68 24-inch box replacement trees on site in conjunction with the removal of 37 trees on site, in accordance with the City's Protected Trees Ordinance. The applicant may be able to reduce the number of replacement trees on site, if larger size trees are proposed, in accordance with the tree replacement standards of the ordinance. For any additional trees that are removed due to hazardous conditions or are considered dead, the applicant shall be required to replace these trees in accordance with the Protected Trees Ordinance. Species and size of replacement trees shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department. 17. TREE REPLACEMENT IN-LIEU FEE The applicant shall pay an in-lieu fee for any trees that cannot be replaced on site in accordance with the City's Protected Trees Ordinance. 18. SCREENING . All mechanical and other equipment on the retail building or on the site shall be screened so they are not visible from public street areas or adjoining developments. Screening materials/colors shall match building features and materials. The height of the screening shall be taller than the height of the mechanical equipment that it is designed to screen. The location of equipment and necessary screening shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. 19. TRASH AND DELIVERY ACTIVITIES A detailed refuge and truck delivery plan must be prepared by the applicant. The plan shall specify locations of trash facilities, refuge pick up schedules and truck delivery schedules and routes. All trash facilities must be screened and enclosed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. The final plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 20. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN A construction management plan shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by staff prior to issuance of building permits. Staging of construction and equipment shall not occur within 250 feet of any residential property. ~i -sa Model Resolution U-2007-09 December 11, 2007 Page 5 21: DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS All demolished building and site materials shall be recycled to the maximum extent feasible subject to the Building Official. The applicant shall provide evidence that materials will be recycled prior to issuance of final demolition permits. 22. PUBLIC ART The applicant shall install public art on the subject property prior to final occupancy. The public art ,shall be valued at a minimum of one-quarter percent (1/4%) of the total project'~budget, not to exceed $100,000. The applicant shall submit a public art plan to be reviewed by the Fine Arts Commission prior to installation of the public art. 23. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period .:complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. 24. OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks, streetlights, street widening and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. If street lighting is required, street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located. 25. TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City. 11 - 35 Model Resolution U-2007-09 December 11, 2007 Page 6 26. STREET TREES Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125. 27. GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/or Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate. 28. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. * Pre and Post-developrnent calculations must be provided to identify if storm drain facilities need to be constructed or renovated. 29. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. Ordinance No. 331 requires all overhead lines to be underground whether the lines are new or existing_ The developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. 30. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for under grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits. Fees: a. Grading Permit Fee: b. Checking and Inspection Fee: c. Development Maintenance Deposit: d. Storm Drainage Fee: e. Power Cost: f. Map Checking Fees: g. Park Fees: $6 % of On Site Improvement Costs or $ 2,163.00 minimum $ 5 % of Off Site Improvement Costs or $ 2,304.00 minimum $1,000.00 $ 8,712.00 ** N/A N/A ,- ~, k, j 11 - 36 Model Resolution U-2007-09 December 11, 2007 Page 7 Bonds (Required): a. On-Site Improvements Bond: 100% Performance Bond b. Off-Site Improvements Bond: 100% Performance Bond; 100% Labor/Material Bond -The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. ** Developer is required to pay for one-year power cost for streetlights 31.TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. 32. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ~ ~ " Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. 33. NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT The applicant must file for a.NOI (Notice of Intent) and must prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan with the State Water Resources Control Board. The city must obtain documentation that the process has been completed. For copies of the Construction General Permit, the NOI and additional permit information consult the state Water Resources Control Board web site at: http: /www.swrcb.ca gov/ stormwtr / construction.html 34. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) REQUIREMENTS a. Permanent Stormwater Quality BMPs Required In accordance with chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City Code, all development and redevelopment projects shall include permanent BMPs in order to reduce the water quality impacts of Stormwater runoff from the entire site for the life of the project. b. Stormwater Management Plan Required The applicant shall submit a Stormwater Management Plan for this project. The permanent storm water quality best management practices (BMPs) included in this plan shall be selected and designed in accordance with chapter 11 - 37 Model Resolution U-2007-09 December 11, 2007 Page 8 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City Code. c. BMP Agreements The applicant and the City shall enter into a recorded agreement and covenant running with the land for perpetual BMP maintenance by the property owners(s). In addition, the owner(s) and the City shall enter into a recorded easement agreement and covenant running with the land allowing City access at the site for BMP inspection. 35.MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT The applicant will be required to maintain all items, which are non-standard within the City's right of way. The applicant and the City must enter into a recorded agreement for this aforementioned work. 36. GARBAGE AND RECYCLING The applicant will be required to gain approval from the Environmental Programs Department prior to obtaining a building permit for the overall garbage and recycling of the subject development. A refuge truck access plan must be approved by the Environmental Programs Department. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of December 2007, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ~ ~. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN:. COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development G: IPlanninglPDREPORTIRES12007V U-2007-09 res.doc Lisa Giefer, Chair Planning Commission 11 - 38 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 MODEL RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A 100,000 SQUARE FOOT, TWO-STORY OFFICE BUILDING SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for an Architectural and Site Approval, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of .proof required to ,support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; and 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of the Architectural and Site Review Chapter of the Cupertino Municipal Code; and 3) The proposed development is consistent with the North Vallco Park Special Center Area and North Vallco Master Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Architectural and Site Approval is hereby approved, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. ASA-2007-14 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of December 11, 2007, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 11 - 39 Model Resolution ASA-2007-14 December 11, 2007 Page 2 SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: ASA-2007-14 Applicant: Larry Wallerstein, Tantau Investments, LLC Location: 10900 N. Tantau SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS The approval is based on E~chibits submitted by Devcon Construction, Inc., titled: "10900 N. Tantau, Cupertino, CA," consisting of 18 pages labeled A0.1 through A9.1, Civil 1-3, LP-1, TS-1, E2.1, E2.2, and Land Title Survey, and a colored rendering of the project, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. 2. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Approval is granted to construct a 100,000 square foot, two-story office building and associated site improvements as shown in the approved exhibits. 3. DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION The applicant shall receive an allocation of 5,126 square feet of office square footage from the North Vallco Park Special Center area allocation. 4. PARKING The applicant shall provide a minimum of 416 parking spaces on site in .accordance with the approved site plan. The applicant may convert the parking islands in the rear parking Iot behind the building for additional parking spaces in accordance with the approved site plan. 5. BICYCLE PARKING The applicant shall provide bicycle parking and bike racks for the proposed office building in accordance with the City's Parking Regulations under Chapter 19.100 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 6. LANDSCAPE PLAN The applicant shall submit detailed landscape and irrigation plans to be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. The landscape plan shall provide the following: 1. The landscape plan shall include .water. conservation and pesticide reduction measures in conformance with Chapter 14.15, Xeriscape Landscaping, and the pesticide control measures referenced in Chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 2. Plant minimum 24-inch box trees where trees are specified to be planted on site. 11 - 40 Model Resolution ASA-2007-14 December 11, 2007 Page 3 7. GREEN BUILDING The applicant will obtain LEED Silver certification for the building in accordance with the U.S. Green Building Council standards and the City's Green Building policies. 8. PLAZA AREAS The applicant shall provide decorative pavement treatment in the plaza areas along the frontage and sides of the building. 9. SIDEWALKS 1. Prior to final occupancy; the applicant shall repair or replace any portions of the sidewalk along N. Tantau Ave. in front of the project site that are in disrepair, as determined by the Director of Public Works. 10. SIGNAGE Signage is not approved with this use permit application. Signage shall conform to the City's Sign Ordinance. 11. SIGN PROGRAM A sign program shall be required for the new office building in accordance with the City's Sign Ordinance. 12. BUILDING COLORS AND MATERIALS The building colors and materials shall be consistent with the materials board submitted by the applicant. 13. TREE REMOVAL The applicant is approved to remove a total of 37 trees on site in accordance with the proposed tree survey/removal plan dated November 14, 2007. For any additional trees on site that are removed due to hazardous conditions or .are considered dead, the applicant shall be required to replace these trees in accordance with the City's Protected Trees Ordinance. 14. TREE PROTECTION As part of the building permit drawings, a tree protection plan shall be prepared by a certified arborist for the trees to be retained. The applicant shall be required to install tree protection measures before and during development in accordance with the City Arborist's report dated September 12, 2007. In addition, the following measures shall be added to the protection plan: 1. For trees to be retained, chain link fencing and other root protection shall be installed around the dripline of the tree prior to any project site work. 2. No parking or vehicle parking shall be allowed under root zones, unless using buffers approved by the project.arborist. 11 -41 Model Resolution ASA-2007-14 December 11, 2007 Page 4 3. No trenching within the critical root zone area is allowed. If trenching is needed in the vicinity of trees to be retained, the City Arborist shall be consulted before any trenching or root cutting beneath the dripline of the tree. 4. Tree protection conditions shall be posted on the tree protection barriers. 5. Retained trees shall be watered to maintain them in good health. 15. TREE PROTECTION BOND The applicant shall provide a tree protection bond in the amount of $100,000 to ensure protection of trees 'slated for preservation prior to issuance of grading, demolition or building permits. The bond shall be returned after completion of construction, subject to a letter from the City Arborist indicating that the trees are in good condition. 16. TREE REPLACEMENTS The applicant is required to plant a minimum of 68 24-inch box replacement trees on site in conjunction with the removal of 37 trees on site, in accordance with the City's Protected Trees Ordinance. The applicant may be able to reduce the number of replacement trees on site, if larger size trees are proposed, in accordance with the tree replacement standards of the ordinance. For any additional trees that are removed due to hazardous conditions or are considered dead, the applicant shall be required to replace these trees in accordance with the Protected Trees Ordinance. Species and size of replacement trees shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department.. 17. TREE REPLACEMENT IN-LIEU FEE The applicant shall pay an in-lieu fee for any trees that cannot be replaced on site in accordance with the City's Protected Trees Ordinance. 18. SCREENING All mechanical and other equipment on the retail building or on the site shall be screened so they are not visible from public street areas or adjoining developments. Screening materials/colors shall match building features and materials. The height of the screening shall be taller than the height of the mechanical equipment that it is designed to screen. The location of equipment and necessary screening shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. 11 - 42 Model Resolution ~ ASA-2007-14 December 11, 2007 Page 5 19. TRASH AND DELIVERY ACTIVITIES A detailed refuge and truck delivery plan must be prepared by the applicant. The plan shall specify locations of trash facilities, refuge pick up schedules and truck delivery schedules and routes. All trash facilities must be screened and enclosed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. The final plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 20. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN A construction management plan shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by staff prior to issuance of building permits. Staging of construction and equipment shall not occur within 250 feet of any residential property. 21. DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS All demolished building and site materials shall be recycled to the maximum extent feasible subject to the Building Official. The applicant shall provide evidence .that materials will be recycled prior to issuance of final demolition permits. 22. PUBLIC ART The applicant shall install public art on the subject 'property prior to final occupancy. 'The public art shall be valued at a minimum of one-quarter percent (1/4%) of the total project budget, not to exceed $100,000. The applicant shall submit a public art plan to be reviewed by the Fine Arts Commission prior to installation of the public art. 23. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR .OTHER- EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. 11 - 43 Model Resolution ASA-2007-14 December 11, 2007 Page 6 SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. 24. OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks, streetlights, street widening and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. . If street lighting is required, street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located. 25. TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City. 26. STREET TREES Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125. 27. GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits maybe _ required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/ or Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate. 28. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. * Pre and Post-development calculations must be provided to identify if storm drain facilities need to be constructed or renovated. 29. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. Ordinance No. 331 requires all overhead lines to be underground whether the lines are new or existing: The developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. 11 - 44 Model Resolution ASA-2007-14 December 11, 2007 Page 7 30. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for under grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits. Fees: a. Grading Permit Fee: b. Checking and Inspection Fee: c. Development Maintenance Deposit: d. Storm Drainage Fee: e. Power Cost: f. Map Checking Fees: g. Park Fees: $6 % of On Site Improvement Costs or $ 2,163.00 minimum $ 5 % of Off Site Improvement Costs or $ 2,304.00 minunum $1,000.00 $ 8,712.00 ** N/A N/ A Bonds (Required): a. On-Site Improvements Bond: 100% Performance Bond b. Off-Site Improvements Bond: 100% Performance Bond; 100% Labor/Material Bond -The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final map or iss>ance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. ** Developer is required to pay for one-year power cost for streetlights 31.TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. 32. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMI''s), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. 11 - 45 Model Resolution ASA-2007-14 December 11, 2007 Page 8 33. NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT The applicant must file for a NOI (Notice of Intent) and must prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan with the State Water Resources Control Board. The city must obtain documentation that the process has been completed. For copies of the Construction General Permit, the NOI and additional permit information consult the state Water Resources Control Board web site at: http: / www. swrcb. ca. gov / stormwtr / c onstruction. html 34. AMENDED DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPL REQUIREMENTS a. Permanent Stormwater Quality BMPs Required In accordance with chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City Code, all development and redevelopment projects shall include permanent BMPs in order to reduce the water quality impacts of stormwater runoff from the entire site for the life of the project. b. Stormwater Management Plan Required The applicant shall submit a Stormwater Management Plan for this project. The permanent storm water quality best management practices (BMPs) included in this plan shall be selected and designed in accordance with chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City Code. c. BMP Agreements The applicant and the City shall enter into a recorded agreement and covenant running with the land for perpetual BMP maintenance by the property owners(s). In addition, the owner(s) and the City shall enter into a recorded easement agreement and covenant running with the land allowing City access at the site for BMP inspection. 35.MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT The applicant will be required to maintain all items, which are non-standard within the City's right of way. The applicant and the City must enter into a recorded agreement for this aforementioned work. 36. GARBAGE AND RECYCLING The applicant will be required to gain approval from the Environmental Programs Department prior to obtaining a building permit for the overall garbage and recycling of the subject development. A refuge truck access plan must be approved by the Environmental Programs Department. 11-46 Model Resolution ASA-2007-14 December 11, 2007 Page 9 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of December 2007, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Lisa Giefer, Chair Director of Community Development Planning Commission G: IPlanninglPDREPOR71RES120071ASA-2007-14 res.doc 11-47 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 MODEL RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TREE REMOVAL PERMIT FOR THE REMOVAL OF 37 TREES TO CONSTRUCT A 100,000 SQUARE FOOT, TV~O-STORY OFFICE BUILDING SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: TR-2007-06 Applicant: Larry Wallerstein, Tantau Investments, LLC Location: 10900 N. Tantau SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for the removal of 37 trees in conjunction with the development of a 100,000 square foot, two-story office building; and WHEREAS, the 37 trees are part of an approved landscape plan, subject to Chapter 14.18 of the Municipal Code, pertaining to Heritage and Specimen Trees; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, application for a tree removal is hereby approved; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application TR-2007-06, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of December 11, 2007 are incorporated by reference herein. 11 - 48 Model Resolution TR-2007-06 December 11, 2007 Page 2 SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVAL ACTION The applicant is approved to remove a total of 37 trees on site in accordance with the applicant's tree survey/removal plan identified as page TS-1 dated November 14, 2007 in the approved exhibits for U-2007-09 and ASA-2007-14, except as may be amended by the conditions of this Resolution. 2. TREE PROTECTION '~ As part of the building permit drawings, a tree protection plan shall be prepared by a certified arborist for the trees to be retained. The applicant shall be required to install tree protection measures before and during development in accordance with the City Arborist's report dated September 12, 2007. In addition, the following measures shall be added to the protection plan: a. For trees to be retained, chain link fencing and other root protection shall be installed around the dripline of the tree prior to any project site work. b. No parking or vehicle parking shall be allowed under root zones, unless using buffers approved by the project arborist. c. No trenching within the critical root zone area is. allowed. If trenching is needed in the vicinity of trees to be retained, the City Arborist shall be consulted before any trenching or root cutting beneath the dripline of the tree. d. Tree protection conditions shall be posted on the tree protection barriers. e. Retained trees shall be watered to maintain them in good health. 3. TREE PROTECTION BOND The applicant shall provide a tree protection bond in the amount of $100,000 to ensure protection of trees, slated for preservation prior to issuance of grading, demolition or building permits. The bond shall be returned after completion of construction, subject to a letter from the City Arborist indicating that the trees are in good condition. 4. TREE REPLACEMENTS The applicant is required to plant a minimum of 68 24-inch box replacement trees on site in conjunction with the removal of 37 trees on site, in accordance with the City's Protected Trees Ordinance. The applicant may be able to reduce the number of replacement trees on site, if larger size trees are proposed, in accordance with the tree replacement standards of the ordinance. For any additional trees that are removed due to hazardous conditions or are considered dead, the applicant shall be required to replace these trees in accordance with the Protected Trees Ordinance. Species and size of replacement trees shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department. i~ -as Model Resolution TR-2007-06 December 11, 2007 Page 3 5. TREE REPLACEMENT IN-LIEU FEE The applicant shall pay an in-lieu fee for any trees that cannot be replaced on site in accordance with the City's Protected Trees Ordinance. 6. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d} (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description. of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of December 2007, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Lisa Giefer, Chair Director of Community Development Cupertino Planning Commission 11 - 50 Exhibit A Tantau Investments, LLC 22 S. Santa Cruz Ave. 2nd Floor Los Gatos, CA 95030 Phone (408) 399-4950 Ext. # 2 Facsimile (408) 399-4960 Cell Phone (408) 313-7203 e-mail: lwallerstein@tatedevelopment.com ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY 10900 TANTAU The 6.6 acre parcel at 10900 Tantau should soon be the successful outcome of the National Priorities List efforts by the United States Environmental Agency, Regional Water Quality Control Board, former owner General Electric, and Tantau Investments, LLC as we move forward to building a high quality office. building at the site. In so doing we are mindful of the fact=that while a.vapor bamer is not a requirement under the 100,000 square foot building, best practices recommend that one be put in, if for no other reason than to reassure future occupants of the building that no TCE vapors can reach them through the soil from the groundwater (variously between 45-60 feet below surface). We will be putting in such a barrier under the building. While GE has successfully completed the remediation of the soil, there are still decades of water processing to be done to remove VOC's (volatile organic compounds) from the groundwater. In this case, primarily TCE. GE just built a state of the art water extraction, cleaning, and discharge system at the Northeast corner of the Tantau site, which serves both our site (10900 Tantau) and the Siemans site directly to our north, as well. Both of these properties together constitute an Operable Unit (OU1) on the National Priorities list. Water extraction and treatment works on the law of diminishing returns, which is to say that GE and Intersil have already cleaned probably 99% of the pollutants out of the water since they started working on this site in 1988, but the last 6/lOths of a point to satisfy Federal and State Governmental standards will require processing copious amounts of water, and will take decades. In addition to the fine work done by GE to date, Tantau Investments, experienced in working with National Priorities List ("Superfund") sites, is investigating an enzyme treatment that may accelerate the overall clean-up of the Tantau site (without necessarily having any impact positive or negative on the Siemans site currently occupied by Kaiser Permanente), or other emerging methods that can be quite effective depending on the quality and consistency of the soil and depth of the groundwater, both of which can assist or block effective distribution of the enzymes. Lay person terms for this approach are sometimes known as the "cheese whey, or cheese whiz" approach, the "molasses" approach or the like. The concept is to get the good stuff to eat the bad stuff, and then become inert. 11 -51 Getting to the point that an application for a building is before you is the positive outcome of efforts begun in 1982, when the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) questioned whether a semiconductor fabrication facility that operated on the site from 1967 until 1988 had caused a problem. The facility, then owned by Intersil first was queried by RWQCB in 1982 regarding possible by products of the then operating waste water neutralization system on site. After a full report by Intersil, in 1989 the site was put on the National Priorities List ("Superfund"), along with the neighboring Siemans site. There were also two other sites indicated as an "Off Site Study Area" and ultimately the Superfund site became 15 acres (approximate} of which our site is 6.6 acres. In 1990 the RWQCB issued a Site Cleanup Requirement Order No. 90-119 covering both the soil, and the groundwater. Remediation plans were drawn up and approved, and work began during Intersil's tenure. In 1992 General Electric (GE) purchased Intersil, and became the defacto owner of the site that they held until we purchased it from them this year. GE completely remediated the soil, and satisfied the RWQCB (and therefore the USEPA) that there were no appreciable VOC vapors in the soil, and won a release from having to do any further work on the soil. However, unless the more aggressive approach to ground water remediation is both tried AND successful, there will be decades more of water extraction, treatment and discharge into Calabazas Creek, under the continuing jurisdiction of the RWQCB as lead agency. GE has agreed to continue being responsible for ALL remediation necessary on the site as required by governmental agencies, and according to Tantau Investment meetings with RWQCB's Roger Paplar, has been doing an excellent job. Tantau Investments, LLC for its part hired ERM, .the same company we successfully used . to remediate soils affected by lead and arsenic in a 130 acre site in Midvale, Utah, in cooperation with the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Utah Department of Environmental Quality, United States Army Corp of Engineers, City of Midvale, and interest groups to create remediated land suitable for "unrestricted residential re-use", a tough standard. ERM provided us with both a Phase I and Phase II report, which included double checking the work done by GE and their remediation company, Geomatrix, as well as looking for anything that GE missed. Two small items were found, and in cooperation with governmental agencies, GE resolved those items. GE has also caused to be recorded in the chain of title for this land, restrictions on use. Considering the sensitivity of the housing issues in the City of Cupertino, it is worthy of note that residential use of the land is not permitted under the restrictions. Neither is direct hospital, or certain type of teaching schools. Medical or other offices, are allowed, and working with Cupertino City Planning Staff, this, project is being geared toward medical or other office. 11 - 52 Placement of the building needs to take into account a 90 foot setback from the extraction equipment and the underground lines carrying the polluted water from extraction wells to the treatment facility, and discharge lines. Additionally, while not an environmental issue, City Staff has suggested that we honor a 150 foot set back from the boundary line between the City of Santa Clara and the City of Cupertino, out of respect for visual height that might otherwise concern Santa Clara residential homes. While there is a well established tree line at this boundary which we will retain (depending on the City's arborist's opinion of the saveability of those trees) we will still honor that set back. That leaves us with a problem. If there is ever movement from off site of any plume of contaminated groundwater in the future back onto our site, the governmental authorities, and hence GE will have the legal right to come back onto our land. While the RWQCB and GE have removed three wells that would have made placing a building on the site commercially unfeasible, they have not forever abandoned the right or ability to replace these monitoring wells, so we need to leave space both in front and behind the building for that potentiality, and not place either building or hardscape where such wells could .potentially go. Having clearance both in front and behind the building will assure the regulatory agencies of suitable locations; for any future monitoring if needed and will not interfere with our building or hardscape. City Staff has shown an appreciation for the issue, and is working with Tantau Investments LLC to determine how best to locate a building, parking, and circulation to meet the eleven point test of the Vallco North Task Force recommendations, while also allowing a building to be built which will remove the problem of what to do with a Superfund site, and replace it with a fine building, which re- usehas long been the goal of governments in the desired outcomes for Superfund sites. In addition to the small room of documents provided by GE regarding its history on the site, Tantau Investments, LLC also maintains the 60 page "Environmental Conditions Report (Phase I Environmental Site Assessment & Phase II Investigation) of August 2007; with Tables, and Appendixes A-M. This includes the drilling sites ERM engaged in soil and groundwater sampling during our purchasing due diligence, a history of the property, and an exhaustive analysis done under a heightened standard known as the "All Appropriate Inquiries" level of investigation, which while not required, can be comforting to construction lenders, and potential occupants, or subsequent "innocent purchasers". Tantau Investments, LLC believes that in working with attorney Marian Whiteman, Environmental Counsel for GE, Lance Hauer, Remediation Lead for GE, Roger Paplar of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Susan Coleman, consultant for GE on remediation, David Behnken and David Pearson of Geomatrix, the remediation company utilized by GE, as well as Ben Leslie-Boles and Kimberly Lake of our own ERM team, we have been able to meet environmental challenges, and still find a way to build an asset both to us and to the City of Cupertino. Lead principal on the environmental aspects of this project for the four principals of Tantau Investments, LLC is attorney and developer Larry I. Wallerstein, although all members of the principals group have experience in successful remediation and re-use of Superfund sites. Please call any of us with any questions or comments, in addition to Devcon Construction, our well known respected General Contractor . 11 - 53 F~i~i~ B Planting anra may not be wide enough to provide significarrt trees to buffer facade view and solar heat gain SSfJES ~ ~ C} ~ - Provide pedestrian link to sidewalk --------.~-x.~ 10900 NORTH TANTAU Cupertino C~.Nin-Qlel ®ESIGI~I Czf#®l1P .._n_~_ _ _ ~> ,.,,~,,.~ __ ~~'~= ,.-..... r.. ~~ _ ~ ~ ~ tnsufficierrt plantDng area to allow trees to buffer elevation Strong pedestrian entry implied on site plan but not provided on elevations Provide pedestrian link from pa~rlong lots to twildiing entry d~c~diar~d~pe fingers and trees to buffer long elevations 11 - 54 .=.i~,: f 4 _ ~ r{ t 7 IJ ~ !i ~a_~. ~; ~-= N ~ > 4'~ r ~,[ E l i ~ `• I n ~- ISSUES Integrate corners into remainder of the design ' Add sun shading to Gor~cQpts onf}r shQ~n .. ~_ ' C.. 109Q0 NORTH T~4NT~lU Cupertino ~ e ~ ~ t ~I~ P4 t N t ~' i+ Strong pedestrian entry implied on site plan but not provided on elevations ~~~ ~sn ~~ Enhance side entries roof screen fo #hat for entry ~Y 9~ !-__- - CorTler $oiMerS seem Very foreign to the design and imply special use at corm when there [.S none ,~-.`S 'cam=a fi'.'4,° .^.E2fi~ _ --'-- Strengthen entry and provide sun shading for large glass walls and recess ground floor 11 - 55 ~~_~,._ ,z ~~a,z Very tweak sense of entry and large west facing glass wall appears to have no sun shading ~Yrr..~ .+.~s..A~ s s ~..,.. a...... k ~- ~~ . _ .. ~, ~: ~ _. _._.,.._ / r~..~ 3 .~ t ~i ~~ _ __.--- 10900 ItitORTH TAfVTAU Cupertino ~:~.9~~I~C~ E~~~GC9~1 C-~~~~ O~a~ ~ 7, 2t?6D7 _, a n - dG a. si Q Y ~~.... ~ ~ .~ - - ~.~.. ~~ • ~.C-+ilT a AJC':~ QFCY ~ ...__ :~ F ~." - tw Exhibit C Sustainable sites credits: o Construction Activity Pollution Preservation ^ Reduce pollution from construction activities by controlling soil erosion, waterway sedimentation and airborne dust generation. o Site Selection: Avoid development of inappropriate sites and reduce the environmental impact from the location of a building on a site. o Development Density & Community Connectivity: ^ Channel development to urban areas with existing infrastructure, protect green field and preserve habitat and natural resources. o Brownfield Redevelopment: ^ Rehabilitate damaged sites where development is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination, reducing pressure on undeveloped land. o Stormwater Design: ^ Limit disruption of natural water hydrology by reducing imperious cover, increasing on-site infiltration, reducing or eliminating pollution from stormewater runoff, and elimination contaminates. o Light pollution Reduction: ^ Minimize light trespass from building and site, reduce sky- glow to increase night sky access. Improve nighttime visibility though glare reduction, and reduce development impact on nocturnal environment. • Water Efficiency credits: o Water Efficient Landscaping o Innovative Wastewater Technologies -TBD with future tenant o Water Use Reduction -TBD with future tenant 11 - 57 Energy & Atmosphere credits: o Establish minimum energy performance ^ Cool roof -Reduce the roof surface temperature by up to 100 degrees Fahrenheit, thereby reducing the heat transferred into the building below. This helps to reduce energy costs (by keeping attics and ducts cooler), improve occupant comfort, cut maintenance costs, increase the Iife cycle of the roof, and reduce urban heat islands along with associated smog. ^ Cool Wall•-heat reflective to reduce exterior wall temperatures and eliminating VOCs. ^ Exterior insulating glass Double pain low E exterior glass are hermetically sealed thus significantly reducing heating and air-conditioning costs. ^ Building envelope -Wall and roof insulation to maximize energy performance. ^ Sunshades -Provide distinctive architectural style to a buildings exterior while considerably reducing glare without creating water infiltration problems associated with solid membrane awnings. Sunshades also reduce heat from sunlight in summer. This helps keep the building cool and saves energy, ideal for sustainable or 'green' building construction. Additional energy performance, TBD with future tenant • ~. Materials & Resource credits: o Recycle 100 % of the asphalt of the existing parking lot during demolition and reuse as base rock for new parking lot. o Construction Waste. Management o TBD with future tenant Indoor Environmental credits: o TBD with future tenant • Innovation & Design Process credits: o TBD with future tenant 11 - 58 f~EDE1CE _CO~Lti~1G CO,~7~,... ~ - . - _ ~~ . ~-o-at~ n:g~ _ ~- ~Sy~t~e~is ~ - , .Specs~.a~~~ ~or~i~r~~a~e.d _~o xefte'~~- - ,~. : tf~e ~ s u n`'~ -: h~ea~.~ an d louver.°e~cte r'i _._y ~`~ or-wall ~u.rface tempera#ur~s by_- , - .._; as. much- as 40°F-!* - ... .. _ TEX•COTEm COOL WALL'" Exterior Coating Systems - are a revolutionary concept in exterior .ertical wall treatments. Because L WALLflects~t sun's heat and keeps exterior cooler, there is less heat buildup around the . ~buildi g that can raise interior temperatures and that- - means savings on cooling costs. " COOL WALL'" is ideal for schools, retail stores and malls, industrial a warehouse facilities, municipal coy family condominiums, apartment I uy`- - J Before infrared photography - E~c~_e r ~ o r- __ - ~_ = S-~s~tem-s-= . ~~Ener~j% Sa~lling~5`.~s~.~E1S# _:, ~ E~DL1/.1lACLT"' FACE .~.L~CKT"'r ~ ~ . ~. _ . - - - ~ ,(compared to conventional paint) - "" ~~f=ourided~irr.t-96`1 ,'Textured Coatings of America,1nc. - ' fias led~the~.industry in exterior coating advancements. • ~.` . ~EX•COTE® products can withstand decades. of exte= riot exposure; are impervious to water penetration; resist fading through revolutionary FAQE BLOCKt"' technology; and are an environmentally friendly "green" solution with low VOC's. And that's just the beginning! The Anti-fade Qualities of FADE B COOL W provide~superio_re resistance even in_d rker colors. COOL WALL'" Systems are ~" back y an extended limited warranty against fading beyond 3 delta values from date of applica- tion. Reduced Building Fatigue Because COOL WALL'" reflects much of the sun's heat, there is less stress placed on the building substrate due to constant expansion and contrac- Reduced "Heat Island" Effect** Since COOL WALL"' keeps exterior surfaces cooler, there is less heat buildup around the building that can raise interior temperatures. ®TEX•COTE Textured Coatings of America, Inc. TEX•COTE® COOL WALL'" coatings undergo extensive testing for fade resistance. Every 1000 hours of testing is equivalent to approximately one and a half years of exposure...5000 hours is equivalent to 8-10 years. Textured Coatings of America, Inc '~~-4101 Ravenswood Rd., Suite #218 '' Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33312-5371 Tol I-Free: 1-800-454-0340 Tel: 954-581-0771 Fax: 954-581-9516 US Pat. Pending, US 20050215685 Textured Coatings of America, Inc. is a .member of the United States y Green Building Council. ,;fit ':©2006, Textured Coatings of America, Inc. ~;,TEX•COTEO and Trim•Cote® are registered :;.,:trademarks of Textured Coatingst9f~erica, Inc. r~SUPER•COTET"' and COOL WALLT^" are trade- ~~.marks of Textured Coatings of America, Inc. ~~~ ~ :: An fafrered-reHeAive matir-g was applied fo Bits slacco bamo to Panaaw City, FL P(roto coorlesr of t'e:ctared Coatings of Aareraa the warp-speed-evolving world of green and sustain- - able buildin and desi n ~~ ~~ f 9 g ~ bw.,=. k~~ P k cool is hot. = ,. Translation: Building F designers and owners everywhere are hot on -~,_~ ~,, s the trail of materials and technologies that help keep buildings cool inside when the tem- ~„~ y :. perature outside is on the rise. In this global ~• ~yg ` `~ anti-warming climate of design, descriptors such as "white," "reflective," and "cool roof" evoke worm and fuzzy feelings about a building's performance in the context of energy usage. The building rooF has served as the focal point of most heat- deflecfing paint and coatings technologies, but a migration to other assemblies is a likely progression, by means of advanced materials that promise to ease the impact of solar radiation on building-interior temperatures: Cool roof, meet your new partner an the green-building coat- ings fieam-the cool wall. Textured Coatings of America Inc., Panama City, FL, says its infrared-reflective (IR) exterior coating, TEX•COTE® SLJPER•COTET"^ COOL WALLT"'', has been shown to take some of the edge ofF the effect of hot weather on energy demand-to the tune of a nearly 22% reduction in air-conditioning demand in one comparison demonstration. The waterborne, high-build acrylic coating product was put b the test in a program carried out by Oak Ridge National Laboratory's Building Envelope Group. In the testing, the exteri- ors of adjacent buildings in three different locations-southern Arizona, northern Florida, and eastern Tennessee-were pointed with two types of exterior coatings, one of them fhe COOL WALL reflective product. 26 ~- •. x ~- s ~ ~~ ~ f may, z ' ~ ~ g,;.~ ~,.,~ ~r+ k ~ Wig, Andre Desjarlais, group leader of the Oak Ridge Building Envelope Group, says the results of the testing indicated that the IR coating product exhibited reflectivity that was about 25 points higher than the conventional "control" coating used for compar- ison. Desjarlais said the effects on energy demand were shown to vary as, not surprisingly, the testing in hotter dimahes with greater solar radiation revealed a more dramatic difference between the reflective and conventional eoatings products. Desjarlais added that the reflective coatings were also shown to generate a greater effect in keeping building interiors cooler when applied to wall assemblies with less insulation. The effect was not as dramatic--energy savings of 10°K or less-in build- ing assemblies with insulation that meets current cede guidelines. The IR coating formula contains less than 150 grams per liter (g/L) of VC>Cs, a level that meets the limits listed in the Green Seal GS 11 standard for paint and coatings. Also offered is a version of the product that meets a 50 g/L VOC limit of the South Coasf Air C~uality Management District (SCAQMD) in California. A typical coating system includes a smooth or textured primer and IR coafiing topcoat. The coating can be used on cantrete, masonry, brick, and previously painted substrates of other types. Journal of Architectural Coatings /April /May 2007 11 - 63 TEX COTC~ TEXTLJRE~ COATINGS OF AMERICAS INC. - " _-t " ~~~ ~~~v COOL WALL SYSTEMTM Textured Coatings of America, Inc. (TCA), is pleased to announce the release of the "COOL WALL SYSTEMTM." The "COOL WALL SYSTEMTM" is developed by utilizing TEX•COTE® SUPER•COTETM heat reflective finish and the SUPER•COTETM primer base coat. This s}~stem is available as either a smooth or textured system. This system will provide the same high performance benefits of the standard TEX•COTE® coating systems, but with the added features of energy savings, fade resistance and an efflorescence block. Architects, Developers and Building owners are being challenged to design and build structures that must comply with a new set of environmental standards such as: • Energy Efficiency & Cost Reduction Goals • Green Building Requirements • LEED Certification • Sustainable Building Criterion • Heat Island Effect • Building Fatigue Almost all building components are being questioned as to their contribution to these new standards: TCA's "COOL WALL SYSTEMTM" will be the first exterior wall coating system that will provide such benefits. The "COOL WALL SYSTEMTM" will provide Total Solar Reflectivity (TSR) in different color ranges translating into reduced surface temperature by up to 40 degrees Fahrenheit and interior energy savings by up to 21.9% depending on the color chosen. That translates into less energy demand for the interior areas as well as less heat stress on the entire wall system. The initial cost will be minimal as compared to potential future energy cost reduction. The energy cost savings will vary depending on the colors selected and the geographical location of the structure. Also, a major feature is fade resistance. TCA will provide a five year warranty for fade resistance. This will enable deeper colors to be utilized by architects in their designs. TCA will provide updates and additional data to support your efforts. All preliminary introductions and discussions with numerous architects, developers and building owners have been extremely positive. TCA will be used by Lowe's on one of their green projects going up in Panama City, Florida before the end of this year. This is split face block construction and our smooth system has shown great promise for this substrate. Lowe's and other retailers are looking for LEED accreditation and now they can obtain further credits by utilizing our green vertical wall coatings on the exterior of their buildings. We look forward to your feedback and experiences when presenting the revolutionary "COOL WALL SYSTEMTM." Attachments: Cool Wall Brochure SUPER•COTETM Guide Specification -Short Form SUPER•COTETM Guide Specification -Long Form SUPER•COTET"1 COOL WALLT"t -Technical Data SUPER•COTETM Classic Primer -Technical Data 11 - 64 TEXs C~TC® TEXTURED COATINGS OF AMERICJy INC. COOL WALLTM COATING SYSTEM *UI~TIQUE FEATURES & PERFORMANCE DATA* Surfaces Receiving The "Cool Wall System ": INCREASE HEAT REFLECTIVITY as compazed to conventional acrylic paint by: • Light/Pastel Colors 25% - 35% • Medium Tone Colors ~. 55% - 65% • Deep Tone Colors 100% or greater DECREASE COOLING COST REQUIREMENTS as compared to conventional acrylic paint by: • Light/Pastel Colors 5% - 10% • Medium Tone Colors 10% - 15% • Deep Tone Colors 15% - 20% Estimated Data based on Independent Analysis and study by Department of Energy (DOE). Results may vary depending on structure/building geographical location and climate conditions. • FIVE-YEAR FADE WARRANTY for light, medium; and deep tone colors. • FLEXIBILITY OF COLOR SELECTION -Designers may specify deep tone or mid tone colors that will provide color integrity and reflectivity equal to or greater than a standard white color. • AN EXTENSIVE LIST OF ASTM AND WEATHERING TESTS conducted to support long-term performance (up to ten yeazs) resistance to wind driven rain, mildew resistance, salt spray resistance etc. The Cool Wall System's technical data lists all performance tests. • GREEN BUILDING PRODUCT CLASSIFICATION • LEED CREDIT -Innovation in design "orporate Offices & Eastern Plant National Sales Ot7ice Western Plant 2422 East 151° Street 4101 Ravenswood Road, Suite 401 5950 S. Avalon Blvd. Panama City, FL 32405-6348 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33312-5371 Los Angeles, CA 90003 T: 850.769-0347 F: 850-913-8619 T: 954-581-0771 F: 954-581-9516 T: 323-233-3111 F: 323-232-1071 11 - 65 www.texcote.com Annual Cooling Electrical Usage and TCA Cool Wall kWh Savings Locations Cases Cooling + Fa kW Savings kWh Savings 5G of Cooling + Fan kWh Miami FL ,, ,- ~, ~~- ~ k ~ Conventional Paint. r . TCA Cool UVaII Palpt ~ ~,- 346;81;1 333,73> 13;079 =~ 3 8% Phcenoc, AZ Conventional Paint 352, TCA Cool Wall Paint. 335, 16,895 4.8% Las Vegas,; NV v Conventional Paint 286,7, - ,_~~ : ~~ '_ TCA Cool Wall Paint ~ , _"272 _ ,13;8+45 , =, `, ~} 8% "_~ ~ , Dallas, TX Conventional Paint 250,3 TCA Cool Wall Paint 239,87 10,446 4.2% Bakersfielli'~A_ ; Conventional Palrrt - _ '232,1 a •~ - TCA;Cool~Wall Paint t ..r _ :219~A3t 12;733 ~ 5 $% `~ _ '` Richmond, VA Conventional Paint 169, TCA Cool Wall Paint 161,08 8,224 4.9% Krioxvllle TN ~ Canvenflonal ~alnt `° r °172,7 ~, "'` ' T.GA Cool Tl1/all~~nt 163 _ ~ 8;872 ` .` 5'196 ~~ ~ . Sacramento, CA Conventional Paint 162, TCA Cool Wall Paint 151,52 10,860 6.7% Los Angeles CA ' ~ ' } Canverttfonai Paint ~ 1't6 71 > . - ~ i 3~, ., ~, TG?c-Cooj 1tValt Pant ;Y 107 9,704 ? ~ $,3% -: , Oniy From ~~~ ~~~~® TEXTLJREC COATNGS ~F AMERICAS INC. 11 - 66 ®DESCRIPTION ®FEATURES ®BENEFITS ®RECOMMENDED OVER SUPER•COTETM Water-based primer. Resists tannin, rust .Concrete Textured Primer is a Cross-linking polymer stains from bleeding .Tilt-up/precast concrete multifunctional low VOC technology. through. Masonry acrylic latex system. Stain blocking . VOC compliant. .Brick Rheology modifiers are additives. '' Hides irregular previously painted surfaces used to provide non-sag, Blocks efflorescence. surfaces. Galvanized and aluminum leveling and film build Available in fine and Use on a variety of substrates. when freshly applied. coarse textures. substrates. Other manufacturer approved This primer is formulated surfaces for surfaces where excessive amounts of alkali are present in the substrate, and where a textured appearance is desired. `; ®APPLICATION Application Equipment Use spray equipment similar to Graco President, 10:1 pump or Graco GM1030. TEX•COTE• application manual available upon request. Medium to long nap roller depending on the surface porosity. Surface Preparation/General All surfaces must be sound, clean and dry prior to priming. Such contaminants as dust, dirt, mildew, form oils, loose substrate, etc., shall be removed. Test the wall for coating acceptability prior to application of coating. This can be done by spraying the wall with water.. If the water soaks into the wall, the wall is properly prepared, and can be coated when dry. If the water beads up and is repelled, the wall requires further cleaning prior to application of the coating. Large cracks, holes and voids must be filled with cement patching compound and TCA TEX•BOND cement adhesive. Texture of patch sha(I match existing area. Cracks less than 1/8" shall be filled with TCA FLEX•PATCH". Cracks greater than 118" and less than 3/8" can be patched with TEX•COTE• SKIM COTE. Sack and patch shall not be applied over the primer. This practice may void waranty. All sacking and patching should be completed prior to coating application. Interfacing of wall joints must be sealed with a urethane type sealant. Application Apply at a rate of 45 to 60 square feet per gallon depending upon surface porosity and desired texture. Temperature for application shall be 45°F (7°C) and rising up to 100°F (37.7°C). Avoid freezing the product. Drying/Curing/Exposure Time Dry to touch = 1 hr approximately Re-coating = 24 hrs minimum Exposure = 4 wks maximum Note Concrete/Masonry should cure a minimum of ten (10) days. If exposed to ultraviolet light more than four weeks, then surface must be reprimed. Cleanup Use water for wet material and Methyl Ketone (M.E.K.) for dry. ®~ FOR BEST PERFORMANCE 1. Do not apply over frozen or damp prior to priming. 6. Not for below grade use surfaces or when rain is imminent. 4.Air temperature for application is 7.Surface shall be clean 8~ dry. 2. Primer shall not be exposed for 45°F (7°C) and rising, not to exceed B.TCA does not promote or more than 4 weeks. Otherwise re- 100°F (37.7°C) recommend coating the sealant prime. S.Retaining walls, plaster boxes, joints, nor is the sealant compound 3.Roof & parapet top caps shall be below grade surface shall be an approved substrate. installed against water penetration waterproofed with asphalt sealer. 11 - 67 SUPER•COTE~ TEXTURED PRIMER ®TECHNICAL DATA Physical ProRerties Percent Volume Solids Typical result 55.7 Percent Weight Solids 65 Weight per Gallon 10.6 lbs. Water Vapor Transmission 8.2 perms Flash Point None (Latex) Viscosity 77°F (25°C) 95 Kreb Units Color - Off Whfte Vehicle Water VOC <100 gramsAiter ®~ORDER INFORMATION Packaging Available in one (1), five (5), 30 and 55 gallon containers. Coverage Rates Coarse Texture 40-50 sgft/gal, Fine Texture 50-60 sgft/gal depending upon surface porosity and texture of substrate. ® SAFETY blaming: Contains crystalline silica. Use with adequate ventilation. Do not breathe spray mist or dust. Avoid contact with eyes, skin and clothing. Wash thoroughly after handling. Do Not Thin. Shelf Life • Twelve month shelf life under proper conditions. • Containers must be stored upright and airtight in a dry space. • Maintain air temperature of 45°F - • Skins formed on surface of material must be removed prior to moving containers or mixing. First Aid: If you experience difficulty in breathing, leave area to obtain fresh air. If difficulty continues, seek medical attention. In case of eye- contact, flush immediately with large quantities of water for at least 15 minutes. Seek medical attention if blurring or redness continues. ®VOC COMPLIANCE All Tex•Cote• products comply with federal and state Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) rules and regulations. Please contact your nearest TCA office for assistance on the local VOC compliance in the area of intended use. ® WARRANTY TEX•COTE® Upon completion of application of coating in accordance with the ®SUPER COTE~M manufacturer's recommendations, Textured Coatings ofAmerica, InC. will TEXTURED PRIMER extend its limited commercial warranty for product replacement as a result of defect in the material. The manufacturer must be notified prior to the application of the coating and the application must be in compliance with the manufacturer's recommendations for installation. Textured Coatings of America, Inc. shall have no obligation to contribute to or otherwise participate in labor or cost associated with effecting repairs. Specimen copy of material warranty is available upon request. ®TEX• CCITC® TL7[iLIREO COATN~6 Of AMEruc~. INC. CORPORATE OFFICES ~ EASTERN PLANT 2422 East 15th Street Panama City, Florida 32405 Tel: (850) 769-0347 Fax: (850) 913-8619 COiw1ERCULL SALE$ OFFlCE YYE3TERN PU1NT X101 rt•.•wu.noa rla4 s,r 214 69w s. i..im era ~ i.~s.~w., rim asau aa. Aq.ia ara.+. axlm T~t1~)Sl14771 Foc1~1511A516 T~tfmlZS~1N Fs (1171712-tO/1 m2006 Textured Coatings d America, Ina. For prdessional use only. Not for sale to or use by the general pudic tt~Z()O6 11 - 68 TEX•COTE ®SUPER•COTETM COOL WALL ®DESCRIPTION ®BENEFITS The TEX•COTE° WALLr"' uses solar satin finish. • Long lasting colors SUPER•COTETM' COOL reflective, heat and • Long term protection WALLT'''system is a ultraviolet stable ®FEATURES • Heat reflective superior heat reflective properties, yielding .Meets GS11 Green 'Easy to clean water based exterior longer lasting cooler Seal requirements. ®RECOMMENDED OVER coating. This highly breathable system has colors. The high reflectivity can lower .Mildew and dirt nrr TEX•COTE SUPER•COTE COOL been formulated for energy usage by up to TTM resistant .Resists salts ra p y WALL'" is recommended over SUPER•COTETM' CLASSIC Primer superior salt spray, and mildew moisture 21.9%'..SUPER•COTE COOL WALL"" is a low and moisture. smooth and SUPER•COTETTM ( ) , resistant properties. VOC, green building • Highly breathable. Textured Primer. Also may be used SI.IPER•COTETM' COOL product. Available in over other manufacturer approved substrate. . ®APPLICATION Installation TEX•COTE® SUPER•COTETM' COOL WALLT" can be applied by brush, roller, or commercial grade airless. Coverage rates will be between 175 to 225 square feet per gallon depending on surface porosity and texture. Commercial grade airless tip size .017 to .019. with TEX•COTE® SKIM COTE. All surfaces must be primed with SUPER•COTETM' CLASSIC or Textured Primer, or other manufacturer approved primers for non-masonry surfaces. See technical data for SUPER•COTETM' CLASSIC and Textured Primers. Surface preparation All surfaces must be sound, clean and dry prior to application of TEX•COTE® SUPER•COTE'*"COOL WALLTM. All Application Rate Coverage rates will be between 175- 225 square feet per gallon (4.9 to 6.0 square meters/liter) depending on surface porosity and texture. spraying simultaneously are recommended to avoid lap marks and spray patterns. If rolling on SUPER•COTETM' COOL WALLT'", with fully loaded roller, apply in vertical strokes initially, then cross roll for even film, ending with vertical strokes. To prevent lap marks proceed as above and continue to a "natural break" such as panel edge, seam or comer. DryinglCuring Times To touch: 2 hrs. approximately Hardness: 24 hrs. minimum loose, flaking or oxldlzed paint shall be removed from surface by sand Application Note: After 24 hours, residual matters in film will continue to cure with blasting, water blasting, wire brushing Over a dry, clean, properly prepared additional days of drying. Times are or scraping. Large cracks, holes and surface, apply the SUPER•COTETM' based on ideal weather conditions. voids must be filled in with cement COOL WALLTM at the specified Clean Up patching compound which utilizes a application rate. Application shall be at For wet material use water to clean bonding agent such as TEX•BOND. uniform film thickness over the entire up. For dry material use xylol, acetone Texture of patch shall match existing wall. A wet edge shall be maintained or methyl ethyl ketone. surface. Cracks less than 1/8" (3.2 during spraying (brushing or rolling) at 'percentage of c°oling and temperature reductions wilt mm) shall be filled with FLEX-PATCH® all times. To prevent lap marks, avoid vary based on color chosen, substrate type and climate compound. Cracks greater than 1/8" starting and stopping midway on walls. conditions. and less than 3/8" can be patched On large areas, two (2) people ® FOR BEST PERFORMANCE 1. Do not apply material when snow, rain or freezing conditions are imminent. Wet conditions combined with cold temperatures may cause improper curing of product. 2.Application temperature shall be between 45°F rising to 100°F (7°C to 38°C). 3. Do not apply if rain is imminent. AVOID FREEZING. 4.Surfaces shall be clean, dry and properly prepared. ~ ~ - ss 5.Formulated for use over SUPER COTETM' CLASSIC and Textured primers. 6.Products shall be handled and stored as indicated herein. 7. Roof & parapet top caps shall be ®TECHNICAL DATA installed and sealed against water penetration before application. S.Trim areas, metals and other substrates may require another TCA primer. Consult manufacturer or representative for recommendations. 9.TCA does not promote or recommend coating the sealant joints, nor is the sealant compound an approved substance. st Method Pro a Result TM D2565-99-T 1, C # 4 Accelerated Weathering 5000 Hours, Passed TM 8117 Salt Spray Resistance 100 Hours -Passed TM D714 Blistering Resistance 100 Hours -Passed TM D610 Rusting Resistance 100 Hours -Passed TM D968 Abrasion Resistance 825 liters falling sand TM D3273/D3274. Mold & Mildew Resistance ~ 28 Days- Rating 10, No growth TM D6940 Wind Driven Rain Resistance 'Passed TM C671D2794 Freeze-Thaw Resistance 50 cycles -Passed TM D4585 Humidity Resistance 100 Hours -Passed TM E96 Permeability Passed TM C1305 Crack Bridging No cracks, separation or loss of film TM D 4803-97 Total Solar Reflectance 'Surface wall temperature reduced up to 40 degrees Fahrenheit depending on color and geographical location as compared to commercial acrylic paint. based acrylic copolymer blend pro a Ranges > by weight 40-52% by Volume 33-37% ~t per Gallon 9.3-10.8 lbs. ure Vapor Permeability 7.5 Metrics perms (with Primer) base 100% Acrylic <150 grams/liter Rule 1113 compliant formula < 50 grams/liter 7c properties based on base used for chosen color and STD or 1113 mt formulation. Table 3 Total Solar Reflectance (TSR) Gain for Color Ranges by Light Colors 25% - 35% Medium Colors 55% - 65% Dark Colors 100% or greater Percentage Increased as compared to conventional acrylic paints. ®ORDER INFORMATION Packaging Available in 1, 5 and 30 gallon containers. Colors Over 570 heat reflective colors. Deep tones colors incur an additional charge. Application Rate Coverage rates will be between 175- 225 square feet per gallon (4.9 to 6.0 square meters/liter) depending on surface porosity and texture. Shelf Life 12 month shelf life, based on the following: Containers stored upright and air tight in a cool, dry place at temperature between 45°F rising to 100°F (7°C to 38°C). AVOID FREEZING. Skins formed on surface of product shall be removed prior to mixing, moving or using. 11 - ~o ®SAFETY Contains hydrocarbon solvents. Use with adequate ventilation. Do not breathe spray mist or dust. Avoid contact with eyes, skin and clothing. Wash thoroughly after handling. First Aid: If you experience difficulty in breathing, leave area to obtain fresh ® WARRANTY air. If difficulty continues, seek medical attention. In case of eye contact, flush immediately with large quantities of water for at least 15 minutes. Seek medical attention if blurring or redness continues. Upon completion of application of coating in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations, Textured Coatings of America, Inc. will extend its limited commercial warranty for product replacement as a result of defect in the material. The manufacturer must be notified prior to the application of the coating and the application must be in compliance with the manufacturer's recommendations for installation. Textured Coatings of America, Inc. shall have no obligation to contribute to or otherwise participate in labor or cost associated with effecting repairs. Specimen copy of material warranty is available upon request. ®VOC COMPLIANCE All TEX•COTE• products comply with federal and state Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) rules and regulations. Please contact your nearest TCA office for assistance on the local VOC compliance in the area of intended use. TEX•COTE® SUPER•COTET" COOL WALLT" TT~.~E~~X• CC~TC® ® , a... rRCD COATN~9 GF AMCRIG, INC. CORPORATE OFFICES 8~ EASTERN PLANT 2422 East 15th Street Panama City, Florida 32405 Tel: (850) 769-0347 Fax: (850) 913-8619 COMMERCIAL SALES OFFICE WESTERN PLJINT 4totrw...ooawo.d~ar.zte, eeeoaw+ia+etia Fr. La,d•nila, Florida ]JJ72 tua hga1~ Carfarti. aoaoD at(ee+)eet-0nt rQ(oe+)set~ste ar.~)mam r~pml~amt 11 - 71 8/2006 ©2006 Textured Coatings of America, Inc. For professional use only. Not for sale to or use by the general public a ~~~ ~ ~ =~ _. ,, d- , . , - ~ Atlanta Gon~eoi`Fowe~- _ _ -'? ~C .~~ t - - ~.{ . ... 'j` ~. .: Cell'. ~TIX•COTE` HIGH BUILD COATINGS FEATURES & BENEFITS A TRUE GREEN ENERGY SAVING EXTERIOR COATING COOL WALLT"' is a patented heat reflective exterior wall coating system that has been tested and proven by the US Department of Energy to save up to 21.9%' on cooling cost. COOL WALLT"' also extends the life-cycle of the coating with its revolutionary FADE BLOCKT"' technology. TCA is a member of the US Green Building Council. ~~~ WEATHERPROOF M E M B EP Coatings manufactured by TCA help resist mildew, wind driven rains, heat and freeze/thaw conditions. SERVICES Custom colors are available and can be manufactured to meet building schedules. Custom colors are submitted for final approval by the architect or specifier. Technical services are available to assist the applicator. ECONOMICAL High-build textured and smooth coatings which are up to 15 times thicker, outperform conventional paints. Sack & Patch/RB costs of concrete can be minimized due to the hiding properties of TCA's textured coatings. VERSATILITY TCA's broad selection of coating systems meet the architectural and performance requirements for both exterior and interior surfaces including ceilings. CAPABILITIES TCA tias modern plants located in Los Angeles, CA and Panama City, FL. Corporate offices and R&D are based in Panama City, FL. TCA manufactures coating systems designed to meet the needs of the construction industry with proven durability and pleasing aesthetics. '-_~~<>` ATTRIBUTES :~:. ~' ~' TEX•COTE®products are high-build, fade resistant and more durable than any other wall coating on the market. A single ~'`~`~~~~ application will protect and enhance the beauty of your structure for years to come. a:,:w "~-=~I PRODUCT PRESENTATION .~#~.~: ;<~.,:, The selection of a TCA coating system is dependant on the architectural effect desired with textures or patterns and the degree of hide required. Complete specifications are available from your TCA Representative or our Commercial Sales Office. .~,~~ ~~1?~ 3^_~-.~ AC,z~r. ~.. ..~T+'-•ta*}.. ...~. ~v ~~... ;.. ~'.. • Ewa ~i~ .. 09 95.100TTE;X,~ S: -BuyLirtta 5348, ~. PRODUCT COMPATIBLE REMARKS COLORREXTURES SPECIFICATION DESCRIPTION SUBSTRATES FINISHES GUIDE TEX•COTE® A high-build coating system that • Surface shall be dean and prepare SUPER•COTE'" COOL Masonry, Concrete Block, protects & beautifies your structure. COLORS: according to manufacturer's written WALLT"' SYSTEM Bricks, Cement, Plaster Stucco Wood Cement Stucco Contains a revolutionary heat reflective/fade resistant finish that can Available in over 570 heat reflective colors recommendations. Contains a revolutionary heat , , provide cooling cost savings by up to TEXTURES: • Consult TCA on the use df primer • Coverage rate shall be to reflective/fade resistant finish that can 21.9 % as confirmed by the US Smooth, Fine, Coarse manufacturefs specifications. provide energy savings, when combined with SUPER•COTETM Departmentof Energy. Percentage of cooling and temperature reductions • Consult TCA'rf form oils ane11 or textured primer or TCA's classic vary based upon color chosen, curing compounds are present. smooth primer. substrate type and climate conditions Complies with Cal'rfornia~ Air Resources Board Rule 1113, EPA and all other state VOC rules. TEX•COTE® XL 70Wm • Surface shall be clean and prepared Next generation,Water-based, Prirr>er~ Masonry; Concrete Block, ' • A premium product for application over COLORS: according to manufacturer's written FligtrPeriarrancePcotective CaaGrg Bricks, Cement, Stucco. damp, cured or t fi Standard TCA Colors. recommendations. A unique ~ resn based uncured concrete Custom colors upon request + Consult TCA on the use of primer brew watirg ~ythRg i TEXTURES: • Coverage rate shall 6e according to se~eriortxxxfrgarddeuabTdy Complies wtth California tic Smooth, Fine, Coarse, XX (Extra manufacturer's written ~y or notion ~ Resources Board Rule 1113, Coarse) recommendations. • EPA and all other state VOC rules. • Consult TCA if form oils and/or curing wmpounds are present. TEX•COTE® XL 70m ~ A premium product for application over • Surface shall be dean and prepared Masonry, Concrete, tilt•up concrete, damp, highly alkaline; cured or COLORS: according to manufacturer's written Primerfess high-performance concrete, . concrete block, brick, cement, stucco uncured concrete i6 standaN TCA colors. recommendation§. protective rroating system. ~ Custom colors upon request • Consult TCA on the use bf primer A solvent•based coating using a Complies with Califomia Air Resoumes TEXTURES: !Coverage rate shall be according to VTACL resin plastidzer Board Rule 1113, Smdoth, Fine, Coarse, XX (Extra manufacturer's written and extenders. EPA and all other state VOC rules. coarse) recommendations. ' • Consult TCArf form oils ands or curing compounds are present. TEX•COTE®600 Over 44 YEARS OF PROVEN • Type of substrate used, preparation TEXTURED COATING Masonry, Concrete Block, PERFORMANCE over many types of COLORS: end application shall be in Awater~ase, textured coating wflh Brides; Cement, Plaster substrates in most geographical 16 Standard TCA Colors. accordance with TCA's wngen emetic Prof ~g Px~flerrt Metal, Cement Bdard, Overlaid dimates throughout the world. Fast TEXTURES: specifications. arihesion ~ f~gh, Plywood. dry and ideal for module type construction. Smooth, Fne, Coarse, XX (Extra Coarse) Spray or Roll-On Formulation. Complies vrith Calfornia Air ' Resoumes Board Rule 1113, EPA and all other state VOC rules. TEX•COTE® 400 ' 7tisaaating has shorvn superior r Sur1•ace Shall be clean and prepared TEXTURED COATING Cbncrete, Cement; Plaster; Block, perbm>anceaerfrghtyakafinesudaces, COLORS: according to manufacturer's written A ~ ~ ~ ~~ Bride, Metal, and ocher TCA a roved s bstrates stoppng efflorescence iron rttigratrg C h th ati a T C ith 16 Standard TCA Colors T recommendations. base ~g ~ ~ ProP~ pp u ; uoug e co i ng n orti w extures: • Surface shall be primed to ~Rg ~ ~g ~ Cafifomia pin Resoumes Board Ftule 1113, Smooth, Fine, Coarse, XX. (Extra manufadurer's written specificatlons, adre,brt FA4 and al oCrer StaIeVOC nAes Coarse) • Coverage rate shall be to ~rsy, a ~~) manufacturePs speciications. TEX•COTE® 300 Over 44 YFARS OF PROVEN • Surface shall be clean and prepared TEXTURED COATING Masonry, Concrete Block, PERFORMANCE over many types bf COLORS: according to manufacturer's written ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ Bricks, Cement, Plaster substrates in mast geographical 16 Standard TCA Colors. rewmmendations. ~~ ~ ~ dy~g ~ ~~ Metal; Cement Board, Overlaid climates throughout the world. Fast TEXTURES; • Surface shall be primed to " ~ ~ AmabSly Plywood, dry and ideal for module type Smooth, Fine, Coarse, XX (Extra manufacturer's written specifications: constructioh. Coarse) • Coverage rate shall be to Spray Formulation. Complies with CaGforriia Air manufacturer's specthcations. Resources Board Rule 1113, ' EPA and all other slate VOC rules. RAI NSTOPPER® Rainstopper' provides long lasting, Some RAINSTOPPER•prdduds • Do not apply over frozen or damp The TEX•COTE• RAINSTOPPER• Structural wncrete, architectural aesthetic staining, water repellency, and come in clear and/or pigmented surfaces or when rain is imminent; Concrete Stain line of products is concrete, exposed aggregated greater depth of color while allowing formulas. Pigmented RAINSTOPPER' avoid freezing: designed to reduce salt intrusion and concrete, concrete masonry, brick moisture and vapor transmission. II Is products are available in TCA's 16 • Air temperature for applicatibn is provide water repellency while masonry, natural stone and cement spedally formulated to provide standard colors with custom colors A5°F (7°C) and rising; not to exceed allowing moisture and vapor stucco. resistance tm alkali, mildew, radium upon request. Deep tones incur 10D°F (37.7°C). transmission. chloride and ultraviolet degradation. addifional costs. GRAFFITI GARD® Concrete Block, GRAFFITI CARD IIIS• and IIIW are • Request written application Graffiti Gard•IIIS and IIIVir solvent or Brides, Stucco, Metal, Gypsum premium high-performance coating COLORS: instructions on GRAFFfTI GARD water-based systems. For extenor.or Wallboard, Plaster systems recommended in areas TCA's TY-COTE pigmented is IIIS'and IIIW'systems. Application interior use. A clear gloss two- acid most Painted Surfaces. where extreme chemical and graffiti available in 16 Standard TCA Colors instnrdion will vary depending component solvent orwater--based resistance is required. Gratfdi Paste or Clear. on substrate. • urethane system which serves as a Cleaner Is used for removing stains • GRAFFRI GARD IIIS• and IIIN!• shield against penetrating defacement material. Recommended and defacement material. requires TCA's pigmented or dear TY-COTE over porous substrates for use where frequent graffiti removal SACRIFICIAL GAAFFITI GARD•5YST1=M. A new water-base, economical system to provide graffiti protection Request subh as block, brick and most is required. . detailed.speciflcation guide for application procedures. , painted surfaces. t .; _ ~~ ~~~ -~ ~~~~`~~~C c I ~ --Go at n g - Y _ _ /y ~ p TcxTaa9m COATINf39Q~AMQi1G. ING - _~~ult~il r~~ - - .-.. q } " _ . Specially formulated to'refJecf the sun's beef and latwer~ _ - ~ `. ~. ~V ~, ~~ exterior wall surface. femperafures ~ -`~ ~ ~ Total so ~ ,~ . • Reduces cooling cost • Helps prevent colors from fading .~,'~Radtatlt~t~3' ~ ~ ~T -,~ -`~ enefration • Low aintenance c • Prevents moisture ~^ ~ ;fi. _ p ue onmentally fri y ~ ~ ' h ~ r~~n '~ - fati duces buildin • R ~ ` g g e ' i ,t 1 =~ ,~ F S~ S 135.7°F Reflectwe ~ ` `~' ~'~ ~ Ra - 120°F e ~i .,:. 100°F ~ I G, t..., •• •• •• •• ~ ~„rr. Y.i _ 98.8°F Before Infrared Photography After image captured with inlrared I i ~} photography proves COOL WALLY'" `ji". ~~ Revolutionary Heat Reflective ~uatlUes "I' with a difference of up to 3TF ~~ t PERMANENT ICIAL r~--- 7- ~-,'l 1.. ~ 7 f ~~: ~ i .ai r. - ~- " ' ~s {, ~ ~ ~ ' a .~ . ~ ~ .fit a t.- ~zj. ~ ~ _~ ~~~ ~ - t ~ ti r i ~ ''` ~`Y 4 n~M1~ ' 1 .~t S ~ .~ : ~p ~ 'ml _ ~ ~ - ' =a , ~~~ ,- t a~ ~ d - "'s ~ E, 3 £ '. }~q,Q bS_ .6..}++~Fti A" d 1~ .~ ~ tai ~ T c ~~* ~ Y f}Y. n~'~p~ r , s,~ ks ~ - ~~ ~~ ~ >~ ~~ ~ ~T .. TEX•COTE® Permanent & Sacrificial GRAFFITI GARD® X Ye. r11 systems offer excellent Graffiti Control protection for simple walls to factories and apartment or office t- _ , '+ r ` _ ~ `~ ; buildings. Preserves highway structures, sound barrier walls, civic or municipal facilities, murals, schools, The TEX~C~TE~ RAINSTOPF~ER~'hne of p 7 designed to reduce salt rnfrusian an~~tr rodu~ts~art3 avide water: mass transit and shopping malls. rEpellency to concrete end masonry ;rurfaees, ,w~rl{~` allawing malsftre vapor fransrrllssrara. P totlucfs'~re' available as clear sealers, or as~emr#ra nsparenf to ~ _ ue `sta-ns r opa ' ~ ° . q _ _ ~ Y, - r _3 ,, :.. T~C~T~® .~ TEXTURED COATINGS OF AMERICA, INC. ' SALES OFFICE CORPORATE H~AD~UARTERS B;;;Bo~~c . 4101 Ravenswood Rd., Suite 218 2422 E..15th St. SPEC-WEST-REPS Ft. Lauderdale, FL 83312-5371 Panama City, FL 32405-6348 •~-o~~• - ., Tel: (954) 581-0771 Fax: (954) 581-9516 Tel: (800) 454-0340 Fax: (850) 913-E619 Ph (510) 20&8030 .71 ~ Copyright 2007 Textured Coatings of America, Inc. All Rights Reserved. TEX•COTE~ XL70fe~, RAINSTOPPER®, .GRAFFITI GARD® are registered trademarks of Textured Coatings of America, Inc. SUPER•COTET'", COOL WALLY'" and FADE BLOCKY"' are trademarks of Textured Coatings of America, Inc. All TEX•COTE® products comply with federal and state Volatile Organic Compound jVOC) rules and regulations; please contact your nearest TCA office for assistance on local VOC ' compliance in the area of intended use. 11 - 75 .o w w w t e x c o t e c o m ~~~~st~~ ~Ia~D where glass becomes architecture" ~~~~~stl+~ +Gaass~ TYthere glass becomes architecture'" ' ur IG units are hermetically sealed combinations of two or more liter of glass separated by a dry airspace. IG units improve the thermal performance of windows, thus significantly reducing hearing and air-conditioning costs. IG units also reduce interior condensation in cold climates, and increase comfort near windows, thus maximizing the usable interior space. Insulatingglass (IG) units are used in a wide range of applications including.• • Commercial/Residential Fixed and Operable windows • Curtain Walls • Storefronts • Sloped/Overhead Glazing • Nonvision (Spandrel) Locations ii -~s Insulating Gl,dss Introduction Insulating glass use in residential and commercial construction has risen steadily over the years to where the majority of all new and innovation construction today includes IG units. IG units not only save on monthly heating and cooling costs, bur they also reduce the initial size and cost of the beating and cooling equipment required' on a project. By combining Low-E coatings, tinted glasses, reIlective coatings, silk-screened patterns, laminated glass products and more, a wide variety of insulating glass configurations aze available to satisfy a wide range of performance and aesthetic requirements. IG units can be fabricated to meet state energy codes, sound control requirements, seismic requirements, impact resistance, bullet resistance, and hurricane and blast resistance requirements. IG units can be designed to reduce heat loss and solar heat gain entering the building, with a minimal reduction of visible light transmittance. IG units will Gave a warmer room-side glass surface temperature than single glazing, thus reducing condensation and moisture- related problems. Description IG units are hermetically sealed combinations of two or more liter of glass separated by a dehydrated airspace. Desiccated spacers are dual sealed with polyisobutylene primary sealant and an organic or silicone secondary sealant, depending on the project specifications and the application: (See the diagrams below.) Argon gas-filled IG units aze available to further improve the insulating properties (reduce the U-Value) of a standard air-filled IG unit. Insulating Glass Unit spacer Bd mot ~ ~ `\ I ~ ~~ Surface t3 Surface 14 again The glass Gtes of an IG unit can be annealed, heat-strengthened, tempered or laminated, as needed, to meet building code requirements, safety glazing standazds and design requirements. The liter of an IG unit can be of equal or unequal thickness. Glass types Available Outboard Lite leboard Lite Clear Clear b Low-E Tints Clear $ Low-E Law-E Cleat Spechalh Selective Tints Clear & Law-E Patterned Clear 8 Low-E Hetlectives #1 or #2 Ciear & LovwE Others include: Laminated Glass, SpaMrel Glass, cared Glass, 51k-screened Glass and Other Decorative Glace (continued on back) OIdCaStle Glass® Where glass becomes architecture" Insulating Glass Description :,_-.,,! ~.„~-i; Heat MirrOr"InsUlating Glass performance and solaz control. In addition, Heat Mirror' insulating glass has a specially tinted or reflective glasses can be used in the coated Low-E film,.suspended midway between makeup to further enhance aesthetics and the liter of glass in the IG unit, to create two solar control. dead airspaces, resulting in improved thermal Heat Mirror' Offers More Than price the Insulation Walue of Conveniianal Glass: Insulating Glass Unit i ~ Came~rtona~ ~- Iraulatinp Gass Has onty One Air Space. i ~\\ \~ Heat Mirror' Glass Unit Heat M'urorT" Ire:ulating Glass Has Two Air Spaces. Glass Options Insulating glass units aze fabricated according to project specifications. IG units can be constructed using a large variety of glass products- including clear, low iron, Low-E's, standard or high performance (spectrally selective) tints; and reflective, silk-screened, spandrel, laminated, decorative, and wired glass-to achieve desired aesthetics, meet design criteria and/or to improve solar control and thermal performance. The standard I"commercial IG unit is made up of two liter of 1/4" glass and a nominal I/2 airspace. Custom IG unit designs can be fabricated with gL~ss thicknesses ranging from I/8" to 3/4" and with airspace thicknesses ranging from 3/16" to 7/8". i ~ ; ~ ! ~, i i `` \'' ~ I\ ~ \~ '\ ', \ \\'4 For a Gst of available glasr producir/colorr, go to the Whig Glass Options Tab. For mart information on silk-rtTtene~ spandrel and laminated glass productr, go to their respective G~r~n Product Information Tabs. For optical and thermal performance data on IG units, go to the Black Performance Data Tah. Maximum sizes for IG units are determined by a number of considerations. Size, thickness, weight, aspect ratio, application and load requirements aze the factors utilized to make this determination. (continued on next page) Oldcastie Glass° where glass becomes architecture'" 11 - 80 Insulating Glass Heat Mirror°Prnduct Minimum: 5 sq. tt. Maximum: 71'-0ne dimension (Film width) Minimum Size: 12' x 12' Mauimum Size: 71' x 120' .. Minimum Unit Thickness: 3/4' The following Heat Mirror' films are available with various light transmittance and solar properties: HM TC 88, HM SC 75, HM 77, HM 66, HM 55 and HM 44. See the Black Product Performance Data Tab for glass performance value urith these films and various glass submates. Insulating glass units are used in essentially all exterior building applications; including vertical glazing, sloped glazing, overhead glazing and skylights, in both vision and spandrel (nonvision) areas. Depending on the glass type used, Ili units can be designed for light and solar control; sound control; ultraviolet screening (to reduce fading); hurricane, earthquake and blast resistance; security; bullet resistance; and decorative applications. Ili units aze also used for interior applications such as sound control and to reduce energy usage for climate-controlled (hot or cold) rooms. See the whits Glass Selector Tab for some typical applications. Residertlial Applications Insulating glass has become the standard for both new and replacement residential windows. Most residential Ili units aze made with one outboard lire of clear glass and an inboard lire of clear glass, often with aLow-E coating to further reduce heat loss. When the short-wave infrared (IR) energy of the sun strikes an object in the house, some of the energy is absorbed and reradiated as long-wave IR (heat) energy. The Low-E coating acts to reflect this heat energy back into the residence. In cold climates, the Low-E coating is normally placed on the #3 surface of the unit. This is done to maximize passive solaz heat gain fmm the sun, while still improving (reducing) the winter nighttime heat loss (winter U-Value). In wanm climates, the Low-E coating is positioned on the #2 surface of an Ili unit to minimize solar heat gain. The U-Value remains unchanged for die second or third surface application. Commercial Applications Most commercial buildings spend the majority of their energy dollars on cooling loads, even in cold climates, due to the internal heat generated by lights, people, copiers, computers and other office equipment. Also, there has been an increase in the number and size of windows to maximi7r the use of natural daylight to reduce energy usage and lighting costs, as well as the positive effect on employee productivity. Therefore, the major emphasis in commercial buildings is to reduce heat gain (minimize the shading coefliciendthe solar beat gain coefficient). Of lesser importance, but still quite significant in cold climates, is the need to minimi~r nighttime heat loss (winter U-Value). There aze now a large number of high performance/spectrally selective tints, with and without high and low reflective coatings, that do an excellent job of reducing heat gain. And there aze a number of Low-E glasses that not only improve (reduce) the winter U-Value, but also reduce heat gain. OldCastle Glass° Where glass becomes architecture° Insulating Glass Certification Oldcastle Glass" insulating glass units are independently tested and certified according to North American standards for quality and performance. Our IG unit constructions pass the highest level (class CBA) pf the ASTM E773/E774 specifications for seal durability. The tests aze performed by third-party labs and validated by the Insulating Glass Certification Council (IGCC), which sponsors the certification program and conducts in-plant inspections in the USA. In Canada, insulating glass units are certified through the IGMAC (Insulating Glass Manufactuers Association of Canada), certification program, in accordance with the CGSB 12.8 Standard. Additionally, Canada and the USA are actively promoting member participatipn in a hazmonized insulating glass standard test method that is administered by IGMA (Insulating Glass Manufacturers Alliance) in Canada and through IGCC in the USA. The new standard has been labeled ASTM E2188, E2189 and E2190. Oldcastle Glassm is an active member of IGMA, a unification of the former IG associations of the USA (Sealed Insulating Glass Manufacturers Association) and of Canada (IGMAC). Oldcastle Glassm insulating glass products aze listed in the latest version of the IGCC Certified Products Directory. Condensation on Interior 61ass Surfaces Condensation on building interior glass surfaces (the #4 surface of an IG unit) is a common wintertime complaint in much of North America. Condensation not only reduces visibility; it also leads to severe damage of the surrounding construction fiom this moisture. Condensation occurs on interior glass surfaces when the surface temperatures fall below the dew-point temperature of the room. The relative humidity in a room at which condensation will occur on the glass surface depends on the interior glass surface temperature, which in turn depends on all the factors affecting heat flow through the glass. These factors include the inside and outside air temperatures and airflows adjacent to the glass surfaces, and the IG unit thermal transmittance (U-Value). Because Low-E glass improves (lowers) the IG unit U-Value, using Low-E glass will increase the unit's interior glass surface temperature. Thus an additional benefit of using Low-E glass is that it permits a higher relative humidity in a room before condensation will occur. This can improve occupant comfort and performance in the winter months. Vision-Spandrel Color Match Spandrel glass can be designed to contrast or harmonize with the vision glass. A wide range of colors and glass produce are available to do this, as discussed in the Green Spandrel Tab section of this binder. The best macch for a vision IG unit is a spandrel IG unit using the same exterior glass (normally a tinted or reflective glass) and a spandrel glass as the interior Gte, with the coating on the #4 Surface on an IG unit. It should be understood that the degree of color and visual similarity of a building's vision and spandrel glass will vary greatly, depending on the time of day, sky conditions, the vision area lighting and interior shading conditions (drapes, miniblinds, etc.), as well as on the color, reflectance and light transmittance of the glass. Assuming the vision and spandrel IG units have the same exterior lire, the visual difference between them will be less noticeable under the following conditions: • the more reflective the exterior lice is • the lower the light transmittance of the exterior lire is • the brighter the sky conditions Oldcastle Glass° L~here glass becomes architecture'" 11 - 82 Insul,dting Glass Additional Important Information Design Criteria Details on the following important topics can be found in the Black Design Criteria Tab: Glazing Instructions, Thermo! Stress, Deflection, Glans Design Loads> Glass Thickness Selection, Spontaneous Breakage of Tempesrd Glaze, :. Roller Wave Distortion in Heat-treated Glass, Mock-ups and Warranties. Specifications A sample Section 08800 Specification for North Amoica can be found in the Black Specifzcationr Tab. Information specific to insulating glass can be found in Part 2 Products, 2.02 Materials. Contact Us For any additional information, including details, technical data, specifications, technical assistance and samples, or to speak with an architectural specialist, call f-866-OLDCAS'I'I.E(653-2278). Yisit Us on the Web Log on to vrww.oldcastleglass.com for project photos, product colors, general inquiries and project assistance. To view performance data on a wide range of glass makeups, or to build your own product spermcation, log on to www.oldcastleglass.com and choose GlasSelea°' R Oldcastle Glass L~here glass becomes architecture' ALL-CITE ARCHITECTURAL PRQDUCTS ~i~f1~i~~1 ~~5 All-Cite sunshades provide distinctive architectural style to a buildings exterior while considerably reducing glare without creating snow load or water infiltration problems associated with solid membrane awnings. Sunshades also reduce heat from sunlight in summer. This helps keep the building cool and saves energy, ideal for sustainable or `green' building construction. Customized to meet each project's individual requirements, our creative design team transforms even the most complex concepts into stunning reality. Blade S les ~e Airfoil Round Eggcrate Angled Flat Bar Z-Blade :ustom Bar 11 - 84 Page 1 of 1 11 - 85 http://www.agsinc.org/sunshades/Pewaukeel.jpg 10/31/2007 http ://www _ agsinc _ org/sunshades/Pewaukee2. j pg Page 1 of 1 ~i -as 10/31/2007 ~~~,.} ~ _ / ~y ~f r T> :x I~(~' Tube Double Tapered Single Tapered Single Tapered Radius Radius Square Channel Square ~ ~ _ $~ Flat Bar Tube Flat Bar Radius Radius Square Curtain Wall Connection Visible Connection Connections Shroud Connection Strut Connection >> -sa Concealed Connection Sun Angle Carer Horizon to Calculate Sun Cut-0ff A) Shroud: A support member attached to the top of a section to assist in load carrying. (loaded in tension) B) Projection C) Design Load: to be calculated by engineer of record. It is the total of: • Wind Load • Ground Snow Load • Snow Drift Load D) Condition: Part of the building to which attachments are made. It is assumed that all condition attachment points have been sized by the engineer of record with sufficient strength to be considered famed points -infinitely rigid, with respect to carrying the moment introduced by sunshade loading. E) Outriggers: Members to which the blades are attached and through which load and moment are transferred to the building. One is located at each end of the sunshade section. F) Blades: Members that actually create shade to the windows below. G) Nosing: The first or most exterior blade. A round shape is recommended to create uniform lift and drag regardless of wind direction. H) Strut: A support member attached to the bottom of a section to assist in load carrying. (loaded in compression) I) Clip Angle: Part used to attach the end of the .outriggers to the condition. J) Fasteners: Attachment mechanisms through the clip angle and the end of the outrigger. These fasteners are loaded in shear, a total of moment shear and direct shear. IQ Anchors: Attachment mechanism through the clip angle or stub out inbo the condition. Anchors above the neutral axis of the attachment group are loaded in tension and this tensile load is used to size anchors. L) Imbedded Stub: Out. ALL-CITE ARCHITECTURAL PRODUCTS 11 - 89 - ~ ARBOR RESOURCES Exhibit ~® - _ Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tre AN INVENTORY AND EVALUATION OF TREES AT 10900 TANTAU AVENUE CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA Submitted to: Community Development Department City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA ASCA Registered ConsultingArborist #399 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-4001A September 12, 2007 P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 Email: arborresources@comcast-.net Phone: 650.654.3351 Fax: 660.240.0777 Licensed Contractor X796763 t~ _90 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist September I2, 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION TITLE ~ ~ PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................... 1 2.0 TREE COUNT AND COMPOSITION .................................. Z 3.0 SUITABILITY FOR TREE PRESERVATION ....................... 3 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................... 5 4.1 Design Guidelines ....................................................... 4,2 Protection Measures Before and During Construction ............ 8 EXHIBITS EXHIBIT TITLE A TREE INVENTORY TABLE ' B SITE MAP i 11 - 91 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist September 12, 2007 1.0 INTRODUCTION I have been retained by the City of Cupertino Community Development Department to inventory and evaluate trees located on or overhanging a vacant commercial site at 10900 Tantau Avenue in Cupertino, CA. The purpose of my review is to advise which trees are worthy of retention, as well as provide measures to mitigate impacts to trees being retained or removed. Tasks performed forthis assignment are as follows: ^ Identify all trees located on or overhanging the subject site (i.e. all trees anticipated to be impacted by the future development). ^ Measure their trunk diameters at approximately 54 inches above grade or as .appropriate to obtain the most representative sample of trunk size (all diameters are rounded to the nearest % of an inch). Diameters of inaccessible trunks were visually estimated. ^ Estimate canopy spread and ascertain the trees' health and structural integrity. ^ Determine the trees' suitability for preservation (e.g. high, moderate or low). ^ Review the Topographic Survey, dated August 2007, prepared by RJA & Associates. ^ Utilize the tree numbers assigned by others to each tree, either on-site and/or on the Topographic Survey. Those found on-site are m the torm of eimer racetracx- shaped, metallic tags with engraved numbers nailed to the trunks; ribbons with written numbers wrapped around the trunks; writing on the trunks; and/or white spray paint on sections of parking lot immediately adjacent to a tree. Tree numbers presented in this report represent those viewed on-site. Where no number was found on or near a trunk, the number shown on the survey was used. ^ Identify trees not shown on the Topographic Survey (there are three in total). ^ Prepare a written report containing the aforementioned information, and provide measures to mitigate anticipated impacts to trees being retained or removed. 10900 Tantau Avenue, Cupertino Page 1 of 11 City of Cupertino Community Development Department 11 - 92 David L. Babby, Registered ConsultingArborist September 12, 20D7 2.0 TREE COUNT AND COMPOSITION There are 134 trees of 10 various species inventoried for this report, and the sequential order of their numbers, as derived from the Topographic Survey, are as follows: #52-77, 77a, 78-89, 91-97, 689-700, 1007-1010, 1013, 1023, 1025-1027, 1049-1079, 1079a, 180- 1099, 1102-1106, 1109-1116, 1138, 1139, and 1079a. The following table identifies their name, number and percentage: ,. ,, ~: . <: - _. .. .. ._. PERCENT OF _ ".NAME ~ - ,.._ . ~.: TREE NUMBERS `. COUNT ~ TOTAL American Sweetgum 88, 89, 91-93 - 5 4% Canary Island Pine ~ 1078, 1139 2 1% Coast Live Oak 1050 1 1 59-74, 94, 95, 1049, 1051- Coast Redwood 1067, 1069, 1073, 1079, 41 31 % . 1114, 1116 Glossy Privet 1109 1 1 Maidenhair Tree 75-87, 96, 97, 1138 16 12% 52, 689-693, 698-700, 1007- Modesto Ash 1009, 1013, 1025-1027, 1091, 1096, 1097, 1110- 24 18% 1113, 1115 Monterey Pine 1074-1077 _ 4 3% Saucer Magnolia 77a 1 1 53-58, 694-697, 1010, 1023, Shame) Ash 1068, 1070-1072, 1080-1090, 39 29% 1092-1095, 1098, 1099, 1102-1106, 1079a Total 134 100% 10900 Tantau Avenue, Cupertino t'age l of 11 City of Cupertino Community Development Department 11 - 93 David L. Babby, Registered ConsultingArborist September 12, 2007 Specific data recorded for each tree can be viewed in Exhibit A (Tree Inventory Table). The tree locations and assigned numbers can be viewed on the map in Exhibit B (copy of the Topographic Survey): As indicated in the previous table, the site is populated primarily by ash and redwoods. The ash trees are situated predominantly within the interior of the site, whereas the redwoods border mostly the entire southern boundary and form a significant screening element. Three trees are missing from the plans. They include a small saucer magnolia, sweetgum, and a small shamel ash; they are assigned #76a, 88 and 1079a, respectively. Their locations are presented on the map in Exhibit B; however, note that these locations are approximate and should not be construed as being surveyed or necessarily accurate. Twenty-one of the inventoried trees have trunks situated on the neighboring properties and canopies overhanging the subject site. They include #53-67, 1007-1010, 1115 and 1116. There are 18 trees that appear to be situated within the public right-of--way (i.e. "street trees"); they include #75-87, 93, 96, 97,1113 and 1138. 3.0 SUITABILITY FOR TREE PRESERVATION Each tree has been assigned either a "high," "moderate" or "low" suitability for preservation rating as a means to cumulatively measure their physiological health, structural integrity, location, size and specie type. These ratings and applicable tree numbers are presented below; note that the "high" category is comprised of 53 trees (or 40-percent), the "moderate" category 22 trees (or 1 frpercent), and the "low" category 59 trees (or 44-percent). 10900 Tantau Avenue, Cupertino Page 3 of 11 City of Cupertino Community Development Department ~ ~ ~ 94 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist September 12, 2007 High: These trees have a high potential of providing long-term contribution to the site, appear in good health, and contain seemingly stable structures. They can be considered the most suitable for retention and protection, and should be retained and protected throughout development. ^ This rating applies to the following: #56, 58, 63-74, 76-81, 83, 85, 87, 92-97, 1010, 1049, 1051-1054, 1056-1067, 1069, 1074,-1079, 1114, 1116 and 1139. Moderate: These trees contribute to the site but not at seemingly significant levels. Typically, their longevity and contribution is less than those of high suitability and more frequent caze is needed during their remaining life span. In general, these trees are worthy or retention but not at the expense of major design revisions. ^ This rating applies to the following: #53, 62, 77a, 82, 84, 86, 88, 699, 1009, 1023, 1050, 1068, 1070, 1071, 1075-1077, 1079a, 1081, 1098, 1109 and 1138. Low: These trees are predisposed to irreparable health problems and/or structural defects that are expected to worsen regardless of measures employed. In many instances, they have~weak structures prone to large limb failure, aze nearly dead, and/or are in an irreversibly pool or declining condition. ^ 'This rating applies to the following: #52, 54, 55, 57, 59-61, 75, 89, 91, 689-698, 700, 1007, 1008, 1013, 1025-1027, 1055, 1072, 1073, 1078, 1080, 1082-1097, 1099, 1102-1105, 1106, 1110-1113 and 1115. 10900 Tantau Avenue, Cupertino Page 4 of lI City of Cupertino Community Development Department i 1 - 95 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist September 12, 2007 4.0 RECONIlVIIJNDATIONS Recommendations presented within this section serve as guidelines for achieving adequate protection of trees that will be retained, as well as mitigation for trees that would be removed. They should be carefully followed and incorporated into construction plans. Please note that any or all recommendations are subject to revision upon reviewing any revised plans. 4.1 Design Guidelines 1. The Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) should be regarded as the entire area beneath a tree's canopy. This is where all grading (soil cuts, fill and finish-grading), trenching) and soil scraping should be avoided. In areas where this is,not feasible, the impacts should be reviewed by the project arborist2 for determining whether an alternative TPZ can potentially support a tree's longevity and stability. 2. All buildings should be designed to be at least five feet beyond the canopies of retained trees (this allows for scaffolding to be established while remaining clear of the tree canopies). Any grading cut, trench or fill (including for the underground garage) required within a TPZ should be setback from a tree's trunk by at least 7 to 10 times its diameter (e.g. a 14- to 20-foot setback for 24-inch diameter tree). 3. I recommend the Topographic Survey is modified to show only the following information for each tree presented in this report: [a] assigned number, [b] ground eleva*den, [c] species, [d] think diameter, and [e] canopy dimension. I also suggest the trunks are exemplified by a circle to scale to allow for more detailed evaluation oftree-related impacts. ~ This includes, but is not limited to, irrigation, lighting, drainage, and underground utilities and services. s The "project arborist" refers to an individual certified by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and/or is a member of the American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA). 10900 Tantau Avenue, Cupertino Page 5 of ll City of Cupertino Community Development Department 11 - 96 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist September 12, 2007 4. For greater clarity, I encourage the assigned numbering system is reconfigured and becomes sequential, such as #1 thru 134 (tags with these engraved numbers should also be attached to accessible tree trunks). 5. All site-related plans (e.g. site, grading and drainage, utility, and landscape) should show the following tree information: assigned number, trunk location, canopy size, and trunk diameter. I also recommend the ground elevation is shown on the grading and drainage plan. For -trees to be removed, an "X" should be shown through their trunks. 6. Where within a TPZ, overcutloverbuild for any parking garage and buildings foundations shall not exceed 24 inches. 7. Any curb, gutter, parking lot and walkways proposed within a TPZ must be established entirely on top of existing soil grade (including base materials, edging and forms). If a vertical cut is necessary, it shall not exceed four inches below existing soil grade. Additionally, direct compaction of the existing soil surface (i.e. subgrade) must be avoided. Soil fill can be used to sharply bevel the top of a walkway to existing grade. 8. The future parking lot should not be established beyond the existing asphalt edges within a TPZ (nor should it require any horizontal or vertical soils cuts for any forming). 9. The future staging area and route(s) of access should be shown on the final site plan and avoided on unpaved areas beneath the trees' canopies. 10. This report and any supplemental letters shall be incorporated into the final set of project plans, titled Sheets T-1, T-2, etc. (Tree Protection Instructions), and referenced on all site-related plans (i.e. site plans; grading and drainage plan, and landscape plans). 10900 Tantau Avenue, Cupertino Page 6 of II City of Cupertino Community Development Department 11 - 97 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist ~ September 11, 2007 11. The permanent and temporary drainage design, including downspouts, shall not require water being dischazged on unpaved areas beneath the trees' canopies. Additionally, the drainage design shall not require trenching within a TPZ, except where within 24 inches from a foundation or wall. 12. All existing, unused lines or pipes beneath the canopies of retained trees shall be abandoned and cut off at 8xisting soil grade (rather than being dug up and causing subsequent root damage); this should be specified on applicable plans. 13. All utilities and services should be routed outside from a TPZ. In the event this is not feasible, directional boring and/or the use of'a pneumatic air device (such as an Air-Spade®) must be considered. For boring, the ground above the tunnel(s) must remain undisturbed and the access pits established as far from the trunks as possible. Additionally, the pit locations (if within the TPZ or adesignated-fenced area) shall be reviewed with the project azborist prior to being dug. 14. Table A of Section 14.18.185 of the City Code should be used as the basis for determining the size and amounts of replacement trees to mitigate those approved for removal. The trees must be double-staked with rubber tree ties, and all forms of irrigation shall be of an automatic drip or soaker hose system placed on the soil surface and not in a sleeve. Additionally, to achieve the greatest assurance of proper installation, all new trees shall be installed, including necessary irrigation, by an experienced state-licensed landscape contractor (or a professional tree company) and performed to professional industry standards. 15. Upon availability, the following plans should be reviewed for tree-related impacts: site, elevaxions, grading and drainage, underground utilities, and landscaping (layout, planting and imgation). 10900 Tantau Avenue, Cupertino Page 7 of 11 City of Cupertino Community Development Department 1 ~ - 98 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist September 12, 2007 16. The proposed landscape design should conform to the following guidelines: a. Plant material installed beneath the tree canopies should be planted at least three to five feet from the trunks and limited in amount, such as no more than 30-percent of a tree canopy. b. Imgation must not strike within three feet of a tree's trunk. c. In the event trenches for irrigation and/or lighting are required beneath a canopy, they shall be~installed in a radial direction to the trees' trunks. If irrigation trenches cannot be routed as such, the work may need to be performed using a pneumatic air device (such as an Air-Spade®) to avoid unnecessary root damage. d. Stones, mulch and fencing should not be placed against the trunks of existing or new trees. Plastic ground cover should also be avoided beneath canopies. e. Tilling beneath canopies should be avoided, including for weed control. f. Bender board or other edging material proposed beneath the canopies should be established on top of existing soil grade (such as by using vertical stakes). 4.2 Protection Measures before and during Development 17. Prior to site demolition and clearing, an on-site, pre-construction meeting shall be held between the project azborist and contractor. The intent is to review trees being removed, procedures for digging beneath or near TPZs, protection fencing locations, limits of grading, staging azeas, routes of access, cleanout pits, mulching, supplemental watering, demolition work, and any other required protection measures. 18. Tree protective fencing shall be installed prior to any demolition, grading or surface scraping; the intent of fencing is to restrict access into unpaved areas of a TPZ. It shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link mounted on eight-foot tall, two-inch diameter steel posts that aze driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. The fencing must be maintained throughout development and at no time shall it be opened or relocated without direct authorization from the azborist. Note that fencing beneath canopies shall be established within one-foot 10900 Tantau Avenue, Cupertino Page 8 of 11 City of Cupertino Community Development Department 11 - 99 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist September 12, 2007 from existing buildings and curbs, and no further than six feet from the foundations of proposed buildings. 19. Any fence panels established on hardscape during the demolition phase can be supported using concrete or metal bases. However, upon the hardscape being removed, the fencing should be established as described in the previous paragraph. 20. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside the designated-fenced areas (even after fencing is removed), and beyond the unpaved areas beneath.tree canopies, 'to include, but not limited to, the following: demolition, grading, stripping of topsoil, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling/dumping of materials, and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 21. The removal of hardscape must be carefully performed to avoid excavating soil and damaging roots during the process. The project arborist should monitor this work, which must not involve the use of heavy equipment or tractors operating or traveling on unpaved soil beneath canopies. Any base material found to be exploited by roots should remain intact and only removed at the discretion of the arborist. 22. Prior to construction, afour-inch layer of coarse wood chips (1/4- to 3/-inch in size) must be spread on unpaved soil beneath the trees' entire canopies, including inside and outside the designated-fenced areas (but not placed against the trunks); this is not necessary within 24 inches from the footings of new buildings or garage(s). The depth shall be maintained throughout development and the wood chips can be obtained from tree service companies and/or by contacting www.reuserinc.com. 23. The project arborist shall monitor development activities authorized within a TPZ. Any digging or trenching within a TPZ shall be manually performed (i.e. through hand-digging) without using heavy equipment or tractors. For trenching, roots 10900 Tantau Avenue, Cupertino Page 9 of 11 City of Cupertino Community Development Department 11 - 100 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist September 12, 2007 exposed with. diameters of two inches and greater should remain intact and not be damaged (if necessary, tunneled beneath). 24. The locations of any posts or piers (e.g. wood fences and/or porches) within a TPZ shall be first reviewed by the project arborist prior to digging. A post-hole digger should be used for digging the first 2.5 to 3 feet below grade; amanually-operated, mechanical auger (or one attached to heavy equipment if approved by the arborist) can be used to drill the remaining depth. In the event a root of two inches and greater in diameter is encountered during the process, the hole may need to be resituated. 25. Recommendations that are presented within Section 4.1 of this report and pertain to site development should also be followed. 26. Throughout construction during the months of May thru October (or as deemed necessary), supplemental water shall be supplied to the retained trees. The methodology, frequency and amounts. shall be prescribed by the project arborist. 27. The pruning of trees shall be performed in accordance with ANSI A300-2001 standards and by a California state-licensed tree service company that has an ISA Certified Arborist in a supervisory role. All pruning work shall be performed under direction of the project arborist. I recommend the work is limited to removing deadwood one-inch and greater, clearing encroachments, and reducing heavy limb weight (,thinning the trees should be avoided). 28. Any stump being removed within a TPZ shall occur using a stump grinder rather than being pulled up with an excavator or backhoe. This work can be performed by the tree service company performing the removals. 10900 Tantau Avenue, Cupertino t'age 1 U of tt City of Cupertino Community Development Department 11 -101 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist September 11, X007 29. Great care must be taken by equipment operators to position their equipment to avoid the trunks and branches of trees. Where a conflict exists, the project arborist should be advised to provide a feasible solution. 30. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited beneath canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath or near canopies. Herbicides should not be' used beneath the trees' canopies; where used on site, they should be labeled for safe use near trees. r t. Prepared By: David-L. Babby, R Date: September 12, 2007 r ~~ -~` - ~~~ r~ T r_~= ~; ~~/ 10900 Tantau Avenue, Cupertino Page 11 of 11 City of Cupertino Community Development Department ~ ~ " ~ 02 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist ~ September 12, 2007 EXHIBIT A: TREE INVENTORY TABLE 10900 Tantau Avenue, Cupertino City of Cupertino Community Development Department 11 -103 TREE INVENTORY TABLE 52 Modesto Ash (Fraxinus v. 'Modesto') ~20 50 75% 25% Fair Low 53 Shamel Ash (Fraxinus uhdei) ~18 35 75% 50% Fair Moderate X 54 Shamel Ash (Frazinus uhdei) ~7 15 25% 50% Poor Low ~ X 55 5hamel Ash (Fraxinus uhdei) --16 30 50% 50% Fair Low X 56 Shamel Ash (Fraxinus uhdei) 17 40 l 00% 75% Good High ~ X 57 Shamel Ash (Fraxinus uhdei) 15.5 25 25% 75% Poor Low X 58 Shamel Ash (Fraxinus uhdei) 19.5 35 100% 75% Good High X 59 Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) 19 25 0% 25% Poor Low X Comments: Nearly dead 60 Coast Redwood (Se oia sempervirens) 13 15 0% 25% Poor Low X Comments: Nearl dead. 61 Coast Redwood (Sequoia sem ervirens) 16 20 25% 50% Poor Low X Comments: Dying. 62 Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) 17.5 20 50% 50% Fair Moderate X Comments: On raised mound. 63 Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) 19.5 20 75% 75% Good High X 64 Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) 17 25 50% 75% Fair High X 65 Coast Redwood (Sequoiasempervirens) 19.5 25 100% 75% Good High X 66 Coast Redwood (Sequoiasempervirens) 7.5 20 100% 75% Good High X 67 Coast Redayood (Sequoia sempervirens) 19 25 75% 75% Good High X Site: 10900 Tantau Avenue, Cupertino Prepared for: City of Cupertino Comm. Develop. Dept Prepared by: David L Babby, RCA 1 of 9 Septemb~} 12~ ~07 TREE INVENTORY TABLE 68 Coast Redwood (Sequoiasempervirens) 29 30 75% 75% Good High 69 Coast Redwood (Sequoiasempervirens) 21.5 25 75% 75% Good High 70 Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) 20 25 100% 75% Good High 71 Coast Redwood (Sequoiasempervirens) 21 25 75% 75% Good High 72 Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) 24.5 25 75% 75% Good High 73 Coast Redwood (Sequoiasempervirens) 26.5 25 100% 75% Good High 74 Coast Redwood (Sequoiasem ervirens) 29 30 75% 75% Good High 75 Maidenhair Tree (Ginkgo biloba) 23.5 30 25% 50% Poor Low 76 Maidenhair Tree (Ginkgo biloba) 12 30 75% 50% Fair High Comments: 77 Maidenhair Tree (Ginkgo biloba) 19.5 25 75% 50% Fair High Comments: Wound at base. 77a Saucer Magnolia (Magnolia soulangiana) 10 20 75% 50% Fair Moderate X Comments: Multi le stems. 78 Maidenhair Tree (Ginkgo biloba) 15 ZS 100% 75% Good High 79 Maidenhair Tree (Ginkgo biloba) 13.5 20 75% 75% Good High 80 Maidenhair Tree (Ginkgo biloba) 21 25 75% 50% Fair High 81 Maidenhair Tree (Ginkgo biloba) 19.5 35 75% 75% Good High . 82 Maidenhair Tree (Ginkgo biloba) 17 35 50% 50% Fair Moderate Site: 90900 Tantau Avenue, Cupertino Prepared for: City of Cupertino Comm. Develop. Dept Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA 2 of 9 Septemble~'1}~~007 TREE INVENTORY TABLE ~: ~ ~ o o ~ .-. ~.. . ~ 3 3 3 y. o ~ ~ ~ ~ b. a .r" ~ ~, w°'i o ~ Q a a: U .. G i ~-' m a 'v p NO TREE NAME. ... ° `" °':-.- :°~' o "~' o. O~,v r x :. z H :a w (-. C7 u7 cn ~" ~.. rn ~. 83 ~ (Ginkgo biloba) ~ 15 ~ 25 ~ 75% ~ 50% ~ Fair ~ High ~ ~ 84 ~ (Ginkgo biloba) ~ 7 ~ 15 ~ 75% ~ 50% ~ Fair ~ Moderate ~ ~ ~ Comments: Leans and has multiple attachments. 85 ~ (Ginkgo biloba) ~ 20 ~ 25 ~ 75% ~ SO% ~ Fair Maidenhav Tree 86 (Ginkgo biloba) 20.5 25 75% 25% Fair Moderate Comments: Poor structure. 87 ~ (Ginkgo biloba) ~ 14 ( 25 ~ 100% ~ 50% . ~ Good ~ High American Sweetgum 88 (Liquidambarstyraciflua) 18 30 100% 25% Fair Moderate Comments: Has a broken limb in canoav. 89 ~ (Liquidambar styraciflua) ~ 16 ~ 30 ~ 75% ~ 50% ~ Fair ~ Low Comments: Has a buried root collar. 91 ~ (Liquidambar styraciflua) ~ 10 ~ 15 ~ 75% ~ 25% ~ Fair ~ ,Low ~ ~ ~ American weetgum 92 (Liquidambarstyraciflua) 17 25 100% 75% Good High American Sweetgum 93 (Liquidambar styrac~ua) 21 30 100% 75% Good High 94 ~ (Sequoia sempervirens) ~ 43 ~ 65 ~ 50% ~ 75% ~ Fair ~ High ~ ~ ~ Coast Redwood 95 (Sequcia se:npervirens) 36 55 7S% 100% Good High 96 ~ (Ginkgo biloba) ~ 14.5 ~ 20 ~ 75% ~ 75% ~ Good ~ High ~ , J Maidenhair Tree 97 (Ginkgo biloba) 12 20 75% 75% Good High Modesto Ash 689 (Fraxinus v. 'Modesto') 20 50 75% 25% Fair Low Comments: Roots causine significant hardscaae damage. 690 I (Fraxinus v. `Modesto') I 16 I 30 ~ 75% I 25% I Fair ~ Low - Comments: Roots causing significant hardscape damage. Site: 10900 Tanfau Avenue, Cupertino Prepared for: City of Cupertino Comm. Develop. Dept Prepared by: David L Babby, RCA 3 of 9 Septembl ~r'!~¢007 TREE INVENTORY TABLE ~.. --~ . o ~~ ~ ,-~ -- ~ ~ a i o Q ~ v a [ °+ R ~ o o .~ TREE ° ~ ~7 :~ ~ ~ °oo\ . ~ °oo: ~ °o ~ .:°. eo 3 `i' °~. o : _~ .~ . . NO. i. . T~2FF NAME . : F~ c7 ~ ci, ~ w cn ~ r, ` x ,~ ~ ... ~ O ... x in " . a: Z H: o . ~ ..a w poi Modesto Ash fFrnrinuc v 'Modesto'1 22 60 100% 25% Fair Low I I I 692 odesto As (Fraxinus v. 'Modesto 23.5 60 100% 25% Fair Low 693 Modesto Ash (Fraxinus a 'Modesto') 23 60 100% 25% Fair Low 694 Shame! Ash (Fraxinus uhdei) ~ 15.5 30 50% 50% Fair Low ' Comments: Trunk has been damaged. 695 Shame! Ash (Fraxinus uhdei) 19 45 75% 50% Fair Low Comments: Trunk has been damaged. 696 hame As (Fraxinus uhdei) 14 40 75% 50% Fair Low 697 - S amel Ash (Fraxinus uhdei) 17.5 40 75% 50% Fair Low 698 Modesto As (Fraxinus v. 'Modesto') 20.5 55 100% 25% Fair Low 699 Mo esto As (Fraxinus v. `Modesto') 24 50 100% 50% Good Moderate Comments: Roots I~ 008 I (Fr2rinus v 'Modestn') I -22 ~ 55 ~ 75% ~ 25% ~ Fair ~ Low ~ ~ X ~ 1009 odesto As (Fraxinus v, 'Modesto') -14 35 75% 50% Fair Moderate X 1010 Shame Ash (Fraxinus uhdei) _ _ --22 55 75% 25% Fair High X Comments: Roots causing sig i ei) 36 55 Comments: Large deadwood. Site: !0900 TantauAvenue, Cupertino Prepared for: City of Cupertino Comm. Develop. Dept Prepared by: David L Babby, RCA 4 of 9 Septem6dr9~~007 TREE INVENTORY TABLE 1050 1051 Coast 1053 1054 Comments: Knots have h desto~ 22 Comments: Roots have h desto~ 25 Comments: Roots have Coast Redwood 1055 (Sequoia sempervire Coast Redwood 1056 (Sequoia sempervire Coast Redwood 1057 ~ (Sequoia sempervirens) ~ Coast Redwood 1058 (Sequoia sempervirens) Coast Redwood 1059 (Sequoia sempervirens) Coast Redwood 1060 (Sequoiasempervirens) - Coast Redwood 1061 (Sequoia sempervirens) Site: 10900 Tantau Avenue, Cupertino Prepared for: City of Cupertino Comm. Develop. Dep Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA ZS I "' I S I 50% I 50% I Fair I Moderate 6.5 15 75% 75% Good High 13 I15 75% 75% Good High 25 30 75% 75% Good High 22.5 25 75% 75%. Good High 6.5 10 25% 75% Poor Low 25.5 25 50% 75% Fair High 19 20 75°~ SO°,~° Fair High 30 40 75% 100% Good High 25.5 20 100% 75% Good High 8 10 50% 50% Fau High 22 25 50% 75% Fair High 5 of 9 Septemb~} t2~ X07 TREE INVENTORY TABLE t n62 Coast Redwood iSeauoia sempervirens) 35.5 30 50% 100% Fair High 1063 Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) 21.5 20 75% 75% Good High 1064 Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) 16.5 20 75% 75% Good High 1065 Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) 22 25 75% 50% Fair High 1066 Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) 22 25 75% 100% Good High 1067 Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) 15.5 20 75% 75% Good High 1068 Shamel Ash (Fraxinus uhdei) 5 15 100% 50% Good Moderate 1069 Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) 9.5 10 100% 50% Good High 1070 Shamel Ash (Fraxinus uhdei) 7, 3.5 I S 100% 50% Good Moderate 1071 Shamel Ash (Frazinus uhdei) 4.5 15 100% 50% Good Moderate 1072 Shamel Ash (Fraxinus uhdei) 4.5 10 100% 25% Fair Low 1073 Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) 12 25 25% 25% Poor Low Comments: Has a dead to . 1074 Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata) 24.5 40 75% 50% Fair High 1075 Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata) 22 40 50% 75% Fair Moderate 1076 Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata) 14.5 30 50% 75% Fair Moderate Site: 10900 Tantau Avenue, Cupertino Prepared for: City of Cupertino Comm. Develop. Dept Prepared by: David L Babby, RCA 6 of 9 Septema~r'/~~007 TREE INVENTORY TABLE 1077 Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata) 27 40 50% 75% Fair Moderate 1078 Canary Island Pine (Pinus canariensis) 7, 5.5 10 25% ' S0% Poor Low 1079 Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) 54.5 55 100% 50% Good High Comments: Tree is com rised of two leaders. 1079a Shamel Ash (Fraxinus uhdei) 5 20 100% 50% Good Moderate X 1080 Shamel Ash (Fraxinus uhdei) 13.5 35 50% 50% Fair Low 1081 Shamel Ash (Fraxinus uhdei) 23 65 100% 50% Good Moderate Comments: Roots have significantly damaged surrounding hardsca e. 1082 Shamel Ash (Fraxinus uhdei) 12 35 50% 25% Poor Low I I Shamel Ash) I I I ° ~ ° I I I 1085 (Fraxinus uhdei J 24.5 40 75 /0 50 /o Fair Low J Comments: Roots have significantly dama ed surroundin hardsca e. Shamel Ash 1086 (Fraxinus uhdei) 16 25 50% 25% Poor Low Comments: Roots si 'ficantly damaging hardsca e. Has a large wound at about 15 feet hi h. Shamel Ash 1087 (Fraxinus uhdei) 15 35 50% 50% Fair Low Comments: Roots have significantly damaged surrounding hardscape. Comments: Roots have significantly damaged surrounding hardscape. Shamel Ash 1090 (Fraxinus uhdei) 15.5 35 50% 25% Poor Low Comments: Roots have significantly damaged surrounding hardscape. Site: 10900 TantauAvenue, Cupertino Prepared for: City of Cupertino Comm. Develop. Dept. Prepared by: David L Babby, RCA 7 of 9 5eptemb'hY 1~,tgb07 TREE INVENTORY TABLE tn9t i ---- Modesto Ash (Fraxinusv 'Modesto') 21 55 75% 50% Fair Low I 1092 • Shamel Ash (Frazinus uhdei) 25 50 75% 50% Fair Low 1093 Shamel Ash (Fraxinus uhdei) 14 • 35 75% 25% Fair Low Comments: Roots have significantly damaged surroundin hardsca e. Narrow growth. 1094 Shamel Ash (Fraxinus uhdei) 10 15 50% 25% Poor Low Comments: Roots have significantly damaged surrounding hardscape. Has extremely oor form. 1095 Shamel Ash (Fraxinus uhdei) 6 _ 10 25% 25% Poor Low Comments: Has very poor form, significant decay throughout trunk, and is dying. 1096 Modesto Ash (Fraxinus v. `Modesto') 18 45 100% 25% Fair Low 1097 Modesto Ash (Fraxinus v. 'Modesto 26 60 100% 25% Fair Low Poor structure. Comments: Leans ei) 7 Comments: Multitrunked. Modesto Ash 1110 (Fraxinus v. 'Modesto 19 55 75% 25% Fair Site: 10900 Tantau Avenue, Cupertino Prepared for: City of Cupertino Comm. Develop. Dept. Prepared by: David L Babby, RCA 8 of 9 Low SeptemB~r1~~ X007 Shamel Ash 1102 (Fraxinus uhdei) 24 5 50 100% 25% Fair Low Shamel Ash 1103 (Fraxinus uhdei) 20.5 __ 50 _ 100% 25% Fair Low TREE INVENTORY TABLE 1111 Modesto Ash (Fraxinus v. 'Modesto') 21 60 75% 25% Fair Low 1112 Modesto Ash (Fraxinus a 'Modesto') 21 60 75% 25% Fair Low 1113 Modesto Ash (Fraxinus v. 'Modesto') 25 70 75% 25% Fair Low 1114 Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) 24 25 50% 75% Fair High 1115 Modesto Ash (Fraxinus v. 'Modesto') 23 - 40 100% 25% Fair Low X 1116 Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) 26 30 75% 100% Good High X 1138 Maidenhair Tree (Ginkgo biloba) -8.5 15 50% 50% Fair Moderate 1139 Canary Island Pine (Pinus canariensis) -9 20 100% 50% Good High Site: 10900 Tantau Avenue, Cupertino Prepared for: City of Cupertino Comm. Develop. Dept Prepared by: David L Babby, RCA 9 of 9 Septemb~q 12~ ~D07 David L. Babby, Registered ConsultingArborist September I2, 2007 EXHIBIT B: SITE MAP 10900 Tantau Avenue, Cupertino City of Cupertino Community Development Department 11 -113 U35Ua~ +, i 4' 1VhSTdeTI' :Yifl~l Q ~- ~ ~ E 1 h ~ i~l`~Y.• 1..- 1 i i I I I i I 1 i i I I I ~ ~ I I ~ I ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ L %`~ ~ ' ' ~ L. f~'. l' - -~I.: ~ ~3~- ,:.[ ~. ' _ I - 1~ J i 1 ~~. r'- ~i~ _ ^ ' _ : s . : ~t -'1 1-,k _ r ~s ~~~t}~ - ~_ 111 1 ~' - - __ - i~ - ~~' ~ tii _ -_._ ¢ . •I I ~. i I ~ jfi., ,~ r...-4~ - _ _ _~_ _ .=1..._ ~ _ ; _- _-_ _ - _ _.- _._T-. ._ _- - F- 11 - 114 t, ~_J_ 1-. - - ~_ .. <',f _ ~.#'~ =T- =1__~__ _ A~ ~.~ ~ I f (f J~~ i{ ~ .G ~ f'. 31° - f _ { ~! ,~ i ~ tits R 'Y j. ~' "~- --'+Y c_+= ac's-". ,~ fr\ ~ ~ { - =sue -~-~ c ~ -- _' fl', ~ ~ir1~~ __ ____ -_ _~_-l , - . _ _ ~ - _. -l. . Environmental Conditions Report (Phase I Environmental Site Prepared for: Assessment & Phase II Investigation) Tantau Investments, LLC 22 South Santa Cruz Avenue Former Intersil Property 2nd Floor 10900 North Tantau Avenue Los Gatos, California Cupertino California August 2007 1 www.erm.com Delivering sustainable solutions in a more competitive world ~~11 ~ ~ Privileged and Confidential ~..... Tantau Investments, LLC i Environmental Conditions Report (Phase I Environmental Site Assessment & Phase II Investigation) Former Intersil Property 10900 North Tantau Avenue Cupertino, California August 007 / . F~roje No.O069227.07 Environmental Professional Kimberly Lake, Pmject Manager rr~ Chimi Yi Project Auditor Environmental Resources Management 1777 Botelho Drive, Suite 260 Walnut Cxeek, California 94596 T:925-946-0458 F:925-946-9968 i~-pis Privileged and Confidential ` ~ TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF APPENDICES ~ v LIST OFFIGZIRES ~i LIST OF TABLES vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ~ 1 1,0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 PURPOSE ~ 1 1.2 SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 2 1.3 INDEMNIFICATION OF CLIENT 3 1.4 LIMITING CONDITIONS 4 2.0 SITE SETTING ~ 5 2.1 SITE LOCATION 5 2.2 NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES ~ 5 2.3 TOPOGRAPHYAND HYDROLOGY d 2.4 GEOLOGYANDHYDROGEOLOGY b 3.0 SITE AND OPERATIONS INFORMATION 8 3.1 GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION ~ 8 3.2 UTILITIES 8 3.3 SITE OPERATIONS 9 3.3.1 Current Operations 9 3.3.2 Dfscontinued Operations 9 3.4 CHEMICAL USE AND STORAGE 11 . 3.4.1 Underground Storage Tanks 12 3.4.2 Above-Groicnd Storage Tanks 13 11 - 117 1 Privileged and Confidential - (~ ~) 3.5 HAZARDOUS AND N4N-L1E~.ZARUOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT 13 3.6 WATER, WASTEWATER, AND STORM WATER 14 3.7 INDICATIONS OF POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS ~ 14 3.8 INDICATIONS OF ON-SITE LAND DISPOSAL 15 3.9 ASBESTOS CONTAIlVING MATERIALS 16 3.10 LEAD-BASED PAINT 17 4.0 ASSESSMENT OF PAST LAND USE 18 4.1 SUBJECT PROPERTY 18 4.2 ADJACENTPROPERTIl±`S AND SURROUNDING AREA 20 5.0 PREVIOUS ENVIRdNMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS AND REMEDIATION 22 5.1 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES 22 ~, ~ 5.1.1 Soil and Soil Vapor 22 5.2.2 Ground Water 24 5.2 REMEDIATIONACTTVITIES 25 5.3 ADDITIONAL IlWESTIGATION AND MONITORING ACTIVITIES 27 5.3.1 Building T-2 Demolition Soil Sampling 27 5.3.2 Curren# Ground Water Conditions 28 5.3.3 June 2006 Soil Vapor Survey 30 6.0 AGENCYIZECORDS REVIEW 32 6.1 STANDARD STATE AND FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD SOURCES ~ 32 6.1.1 Subject Properh~ 34 6.1.2 Surrounding Properties 36 6.2 INTERVIEWS 37 6.3 ADDITIONAL DATA REVIEWS 3S `. . ~ 7.0 STIE CONDITIONS RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT 39 7.1 SOIL MANAGEMENT PLAN ~ 39 11 - 118 ii • - -- _ .. _ ... _...- - - - - -- - Priz~ileggc~arcc~Ganftdest#-ia~--. - . `) 7.2 COVENANT AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTRICTION ONPROPERTY40 8.0 PHASE II INVESTIGATIONACT7VITIES 41 8.1 GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY 41 8.2 SAMPLING OF EXISTING WELLS 41 8.3 SOIL AND GROi,IND WATER INVESTIGATION 42 8.3.1 Permitting and. Utility Clearance 42 8.3.2 Surface Soii Sampling 43 8.3.3 Soil and Ground Water Sampling 44 8.3.4 Soil Sampling Near Underground Vessels 45 8.3.5 Survey Activities 45 9.0 PHASE II INVESTIGATION RESi.iLTS 46 9.1 GEDPHYSICAL SURVEYRESl.ILTS 46 9.2 SOIL RESI.ILTS _ 46 9.2.1 VOCs 46 9.2.2 TPH 46 9.2.3 Metals 47 9.2.4 Asbestos 47 9.2.5 Organochlorine Pesticides 47 9.3 GROUND WATER RESULTS 47 9.3.1 VOCs 48 9.3.2 TPH 48 9.3.3 Dissolved Metals 49 9.4 DATA QUALITY REVIEW 49 . 10.0 DATA GAPS 50 11.0 USER AND O WNER PROVIDED INFORMATI DN 51 11.1 USER AND OWNER Q LIES TIONNAIRES 51 11.2 ENVIRONMENTAL LIENS OR ACTIVITYAND USE LIMITATIONS (AULS) 52 ' 1T.3 SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE 52 11 - 119 111 . P,-;uilege~axcr~Coxi~dgntia~-_--- -- ~~ ~} 11.4 COMMONLYIQVOWN OR REASONABLE ASCERTAINABLE INFDRMATION 52 11.5 VALU`AT'ION REDUCTION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 53 11.& OWNER, PRO.PERTYMANAGER, AND OCCUPANT INFORMATIDN53 12.0 CONCLUSIONS 54 13.0 LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS OFASSESSMENT 57 14:0 PROFESSIONAL QtiALIFICATIONS 5S 15.0 REFERENCES 59 i 11 - 120. lV D,.-~t-~g~d-old-Ee1r~It°~ _ LIST OFAPPENDICES APPENDIX A -SITE PHOTO GRAPHS APPENDIX B EDR REPORT APPENDIX C-FIGURES FROlbf PREVIOUS REPORTS APPENDIX D - GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYREPORT APPENDIX E - GE'S LABORATORY REPORTS FOR DISCOVERED UNDERGROUND VESSELS APPENDIX F AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS, TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS, SANBORN ND COVERAGE CERTIFICATE, CITY DIRECTORY REPORT APPENDIX G -GROUND WATER SAMPLING FORMS APPENDIX H -LABORATORY REPORTS AND DATA QUALITY REVIEW APPENDIX I -SOIL BORING LOGS APPENDIX j ERM'S VAPOR INTRUSION EVALUATION APPENDIX K -USER AND OWI~VER QUESTIONNAIRES APPENDIX L - 40-YEAR CHAIN OF TITLE REPORT APPENDIX M -PROFESSIONAL PROFILES 11 - 121 V -r-igalege~ar~-C-~r~d~#ial -" LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Site Location Map Figure 2 Site Vicinity Map Figure 3 Site Detail Map Figure 4 Sampling Locations i ~ y 11 - 122 vj - --- --------------Pr-ivileged and-Confidential--- --._ ~ ~ LIST OF TABLES Table 1 SamplingAnaIytical Program . Table 2 Soil Analytical Results - VOCs and TPH Table 3 Soil Analytical Results -Inorganic Compounds Table 4 Ground Water Analytical Results - VOCs and TPH Table 5 Ground Water Analytical Results -Dissolved Metals Table 6 Potential RECs/Issues and Resolutions vll 11 - 123 - ~ Privile ed and~Con dential ~ ~, EXECUTIVE SU1bIMARY t ' On behalf of Tantau Investments, LLC (Client), ERM-West, Inc (ERM) completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and Phase II field investigation of 10900 North Tantau Avenue in Cupertino, California ("subject property"). The Phase I ESA was conducted in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard E 1527-05: Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. Standard E 1527-05 describes the protocol for "site assessment practices that satisfy the due diligence responsibilities of participants in commercial real estate transactions." The Phase II investigation was also completed at the subject property to evaluate potential RECs identified during the Phase I ESA, and to resolve or suggest resolutions to Phase I findings. The purpose of the Phase I ESA is to evaluate the presence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs) at the subject property as a result of pastor current activities at the subject property or surrounding properties. ASTM i. ~ Standard E 1527-05 defines an REC as "the presence or likely presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a_ release of hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, ground water, or surface water of the property, excluding de minimis conditions that generally do not present a material risk of harm to public health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies." The Phase I and Phase II investigation were performed in anticipation of a potential purchase transaction and redevelopment of the subject property consistent with the General Plan for the City of Cupertino. As part of this purchase transaction, GE, as the current property owner, has agreed to the following: "At its sole cost and expense, [GE] will perform the Ground Water Remediation Activities according to cleanup objectives and standards set out in the Cleanup Order No. 90-119, including any future modifications thereto, or such alternate standards and objectives as maybe required by, or muhtally agreed between GE and United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), California Regional Water Quality Control ~~ ~`~~~ TAh7AU/OUG9~7.07?6/J % 007 Privile~ed and ConfZdential Board (RWQCB), or other applicable governmental authority, in ~. accordance with the provisions of such Order, including any modifications thereto (collectively "Cleanup Standards".)" GE has at its sole cost and expense completed soil remediation activities with a soil vapor extraction and treatment system; which was successful and the lead agency RWQCB, working with the USEPA, have accepted the completion of the soil remediation activities as executed by GE. Any Reopeners or otLler soils related issues remain the responsibility of GE and are included in the indemnifications set forth in the ensuing paragraphs. • To indemnify the Client from and against all costs and liabilities associated with the following. 1. Costs and liabilities arising out of environmental laws in connection with "known hazardous substances" and asserted by third-parties or governmental authorities with jurisdiction over the subject property. "Known hazardous substances" are defined as any hazardous waste, hazardous substance, asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and petroleum products identified n the subsurface of the subject property prior to the closing of the purchase transaction. Z. Caused by GE`s failure to perform the ground water remediation activities and supplemental soil. remediation activities in accordance with environmental law, the site cleanup Order No. 90-119, and such other requirements for such activities as may be imposed by the RWQCB or other governmental authority. 3. Costs and liabilities asserted or threatened against the Client as a result of any requirement by RWQCB, USEPA, or other government authority that the Client becomes a party to site cleanup order No. 90-119 as a result of "known hazardous substances'. It is therefore, also the purpose of this Phase I ESA and Phase II investigation to identify the "known hazardous substances" at the subject property and to address the current state of remediation and potential risks of the "known hazardous substances". The subject property is a 6.6-acre parcel that is presently vacant. Intersil leased the property fiom Vallco Park, Ltd., and occupied the subject property . from 1967 to 1988. From 1967 to February 1988, Intersil's operations at the ' i subject property consisted of fabrication of (1}integrated circuits, including watch clips, microprocessor memories, and linear and analog devices, and ERM ES'2 TAMAU/OD692TI.01 ~6/~UI?D07 Privileged and Confidential letter dated 14 May 1993 (Geomatrix 1993, RWQCB 1993). The SVE/TS was i subsequently removed in 1993. At-this point in time the RWQCB no longer requires further soil vapor extraction, nor does the RWQCB require placement of a soil vapor barrier below future buiidouts. Ground water has been treated at the subject property since approximately 19$7 with GWE/TS.•~These remediation activities have reduced the concentrations of VOCs in ground water but concentrations remain .above the ground water cleanup goals. Therefore, GE continues to engage in ground water monitoring and treatment at the subject property. ERM's Phase I ESA and Phase II investigation revealed the following RECs in connection with the subject property: Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in ground water: Ground water beneath the subject property is impacted with VOCs and is subject to Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB} Site Cleanup Requirements Order No. 90-119 to contain impacted ground water on site. Trichioroethene (TCE) is currently the only VOC that exceeds the site ' cleanup goal (5 micro ams er-liter gj' p (pg/LJ TCE). Based on ground water data collected by GE in October 2006 and ground water samples collected by ERM during the Phase II investigation, TCE is currently present in the resaturated zone at concentrations up to 490 µg/L, in the A-Zone up to 100 pg/L, and in the B-Zone at 5.3 }~g/L.' The RWQCB has estimated that the ground water cleanup goals may not be achieved for approximately 100 years with the current ground water treatment system. As stated previously, GE has agreed to retain all responsibility for performing ground water remediation activities in accordance with Order No. 90-119, or to modify the ground water remediation system as may be required by . the LTSEPA, RWQCB, or other applicable governmental authorities. Ground water treatment plans acceptable to RWQCB are in effect or available and GE remains responsible for continuing water treatment. Total_petroleumhyclrocarbons as motor oil (TPH mo} in soil near the former East Neutralization S sy tem: Elevated concentrations of TPH-mo were detected in shallow soil near the former East Neutralization System. TPH-mo was detected in soil at 1, 10, and 48.5 feet below ground surface {bgs) at concentrations of 13,000 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), 56 mg/kg, and 20 mg/kg, respectively. TPH-mo was not detected in ground water. These data suggest a surface release of motor oil occurred at this ~'" ES-4 r,~~~nurooerv.o~- si+oizom Priaileged and Confidential E ~ location or fill material impacted with motor oil was used to backfill the ~ excavation of the former East Neutralization System when it was removed in 1988.. The presence of TPH-mo in soil at the subject property is identified as a "known hazardous substance" and as such, GE will retain alI responsibility for potential investigation and remediation of this "known hazardous substance". To address these soil impacts, GE excavated approximately 21 cubic yards of soil from this area. Confirmation soil samples for TPH-mo analysis were collected from the sidewalls and excavation floor. TPH-mo was not detected in the confirmation samples, except the sample collected from the north sidewall. That sample reported 59 mg/kg TPH-mo. 'The RWQCB environmental screening level (ESL) for TPH-mo is shallow soil is 1,000 mg/kg. GE is preparing a report to submit to the RWQCB that documents the excavation activities and soil confirmation sampling results. ERM identified the following conditions during the Phase I ESA that may affect the redevelopment plans for the subject property: • Covenant and Environmental Restriction on Property (7 October 2005). The following items are documented in the Covenant and Environmental Restriction on Property: o Development of the subject property is restricted to industrial, commercial, office space (including medical offices), or recreational use. The subject property cannot be used for residences, hospitals, schools for persons under 21 years of age, or day-care centers for children or senior citizens. o The RWQCB must be notified in writing at least 10 calendar days before any excavation work is conducted on the site, and excavation work must~comply with the Soil Management Plan (SMP). o Before the construction of any buildings to be used or occupied by. persons on the subject property, the potential for vapor intrusion from soil and ground water should evaluated. o All future development and use of the site should preserve the ground water remediation measures currently in place, and ground water from beneath the subject property cannot be used except as part of the monitoring and treatment system, unless otherwise expressly permitted in writing by the RWQCB. The RWQCB must be notified by registered mail within 10 working days of each of the following: (1) the type, cause, location, and date of any disturbance to any remedial measures that could affect the ability of such remedial measures, ~ E5-5 -ranrrat~ioavza.~-. -s~3o~zom Privileged and Confidential } remedial equipment, or monitoring systems to perform their respective functions; and {2) the type and date of repair of such disturbance. o The RWQCB shall have reasonable access to the subject property for the purposes of inspection, surveillance, maintenance, or monitoring. o No one can act in a manner that will aggravate or contribute to the existing environmental conditions beneath the subject property. The deed restriction maybe modified or terminated by a written application to the RWQCB. • On~o~ground water remediation activities: Ground water remediation activities are currently ongoing at the subject property. Historically, the ground water remediation system utilized seven ground water extraction wells and currently utilizes four extraction wells. Although the GWE/TS has significantly reduced VOC concentrations.in ground water, the RWQCB estimates that ground water cleanup goals may not be achieved far approximately 100 years with the current system. GE could evaluate . and implement other ground water remedial alternatives to expedite the process. Because GE has not proposed other remedial alternatives at this ~ time, the potential impact of other remedial alternatives on the redevelopment plans for the subject property cannot be determined. Tantau Investments LLC, working with RWQCB and GE has discussed more aggressive forms of remediation which may significantly decrease the current system timeline perhaps to a time window of 5 to 10 years. . However, as GE remains solely responsible for ground water treatment, final decisions on approach will remain within its discretion. As stated previously, GE has agreed to retain all responsibility for performing ground water remediation activities in accordance with Order No. 90-119, or to modify the ground water remediation system as may be required by the USEPA, RWQCB, or other applicable governmental authority. • Remediation of the resaturated zone: The current GWE/TS currently utilize extraction wells within the water=bearing zones identified as the A-Zone and B-Zone. Extraction wells screened within the shallow water- bearing zone, identified as the resaturated zone, are not currently operating. GE has concluded that the A-Zone extraction wells are capturing and containing the VOC ground water impacts in the resaturated zone. The RWQCB has not responded to this conclusion and could potentially require GE to expand the system to treat ground water in the resaturated zone. As stated above, GE has agreed to retain all ~ responsibility for modifying the ground water remediation system as may be required by the USEPA, RWQCB, or other applicable governmental authority. ~M ES-6 7A1~TAL/0069?'J.07 -~ 6/~0%2W7 Privileged and Confidential • Elevated TCE ground water concentrations in the resaturated zone at the ~ ~ former Siemens property: Elevated TCE concentrations are reported in the resaturated zone at the former Siemens property. The elevated concentrations are detected in monitoring well SW-6S, in the southern portion o€ the former Siemens property, approximately,80 feet downgradient (north) from the northern subject property boundary. The source for these elevated TCE concentrations has not been identified and the RWQCB has not yet responded to this finding. Based on historical data collected at the subject property, it is GE's opinion that the elevated concentrations do not originate from the subject property; however, ERM noted that a soil sample collected in 1992 reported 1.1 mg/kg TCE in soil. That sample was collected from 72.5 feet bgs in the north-central portion of the subject property (near W18B} and is approximately 150 feet south of SW-6S. Also, the highest TCE concentration detected in the resaturated zone during the Phase II investigation was collected from the north- . central portion of the subject property. Therefore, it is possible that the . source for elevated TCE on the Siemens property is the subject property. Because the elevated TCE detections on the Siemens property are approximately 80 feet downgradient from the subject property and the RWQCB has not officially responded to this finding, the RWQCB could potentially require additional investigation activities at the subject 1 property to determine the source of the TCE. GE recently met with RWQCB to advise them of data leading to GE's opinion that the subject property is not the source for the detected TCE, but the RWQCB has not reached a conclusion at this point. GE is providing the documentation and working with RWQCB to resolve this still open issue. As stated above, GE has agreed to perform ground water remediation. activities - according to cleanup objectives and standards set out in the Cleanup • Order No. 90-119. If additional investigation and remediation is required for the elevated TCE at the subject property, GE will retain all responsibility and liability for conducting such activities. Soil Management Plan (2005). Although the soil cleanup goals have been achieved at the subject property, an SMP was prepared for the subject property because residual VOC concentrations remain in soil. The SMP specifies that soils will be managed in accordance with the SMP if the subject property is developed in the fitture. The SMP specifies that any soil excavated on the subject property for the purposes of repairing the existing irrigation system or other on-site utilities will be replaced in the excavation or otherwise remain on the subject property and not be disposed of off site. Other intrusive subsurface sail excavation activities that generate soil that will be disposed of off site are subject to the following requirements: (1) a health and safety plan for site construction must be developed before activities, (2) vehicle and personnel access to 11 - 129 ER.\4 ES-7 Tarrr.~~ ~oovvzn.m - a~;w~zom Privileged and Confidential construction areas should be controlled, (3) if needed, a Storm Water ` ~ Pollution Prevention Plan will be developed prior to activities that details procedures for minimjying erosion, (4) temporary stockpiles will be managed accordingly, to minimize dust and sediment runoff, (5) excess soil generated that requires off-site disposal will be characterized by sampling and analysis in accordance with the requirements of the disposal facility, (6) if needed, dust control measures will be implemented, and (~ the need for air sampling and monitoring will be evaluated if a major excavation is planned. The SMP specifies that the property owner will oversee implementation of the SMP. The RWQCB conditionally approved the SMP on 23 November 2005. If redevelopment activities require the excavation of soil and subsequent off-site disposal of that soil, the excavation activities will be subject to SMI' requirements. ~ 4 ~~ Ec-8 TAN7AL7/0069L'7.07~ R1a0~/~~7 Privileged and Confidential 1.0 INT'RODLICTTON ~~~ On behalf of Tantau Investments, LLC (Client}, ERM-West, Inc. (ERM} completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA} and Phase II field investigation of 10900 North Tantau Avenue in Cupertino, California ("subject property"). The Phase I ESA was conducted in accordance with American Society fox Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard E 1527-05: Standard Practice for'Environmenfal Sife Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. Standard E 1527-05 describes the protocol for "site assessment practices that satisfy the due diligence responsibilities of participants in commercial real estate transactions." The Phase II investigation was completed at the subject property to evaluate potential RECs identified during the Phase I ESA, and to resolve or suggest resolutions to the Phase I ESA findings. The Phase I ESA and Phase II investigation were performed in anticipation of a potential purchase transaction and redevelopment of the subject property consistent with the General Plan for the city of Cupertino. This dociunent constitutes ERM's report on the Phase I ESA and Phase II investigation at the subject property. ' The Phase I site inspection was performed on 2 July 2007 by ERM assessor Ms. Chimi Yi. ERM was accompanied on the site visit by Ms. Susan Colman, Site Project Manager for General Electric Company (GE), and Mr. Ken Chiang, Site Project Manager for S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc. (Papadopulos}. GE is the current owner of the subject property and retained Papadopulos to conduct demolition activities at the subject property. ERM conducted the Phase II investigation activities from lb to 25 July 2007. 1.1 PURPOSE The objective of conducting a Phase I ESA is to identify recogzuzed environmental conditions (RECs) associated with a property that maybe assumed in a real estate transaction ASTM defines an REC as "the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a Property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleuzri products into structures on the Property or into the ground, ground water, or surface water of the Property." RECs do not include de zninimis conditions. ASTM defines these as "conditions that generally do not present a material risk of harm to public '~ 131 ER~1 1 TANTAU/OW922T.t7/- S/70/?007 Priaileged and Confidential health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of 1 an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies." The objective of the Phase II investigation was to collect data to evaluate the potential RECs identified during the Phase I ESA. 1.2 SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS This project was conducted in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in ERM's proposal for environmental assessment to the Client. The Phase I ESA scope of work included: • A visual inspection of readily accessible areas of the subject property; • Interviews with persons knowledgeable about the site to determine current and historical uses or releases of hazardous substances or petroleum-products; • Review of readily available local, state, and federal environmental agency records within a maxunum distance of 1 mile of the subject property as dictated by the ASTM standard; and .~ • Review of readily available documents identifying historical uses of the subject property and adjacent properties. ASTM Standard E 1527-05 "non-scope considerations" were not included in the scope of ERM's Phase I ESA. Non-scope considerations include testing for asbestos-containing materials (AGMs}, radon, lead-based paint, and lead in drinking water, and evaluating the presence of wetlands at the subject property. GE had already evaluated AGMs and lead-based paint; those results are presented in this document. ERM evaluated the presence of AGMs and lead-based paint in soils during the Phase II investigation; the evaluation of AGMs and lead-based paint within building materials was not within the scope of ERM's Phase I or Phase II investigations. This report was prepared for the Client for its sole use acid reliance. Reliance on this report by any other person(s) or_entity(ies) is strictly at their own risk, and ERM makes no warranties to person(s) or entity(ies), other than the Client, who use the information provided in this report. If other person(s) or entity(ies) wish to rely upon this report (i.e., lenders, mortgagers, insurance companies, or other parties to a transaction), ERM will require that such parties agree to our contract terms in writing. 2 ~M 2 r.~rrr.~uioocvin.m- siso~zom Priaileged and Confidential 1.3 INDEMNIFICATION OF CLIENT `i As stated previously, the Phase I ESA and Phase II investigation were performed in anticipation of a potential purchase transaction and redevelopment of the subject property. As part of this purchase transaction, GE, as the current property owner, has agreed to the following: • "At its sole cost and expense, [GE] will perform the Ground Water Remediation Activities According to cleanup objectives and standards set out in the Cleanup Order No. 90-119, including any future modifications thereto, or such alternate standards and objectives as maybe required by, or mutually agreed between GE and United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA}, California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or other applicable governmental authority, in accordance with the provisions of such Order, including any modifications thereto (collectively "Cleanup Standards".)" • To indemnify the Client from and against all costs and liabilities associated with the following: 1. Costs and liabilities arising out of environmental laws in connection with "known hazardous substances" and asserted by third-parties or governmental authorities with jurisdiction over the subject property. "Known hazardous substances" are defined as any hazardous waste, hazardous substance, asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs}, and petroleum products identified n the subsurface of the subject property prior to the closing of the purchase transaction. 2. Caused by GE's failure to perform the ground water remediation activities and supplemental soil remediation activities in accordance with environmental law, the site cleanup Order No. 90- 119, and such other requirements for such activities as may be imposed by the RWQCB or other governmental authority; or 3. Costs and liabilities asserted or threatened against the Client as a result of any requirement by RWQCB, USEPA, or other government authority that the Client becomes a party to site cleanup order No. 90-119 as a result of "known hazardous substances". Therefore, it is also the purpose of this Phase I ESA and Phase II investigation to identify the "known hazardous substances" at the subject 133 ~'\1 ~ 3 7A.~AU/0069I27.V7 - 6!30/2007 Privileged and Confidenfiui property and to address the current state of remediation or potential risks associated with the "lrnown hazazdous substances." i i 1.4 LIMITING CONDIT70NS The weather during the Phase I site visit and Phase II field activities was sunny and the temperatures approximately 75° F. Site operations ceased at the subject property in 1988. Persons with first- hand knowledge of activities and operations conducted at subject property while it was an active facility were not available for interviews. Demolition activities were being conducted at the subject property during the Phase I site visit and Phase II field investigation. These activities restricted ERM's access around the former ground water treatment system located in the north-central portion of the subject property. Qt1H 4 TdA'7AU/oa69Z77m-8/30ROPf~ Privileged and Confidential .~ t 2.0 SITE SETTING This section describes the subject property location, features of neighboring properties, and the topography, hydrology, geology, and hydrogeology of the subject property. 2.1 SITE LOCATION The subject property is located on 10900 North Tantau Avenue in Santa Clara County, Cupertino, California, parcel number 316-09-029. The property is bounded by North Tantau Avenue to the west and Forge Drive to the north and is approximately one-half mile northeast of the intersection of Interstate 280 and North tillolfe Road. Figure 1 shows the general location of the property, based on the United States Geological Survey (CJSGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle for Cupertino, California. Figure~2 illustrates the physiographic features of the surrounding area. Site photographs are included as Appendix A. 2.2 NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES The subject property is located in a mixed-use area of Cupertino, California. Land use in the area of the subject property is predominantly commercial, light industrial, and residential, as shown on Figure 2. The abutting properties and nearby land use include: North: Forge Drive is immediately north of the subject property. Kaiser Permanente (former Siemens facility} is located north of Forge Drive; an IBM parking structure (former American Microsystems, Inc. [AMT] parking structure) and an empty office building are northeast of Forge Drive. Homestead Road and residential buildings are located further north. • South: Semiconductor companies Nethra Imaging and SigmaTel and residential buildings are immediately south of the subject property. Pruneridge Avenue and additional commercial/light industrial and residential properties are further south. • East: Computer industry-related companies Xoomsys and Raza Microelectronic, Inc. (former Tandem facility) are immediately east of the subject property. Vacant land (former AMI facility) and the Kona Kai Swim and Racquet Club are further east. ~~ S TA\rfAlJ/0069*.J.U7-S/30lI.W7 135 Privileged and Confidential Wesb North Tantau Avenue is immediately west of the subject property. AHewlett-Packard campus is present to the west of North Tantau Avenue, with additional commercial/light industrial buildings further west. Based on ERM's observations, the closest residences are immediately south/southeast of the subject property along Melody Lane and Meadow Avenue, adjacent to the south/southeastern boundary of the subject property. Historical environmental releases at adjacent properties have been well documented and are addressed in subsequent sections. During the site visit, no visual evidence of environmental concerns was observed on immediately surrounding properties. 2.3 TOPOGRAPHYAND HYDROLOGY The subject property has an elevation of approximately 152 feet above mean sea level, is predominantly flat, and slopes gently to the northeast. Calabazas Creek is approximately 1,000 feet east of the subject property. According to the Environmental Data Resources, Inc. {EDR) report ~ (provided in Appendix B), the subject property is not within wetland- delineated areas or the 100-yeaz flood plain. The subject.property and areas within a 1-mile radius are located within the 500-year flood plain. 2.4 GEOLOGYAND HYDROGEOLOGY Based on information obtained from previous environmental investigation reports prepared for the subject property, the site geology consists of interbedded coarse-grained sand and gravel and fine-grained silt and clay sediments. Three water-yielding zones are present in the shallow subsurface: the A-Zone, at approximately 90 to 125 feet below ground surface (bgs); the B-Zone; at approximately 130 to 150 feet bgs; and the C-Zone, at approximately 180 to 210 feet bgs. These zones are generally separated by aquitards consisting offine-grained sediments. Between 1993 and 1998, regional ground water levels rose approximately 50 to 55 feet, resulting in the saturation of sediments in the vadose zone. This zone is referred to as the "resaturated zone," occurs at approximately 50 to 90 feet bgs, and is hydraulically connected to the A-Zone. Extensive ground water monitoring conducted at the subject property by Intersil and GE since 1986 indicates that the natural ground water flow ~ direction in all three water-yielding zones is generally to the north toward San Francisco Bay. Ground water extraction is currently conducted at the subject property within the A-Zone and B-Zone. The extraction wells are ~~ 6 ran~.~eioovem.m - si~o~/ioo~36 Privileged and Confidential located in the northern portion of the property and ground water is " ~~ .drawn in radially towards the extraction wells. t 1 Based on information obtained from the EDR report, there are six state water-use wells within aone-quarter- to 1-mile radius of the subject property. 137 ~~ / TA~Tr1L'~/0069227.07 ~ 6/30/2007 Privileged and Confidential 3.0 SITE AND OPERATIONS INFORMATION . ~ The following subsections describe the general site conditions, current and historical operations, chemical use and storage, waste management, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-containing equipment, ACMs and lead- based paint, and visual indications of on-site impacts. Photographs documenting current conditions are presented in Appendix A. 3.1 GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION The subject property occupies approximately b.6 acres of land and is currently owned by GE. Intersil occupied the site from 1967 to 1988; the site has been vacant since 1985. The majority of the site consists of asphalt-paved parking lots and landscaping. The western portion of the subject property is unpaved land covered with gravel; a former Intersil ' building (Building T-2} was located in this area and demolished in 1997. Additional information regarding the former Building T-2 is provided in Section 3.3.2. At the time of the Phase I site visit, two structures were . present on the property: one approximately 3,500-square-foot, open- , topped structure containing a decommissioned ground water treatment # system that operated from 1987 to early 2007, and one small, metal shed containing computer equipment related to the existing ground water treatment system installed in early 2007. These treatment systems are discussed further in Section 5.2. The open-topped structure, constructed in the mid-1970s, is enclosed within an approximately 57,000-square-foot fenced area containing parking lots and landscaping. Removal of the open-topped building and former ground water treatment system was in progress during ERM's site visit on 2 July 2007 and was expected to be completed in 3 to 4 weeks. The metal shed is enclosed within an approximately 500-square-foot, fenced area containing the new ground water treatment system. The new treatment system was installed in early 2007 and consists of three 1,800-pound-capacity tanks and associated piping. The layout of the subject property, site structures, and groLUld water monitoring and extraction wells are shown on Figure 3. 3.2 UTILITIES The subject property is currently provided with water for sanitary use by ~ California Water Service Company and electricity by Pacific Gas and - Electric Company (PG&E). The City of Cupertino provided sanitary ~ 8 11 - 138 T:\\?dL'/W64L~i.UI - S/7U/2007 Privileged and Confidential sewer services to the subject property unti11997. GE discontinued the 1 -j sanitary sewer services at: that time because Building T-2 was demolished. 3.3 SITE OPERATIONS 3.3.1 Current Operations As the subject property is vacant, no process operations are currently conducted on site. GE and Intersil have conducted ground water extraction and treatment since late 1987. The original treatment system utilized an air stripper but was replaced in early 2007 with a new treatment system that uses carbon filtration. Ground water is extracted from four on-site extraction wells and is filtered through three carbon vessels in succession. The carbon strips contaminant compounds off of the ground water and the treated water is discharged into a storm drain that flows to Calabazas Creek. 3.3.2 Discontinued Operations The subject property was used for agricul#ural purposes prior to 1967. 1 Intersil developed the subject property in 1967 and operated at the subject property unti11988. From 1967 to February 1988, Intersil's operations at the subject property consisted of fabrication of (1) integrated circuits, including watch clips, microprocessor memories, and linear and analog devices; and (2} discrete devices, such as individual transistors, diodes, and other semiconductor devices. Site operations were conducted primarily in a building identified as T-2. That building was constructed in 1967 as a 13,000-square-foot, single-story structure. A 43,000-square-foot, 2-story addition was constructed immediately south of the single-story structure in 1970, bringing the total footprint of Building T-2 to approximately 40,000 square feet. Product fabrication consisted of the following processes: • Masking/Photolithography (a method of forming patterned coatings on silicon wafers); • Etching (using acids to remove layers of silicon dioxide and photoresist compounds fiom silicon wafers); Diffusion (allowing dopant impurity elements to diffuse into the wafers); -139 ~,~+ 9 r~,~*ra~ioovv~~.m• aiaoiaom Privileged and Confidential •. Wafer sorting and testing; Arid i Marking and packing the final products. Chemicals used to etch and clean wafers included sulphuric, hydrochloric, hydrofluoric, phosphoric, nitric, chromic, and acetic acids. Xylenes and n- butyl acetate were used as carrying agents for phatoresist or as developer chemicals; the same compounds, plus small amounts of ethylbenzene, were used as negative photoresist chemicals. Trichloroethene (TCE) was used on a limited basis prior to 1979 as a cleaning agent. After 1979, Freon 113, isopropyl alcohol, and acetone were used to clean wafers and equipment. Limited amounts of 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA) were used until closure of the Intersil facility. Other chemicals used or produced during Intersil's operations included phosphates, caustics, metals, phenols, soaps, and detergents. Process wastewater, which consisted of acid wastes, was processed . through vaulted acid neutralization systems and the neutralized ' wastewater was discharged to the municipal sanitary sewer system. The waste neutralization systems were identified as follows: • North Neutralization System: This system was located immediately north of Building T-2 and consisted of two adjacent, below-ground - ~ concrete vaults. One 8,500-gallon tank was housed within each vault and used for acid neutralization of wastewaters. A 500-gallon scrubber sump was associated with this system and was located approximately 70 feet southeast of the vaults. This system was removed in 1988. The closure was documented in the report titled, Closure of Intersil's 20900 North Tantau Avenue Facility, Including Removal of Certain Below-Grade Ltnits, Associated Pipelines, and Above- Ground Storage Areas (Treadwell & Associates,1990). "Inactive" East Neutralization System: This system was located east of Building T-2 and identified by Intersil as the "inactive" system because it was replaced by the East Neutralization System described below. The "inactive" system consisted of six 1,000-gallon tanks for waste neutralization and one 250-gallon tank for waste solvents. The tanks were housed below ground within a concrete vault. A 500-gallon scrubber sump was associated with this system and was approximately 15 feet west of the vault. This system was removed in 1986; with closure documented in the report titled, Removal of I~iactive Neutralization System (Geomatrix,1986). • East Neutralization System: This system was located east of the ' ~ "inactive" East Neutralization System and consisted of a below- ground concrete vault. One 8,500-gallon tank was housed within the ERM 1~ 11 - 140 r,~nr~~ioubvzv.v: -si~oizoo~ Privileged and Conftdenfiai vault, utilized for acid neutralization of wastewaters. The East ,' ~ ~ Neutralization System was removed in 1988, with closure documented ' by Treadwell &. Associates (1990). The locations of these former features are shown on Figure 3 and on figures from previous reports included in Appendix C. From 1980 to 1986, some waste solvents (xylenes; ketones, alcohol, and n- butyl acetate not mixed with large quantities of water) were stored in a waste solvent tank located within the vault of the "inactive" East Neutralization System. Wastes from this tank were pumped out monthly for disposal off site. Other bulk wastes were collected in 55-gallon drums and stored in an above-ground waste storage area east of Building T-2; these wastes were transported off site for recycling or disposal. During EIZIvI's review of site documents, a historical site plan map showed a "gaseous nitrogen plant" within the open-topped building. No oilier references to nitrogen plant operations were noted during the document review. During the site visit, ERM observed a sign marked "Gas Products -Linde Liquid Nitrogen" displayed on the outside of the open-topped building. Site contacts could not provide further information about previous site operations involving liquid or gaseous nitrogen. From 1987 to early 2007, the ground water extraction and treatment system (GWE/TS) used an air stripper to treat the extracted ground water. Similar to the new system, the treated ground water was discharged to an on-site storm drain leading to Calabazas Creek. This treatment system utilized an anti-scalent chemical, Nalco 8357, which was stored on site in a storage shed within the open-topped building. ERM collected a soil sample near the influent pipe to the former ground water treatment system to evaluate if extracted ground water was released to the subsurface prior to treatment from leaks in the influent connection piping. TCE was detected at a concentration of 0.0076 milligram per kilogram (mg/kg} in the soil sample. This concentration does not appear to be indicative of a significant release and an REC is not identified with the influent piping of the former treatment system. The sampling activities and results are presented in greater detail in Sections 8 and 9. 3.4 CHEMICAL LISEAND STORAGE No hazardous substances or petroleum products were observed stored or in use on the site. The new ground water treatment system does not use chemicals. - 41 ~+ 11 T.~nrrwioob~.m -sf:+oi:om Privileged and Confidential 3.4.1 tlndergrourtd Storage Tanks ' . As described in Section 3.8.2, underground storage tanks (USTs} related to Intersil's wastewater neutralization systems were previously present an the subject property and removed in 1986 and 1988. According to site contacts and site reference documents, additional USTs are not currently . present on the subject property. The government records database search performed by EDR (described in Section 5.0) listed the subject property in the Hazardous Substance Storage Container Database (HIST UST} and the Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System (SWEEPS UST) database: Both databases indicated USTs associated with .the former waste neutralization systems, but the databases also indicated a UST had been present at the site for storing diesel. Historical documents reviewed for the subject property did not indicate a UST for diesel storage had been present at the subject property. Therefore, ERM conducted a file review at the Santa Clara County Fire Department, which oversees the UST program for the City of Cupertino, to attempt to identify documentation of an on-site diesel UST. The Santa Clara County Fire Department did not have documents related to historical USTs on the subject property. ~ The HIST UST database listing identifies GE Intersil, Inc., at 10710 North Tantau Avenue as the owner of all on-site USTs. Thus, ERM also reviewed files for this address. A hazardous materials inventory statement for 10710 North Tantau Avenue indicated that no USTs are present on this property. The presence of possible USTs for diesel storage could not be confirmed by historical review or during ~a file review with the Santa Clara County Fire Department. Therefore, ERIVI conducted a geophysical survey to further evaluate the potential for a UST to be present at the subject property. The geophysical survey did not find evidence of USTs currently present at the subject property. A copy of the geophysical survey report is provided in Appendix D. Based on the results of ERM's review of historical site documents, the file review at the Santa Clara County Fire Department, and the geophysical survey, it does not appear that a UST for diesel storage is currently present at the subject property. Therefore, an REC associated with a diesel fuel UST is not identified. The geophysical survey activities and results are presented in greater detail in Sections 8 and 9. During excavation activities associated with the demolition of the former ground water treatment system at the subject property, two underground vessels were encountered. The metal vessels appeared to have storage capacities of approximately 100 gallons and 200 gallons. The existence of these vessels was not reported in historical documents and was therefore ~ ZZ - 142 TA~VTAIJ/ppy9iTl.Ul - 3/i0/TOW Privileged and Confidential unknown to GE. Upon encountering the vessels, GE removed them from ~; ~ the excavation and collected soil samples from beneath both vessels. ERM . also collected a split sample from one location; the sampling activities are detailed in Section 8. The soil samples were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and gasoline-, diesel-, and motor-oil-range total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH-g, TPH-d, and TPH-mo, respectively}. Soil samples from beneath one of the vessels were also analyzed for metals. It is ERM's understanding that GE will prepare a report for the RWQCB that documents the discovery of these vessels, the sampling activities conducted, and the results of the sampling activities. Meanwhile, GE has provided copies of the laboratory report to ERM; the laboratory zeport is . included in Appendix E. VOCs, TPH-g, and TPH'-mo were not detected in the soil samples collected by ERM and GE. ERM's sample results are discussed in greater detail in Section 9. TPH-d was detected in one soil sample collected by GE at a concentration of 3.5 mg/kg. For comparison purposes, the RWQCB ESL'. for TPH-d in shallow soil is 100 mg/kg for a commercial/industrial scenario. Metals were detected in the soil samples at concentrations less than the RWQCB ESLs for shallow soil, except chromium and cobalt. These metals were detected in soil at concentrations slightly above the ESLs but at concentrations that are typical background concentrations (i.e. naturally occurring concentrations) for soils in the San Francisco Bay Area. These sample _ results suggest that a release of hazardous materials did not occur to the subsurface from these underground vessels; therefore, an REC is not identified with the discovery. of these underground vessels. Furthermore, the results of the geophysical survey found indications of scrap metal, such as rebar, within the subsurface of the subject property but did riot find evidence of additional unknown underground vessels. 3.4.2 .Above-Ground Storage Tanks Three above-ground storage tanks (ASTs) were observed inside the new ground water treatment system enclosure. Each tank has an 1,800-pound capacity and contains carbon used to treat extracted ground water. No other ASTs currently in use were observed on the subject property. Several tanks were observed inside the storage room of the open-topped building; these tanks were identified as previously used equipment from other GE sites and will be removed during demolition. 3.5 HAZARDOI,IS AND NON-HAZARDOIXS WASTE MANAGEMENT Hazardous and non-hazardous wastes are not currently generated at the subject property. '~ 143 ~ 13 -ratrrauioobv~.m-arwizow Privileged and Confidential 3.6 WATER, WASTEWATER, AND STORM WATER r' ERM evaluated the subject property for drains and sumps, septic systems, wastewater discharges, pits, ponds or lagoons, and on-site we1Ls. There are currently 13 ground water monitoring wells and seven piezometers located throughout the subject property. Additionally, eight passive vent wells for the former soil vapor extraction (SVE) system and four active ground water extraction wells are located on the northern portion of the site. These on-site wells are not used for drinking water, irrigation, or industrial purposes. Treated ground water from the ground water treatment system is subject to the General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and is discharged to a storm drain inside the fenced enclosure; which in turn discharges to Calabazas Creek. Precipitation that falls on tie subject property infiltrates into the ground surface or is collected in several storm drains and catch basins located in paved areas throughout the site. Swales are present in the pavement to direct surface runoff toward the storm drains and catch basins, which i ~ discharge to Calabazas Creek. During Intersil's operation, Building T-2 was connected to the City of Cupertino sanitary sewer system. Sewer services were discontinued when the building was demolished in 1997. 3.7 INDICATIONS OF POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS ERM inspected the property for types of equipment that have been historically associated with the use of PCBs as a dielectric fluid coolant . and stabilizer. ERM observed one pad-mounted transformer, labeled with the number T-13110, located adjacent to the new ground water treatment system. Electrical service is provided by PG&E and the transformer is owned by PG&E. According to site contacts, the transformer was installed in May 2007. No spillage or leakage was observed on or under the transformer. Based on the installation date of the transformer, it is unlikely to be PCB- containing. PG&E retains responsibility for spillage or leakage associated with the unit. ' No other transformers or potentially PCB-containing equipment was observed on the site. According to historical site documents, three Y4 - 44 e~ ranrau/oov9zz~.m - s/x~noo~ Privileged and Confidential additional transformers were previously present on site: one oil-less ~ ~ ~ transformer inside the open-topped building, used by the former treatment system; one transformer located immediately south of the building, possibly used during Intersil's operation; and one underground transformer located beneath the sidewalk along Forge Drive. During the site visit, ERM observed that the two former on-site transformers had been removed. Site contacts indicated that the transformer beneath the sidewalk was most likely erroneously identified and does not exist. Two metal vault covers labeled PG&E were observed along the northern site boundary near Forge Drive; the contents of the vaults could not be observed. ERM is currently in the process of contacting PG&E to determine the content of these vaults; additional information will be provided after it is obtained from PG&E if ERM learns that PCB- containing equipment is housed within these vaults. 3.8 INDICATIONS OF ON-SITE LAND DISPOSAL ERM observed a localized~~depression in the pavement near the southwestern corner of the fenced area. The ground surface depression appears to be located within the immediate vicinity of the former East Neutralization System. Two concrete plugs were observed in the center of the depression, suggesting that drilling/sampling may have previously been done in this location. Historical aerial photographs identified trailer storage in the vicinity of the depression, and site contacts could not provide further information about the depression. ERM collected soil and ground water samples from this area for VOC and TPH analyses to evaluate the current subsurface conditions in this area. TPH-mo was detected in soil at 1, 10, and 48.5 feet bgs at concentrations of 13,000 mg/kg, 56 mg/kg, and 20 mg/kg, respectively. TPH-mo was not detected in ground water. Note that the RWQCB's Environmental Screening Level (ESL) for TPH (residual fuels, such as motor oil) is 1,000 mg/kg. These data suggest a surface release of motor oil occurred at this location or fill material impacted with motor oil was• used to backfill the excavation of the former east neutralization system when it was removed in 1988. The presence of elevated TPH-mo in soil near the former East Neutralization System is identified as an REC and also as a "known hazardous substance", as defined in Section 1.3, and as such, GE will retain all responsibility for potential investigation and remediation this REC/"known hazardous substance". To address these soil impacts, GE excavated approximately 21 cubic yards of soil from this area. Confirmation soil samples for TPH-mo analysis were collected from the sidewalls and excavation floor. TPH-mo was not detected in the confirmation samples, except the sample collected from the north - sidewall. That sample reported 59 mg/kg TPH-mo. The RWQCB ESL for - ~ ~ 145 ~~ 15 ~ 7ANTAl;/0069'17.07-5/iD/2D0•/ Priaileged and Confidential TPH-mo is shallow soil is 1,000 mg/kg. GE is preparing a report to submit to the RWQCB that documents the excavation activities and soil confirmation sampling results. ERM observed several stockpiled materials on the subject property. Piles of soil were observed west of the open-topped building, within the fenced area. Site contacts indicated that the soil originated from the excavations for pipe installation near the new ground water treatment system; the soil will be used to backfill the pit created by removal of the former treatment system in accordance with the Soil Management Plan (SMP). Because the soils originate from the subject property and will be managed in accordance with the SMP, this stockpile is not identified as an REC. A small stockpile of gravelly soil was observed near the former above- ground waste chemical storage area, south of the open-topped building. Site contacts identified the soil as backfill material that was removed from on-site SVE system vent wells which were abandoned in the 1990s. In accordance with the SMP `this soil will also be used as backfill during the removal of the former treatment system. Because the soils originate from the subject property and will be managed in accordance with the SMP, this stockpile is not identified as an REC. '~ ERM also observed evidence of on-site stockpiling of waste asphalt, inside the fenced axea, on the northern portion of the former Building T-2 site, and on the southern portion of the site. Ken Chiang of Papadopulos informed ERM that this asphalt debris will be removed from the subject property during the demolition activities of the former ground water treatment system. The waste asphalt is not identified as an REC. 3.9 ASBESTOS CDNT'A7IVING MATERIALS GE conducted an asbestos survey for the open-top building in 2005 in anticipation of its planned demolition. Analysis revealed the presence of chrysotile in the joint compound associated with gypsum board and black/silver penetration mastic on the roofing. The asbestos was reportedly removed on 21 June 2007 prior to demolishing the open-top structure. Removal of the open-topped building occurred in July 2007. ERM collected soil samples for asbestos analysis from the footprint of the demolished treatment system to evaluate if asbestos was released to the ground during the demolition of the open-top structure. ERM also collected soil samples for asbestos analysis from within the footprint of the former Buulding T-2 to evaluate if asbestos was released during the demolition of that structure. Asbestos was not detected in the soil 16 - as ~'~ TANTr~U/0069227.07 - 3/30/2007 Privileged and Confidenfial samples. Therefore, an REC relating to the release of asbestos during ~'~ building demolition activities was not identified. The soil sampling ~ i activities and results are described in greater detail in Sections 8 and 9. 3.10 LEAD-BASED PAINT GE conducted alead-based paint survey for the open-top building in 2005 in anticipation of its planned demolition. Analysis of suspected lead- containing paints within the open-topped building revealed the presence of lead at a concentration of 0.20 percent by weight in the peeling/flaking black paint on metal hand rails inside the building. Removal of the open- topped building occurred in July 2007. ERM collected soil samples for lead analysis from the footprint of the demolished treatment system to evaluate if lead-based paint chips were released to the ground during the demolition of the open-top structure. ERM also collected soil samples for lead analysis from within the footprint of the former Building T-2 to evaluate if lead-based paint chips were released during the demolition of that structure. Lead was detected in the soil samples at concentrations of 6.5 to 22 mg/kg. These concentrations are significantly lower than the RWQCB's ESL for lead in soil and are within the expected range for naturally occurring lead in Bay Area soils. Therefore, the lead concentrations appear to be from naturally occurring lead in soil and not from a release of lead-based paint chips. Therefore, an REC relating to the release of lead-based paint during building demolition activities was not identified. The soil sampling activities and results are described in greater detail in Sections 8 and R. '47 ~+ 17 rnrrr.~uioobvzv.m - s/wr_oo~ Privileged and Confidential 4.Q ASSESSMENT OF PAST LAND LISE To determine past uses of the subject property and surrounding properties, ERM reviewed historical sources of information as outlined below. Copies of historical topographic maps and aerial photographs, the City Directory Search report, and the Sanborn map "no coverage" certificate are presented in Appendix F. Summary of Historical Records Reviewed Years Reviewed Source of Information SuGject Property Adjacent Properties Interview Sanborn Fire Insurance Company Maps USGS Topographic Maps Aerial Photographs City Directories 4.1 SUBJECT PROPERTY Susan Colman No Coverage 1899,1902,1943, 1947,1948,1953, 1961,1968,1973, 1980,1991 1939,1948,1956, 1965,1971,1974, 1976,1978,1980, 1982,1982, 1484, 1988,1990,1993, 1998, 2007 N/A No Coverage 1899,1902,1943, 1947,194$,1953, 1961,1968,1973, 1980,1991 1934,1948,1956, 1965, 1974, 1982, 1993,1998, 2007 1975 through 2006 1975 through 200b In the 1939 through 1965 aerial photographs, the subject property is agricultural land consisting of orchards. The historical usage of . organochlorine-type pesticides, such as DDT, dieldrin, and aldrirt, was likely, as well another agricultural chemicals (fertilizers, herbicides, or insecticides). DDT, aldrin, and dieldrin are persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) pollutants targeted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). The USEPA banned the use of DDT in 1972 and banned most uses of aldrin and dieldrin in the 1980x. Use of these pesticides over several decades may lead to the accumulation of residual concentrations in soil and ground water. Therefore, ERM collected soil samples to evaluate if organachlorine-type pesticides were historically used at the subject property. Organochloruze-type pesticides were not detected in the soil samples, suggesting that these chemicals were not used historically at the subject property, and this does not represent an ~~ Z S Tnrvr~uloa6r.~.m • s/aoizom 48 Privileged and Confidential REC. The soil sampling activities and results are presented in greater detail in Sections S and 9. In the 1971 photograph, the northern and southern parts of Intersil , Building T-2 are present on the western/northwestern portion of the subject property and paved parking lots are present on the northern half of the site. Several small structures, which appear to be circular and rectangular above-ground tanks, aze present on the paved areas. The southern portion of the site consists of orchards and vacant, cleared land. In the 1974 photograph, the entire site is paved and parking lots are present in the southern portion of the property. Two small, rectangular structures appear near the southeastern corner of Building T-2; a historical site map identifies these structures as a trailer storage area. Numerous containers and drums appear to be stored in the parking lot, immediately east of Building T-2. Other historical documents reviewed by ERM do not indicate this area was used as a chemical or waste storage area. However, the observation of features that appear to be drums and containers suggests this area was used for chemical and/or waste storage. SVE wells (VE-7 and VE-8) and monitoring wells W13A and W6B are located in this area. Recent ground water monitoring results for these wells indicate that y VOCs are not detected in ground water, except TCE, which was detected at 1.7 ug/L in W13A in October 2006. This detection is below the site cleanup goal. Therefore, a historical release of chemicals to the subsurface from this storage area does not appear to have occurred, or if it occurred, it has been successfully remediated by the vapor extraction treatment system. Therefore, the observation of a storage area east of Building T 2 is not identified as an REC. In the 1976 photograph, the two rectangular structures are no longer present and another rectangular, open-topped building appears to the east of the northem portion of Building T-2. A cylindrical tank and possible smaller tanks are visible inside the open-topped building, which is identified as a "gaseous nitrogen plant" on a historical site map. In the 1978 photograph, a small, white rectangle is observed east of the southern portion of Building T-2. This item is likely the vault cover for the former East Neutralization System, which was located in that area. The 1980 and 1982 photographs show no major change in the subject property. In the 1984 photograph, a small rectangular structure is present immediately south of the open-topped building; a site map from 1986 identifies this structure as a farmer above-ground waste chemical storage area. A small tank that was previously present near the northeastern . corner of Building T-2 is gone and the area paved over. In the 1988 ~~ 149 ~•H ~ 19 7,~n-rauioa~r~.m-siaoi^zam Privileged and Confidential photograph, the tanks previously located inside the open-topped building :, , are no longer present. Three additional rectangular structures appear just south of the above-ground storage area; the site map also identifies these structures as former above-ground waste chemical storage areas. In the 1990 photograph, the above-ground storage areas are no longer present and indicators of above- and below-ground tanks in the paved areas are. gone. The 1993 photograph shows no major change in the subject property. In the 1998 photograph, Building T-2 is no longer present on site. A current aerial photograph obtained from Google Maps (Figure 2} shows the old ground water treatment system inside the open-topped building, and fencing surrounding the building and adjacent parking areas. The 1$99 through 1947 topographic maps show the subject property as undeveloped land. The 1948 through 19b1 maps identify the subject property as orchards. The remaining topographic maps are consistent with the development history presented in the aerial photographs. The subject property was not listed in city directories searched from 1975 through 2006. ~ ~ 4.2 ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND StIItIZOLINDING AREA The development history of the adjacent properties is generally consistent with that of the subject property. Prior to the mid-1960s, the surrounding area was predominantly agricultural. Qrchards are present in areas immediately adjacent to the subject property to the north, west, and south in aerial photographs from 1939 to 1956. During this period, adjacent areas to the east consist of vacant, presumably agricultural farmland, with orchards present further east. In the 1965 photograph, areas to the southeast and north/northwest are developed with residential buildings. A small group of residential or commercial buildings is present to the west and a facility with tennis courts is present to the east. 'The 1974 photograph shows buildings present on the adjacent properties to the north, east, and southwest. All buildings appear as they do today. The former AMI facility is present to the northeast of the subject property. In the 19$2 photograph, the adjacent property to the northeast is developed with two buildings, similar to how they appear today. Areas to the west show progressive development of commercial/industrial buildings. The 1993 and 1998 photographs show adjacent properties to the west as completely developed with commercial/industrial buildings. The former ~.. ' AMI facility is no longer present in the 1993 photograph. A cuurent aerial photograph obtained from Google Maps (Figure 2) shows the beginning ER\~ ZO T.IVrAU/D0t+9'?7.07-8/30/?om SO Priuiieged and Confidential _ of construction on the former AMI site and areas eastward to be ( j developed with buildings. The 1899 through 1947 topographic maps show areas adjacent to the subject property as undeveloped land, with few buildings. The 1948 through 1961 maps identify surrounding areas as orchards. The remaining topographic maps are consistent with the development history presented in the aerial photographs. The addresses of properties adjoining the subject property were not listed in city directories searched from 1975 through 2006. RECs were not identified for the neighboring properties during the assessment of past land use. f - 11 - 151 EIiM n 1 TANTAU/ W59277.07 - 8/70/20Q7 Privileged and Confidential 5A PREVIOUS ENVIRONYIENTAL INVESTIGATIONS AND ~ REIVIEDL4TION The following description of previous environmental investigations was obtained from previous investigation reports prepared for the subject property. A list of references is presented in Section 14. Intersil initiated environmental investigation activities at the subject property in 1983 at RWQCB's request. Between 1983 and 1990, multiple phases of investigations were conducted in response to the following directives: • RWQCB Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. 86-49; • RWQCB Cleanup and Abatement Order No. 87-133; and • RWQCB Site Cleanup Requirements Order No. 89-038. The investigations completed between 1983 and 1990 included the . installation of 17 ground water monitoring wells, one piezometer, and 56 soil borings on the subject property and six ground water monitoring ~ ) wells, one piezometer, and two soil borings at off-site locations. The locations of the monitoring wells, soil borings, and piezometers were shown. on Figure 2.1 of Beak Consultants Limited's Remedial Investigation Report (1990} (RI Report}; a copy of that figure is provided in Appendix C. A soil gas investigation was also conducted in 1988 and included the collection of 109 soil gas samples from 85 on-site locations. The soil gas sampling locations were shown on Figure 3.1 of the RI Report; a copy of that figure is included in Appendix C. 5.1 REMEDL<LL. INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES The following sections describe Intersil's investigation activities between 1983 and 1990. 5.1.1 Soii and Soil Vapor The following soil sampling activities were conducted during the investigations completed between 1983 and 1990: • Collection of approximately 530 soil samples from the on- and off-site wells, piezometers, and borings from depths up to 160.5 feet bgs for ' laboratory analysis of VOCs; 152 ~'~+ 22 TATv7AU/OOGS+?7.07 - S/7x/2007 Privileged and Confidential _ Collection of 43 soil samples from 17 on-site soil borings and two off- ~ ~ ~ ~ site soil borings from depths up to 84.5 feet bgs for semivolatile organic compound (SVOC} analysis; • Collection of 43 soil samples from 14 on-site soil borings and two off- site soil borings from depths up to 29 feet bgs for priority pollutant metals and cyanide; and " • Collection of 37 soil samples from two on-site ground water monitoring wells and six on-site soil borings from depths up to 23.5 feet bgs for inorganic analyses including arsenic, boron, total chromium, antimony, and zinc. TCE was the most frequently detected VOC in soil, soil vapor, and ground water, TCE was detected in soil at a maximum concentration of 10 mg/kg at soil boring RI-8 at 59.5 feet bgs; this boring was situated on the northeastern side of former Building T-2, near a former sump that Intersil identified as the north scrubber sump. TCE was detected in soil at the following locations at concentrations greater than 1.0 mg/kg: • Central portion of the site: TCE was detected at concentrations of 1.0 ' tv 3.3 mg/kg at depths ranging from 12 to 61 feet bgs in three soil borings near the "inactive" East Neutralization System. • Northwestern corner of former Building T-2: TCE was detected at concentrations from 1.6 to 7 mg/kg at approximately 60 and 81 feet bgs in two soil borings near the North Neutralization System. • North scrubber sump area: TCE was detected at 10 mg/kg at 59.5 feet bgs at RI-8. • North-central portion of the site: TCE was detected in five soil borings at concentrations ranging from 1.0 to 6.7 mg/kg at depths ranging from 11 to 100 feet bgs. • Northeastern portion of the site: TCE was detected at 1.0 mg/kg at 98.5 feet bgs at W12A. • Siemens property: Soil samples reported TCE concentrations of 1.1 to 6.2 mg/kg at W19B, W20B, W21A, and W22A. Note that Siemens is also conducting environmental investigation and remediation activities for a TCE source area on that property. The locations of the former waste neutralization systems were shown on Figure 1.3 of the RI Report; a copy of that figure is provided in Appendix C..Tvtal xylenes were also detected in soil at the subject property. All detections were less than 1.0 mg/kg except two soil samples collected near the "inactive:' East Neutralization System, where total xylenes were 53 QL~1 L3 TA,Yf Ati /OOfi9227.07 - B/;W /20Q7 Priaileged and Confidential detected at 1.8 and 1.1 mg/kg at W2A at 9.5 and 26.5 feet bgs. ~ ~ ~ Tetrachloroethene (PCE),1,1,1-TCA, benzene, toluene, Freon 113, and dichlorobenzenes were also detected in soil, but at much lower concentrations and frequencies. These VOCs were detected in soils in the same locations listed above where TCE was detected in soils at concentrations of 1.0 mg/kg or greater. Consistent with the soil results, these VOCs (including TCE) were also detected in soil vapor samples collected near the inactive east neutralization system, the north-central portion of the property and north scrubber sump area, and near the north neutralization system. Additional VOCs were not detected in soil vapor samples, except 1,1-dichloroethene (DCE), which was detected in two soil vapor samples at concentrations of 1 part per billion (ppb) or less. No SVOCs were detected in soil except benzo(a)pyrene, which was detected at 0.5 mg/kg at B7A (81 feet bgs); and 0.5 mg/kg at B8A (13.5 feet bgs). An "unidentified hydrocarbon" was also detected at a concentration of 20 mg/kg neax the "inactive" East Neutralization System (B7A at 81 feet bgs). Soii samples were collected for analysis of priority pollutant metals during the remedial investigation in 1989. These samples were collected from y each of the former waste neutralization system areas. Metals were either not detected in soil or were detected at concentratians consistent with background concentrations for Bay Area soils. 5.1.2 Ground Water Ground water monitoring occurred quarterly from 1985 to 1989. Water level measurements were documented and ground water samples were collected for laboratory analyses of VOCs. Ground water samples for SVOC analyses were also collected during August 1985, March 1986, June 1988, and March 1989. Ground water samples for analysis of priority pollutant metals, chloride, fluoride, and nitrate were also collected in August and October 1985, September 1986, and March 19$9. During the remedial investigation activities conducted between 1983 and 1990, VOCs were detected on-site in A-Zone and B-Zone ground water, as follows: ~ A-Zane ground water: TCE was detected at a maximum concentration of 33,000 micrograms per liter (pg/L) at well W1A, located northeast of the north scrubber sump. PCE and l,l,l-TCA were detected at maximum concentrations of 1,200 and 610 }zg/L at W10A and W12A, respectively. Freon 113; 1,1-DCE; 1,2-DCE; chloroform; and toluene were also detected uz A-Zone ground water, but at concentrations of 65 ~1 ~~ TA. ~TAL'/(10G9T17.Oi • 6/:10/2007 ~ Privileged and Confdential _ ug/L or less. The highest VOC concentrations were generally detected E } in A-Zone ground water in the northern portion of the property. A- Zone ground water impacts extend off site to the north and commingle with a TCE ground water plume on the Siemens property. B-Zone ground water: TCE was detected at a maximum concentration of 950 pg/L at well W11B, located in the northeastern corner of the subject property. Toluene was detected at a maximum concentration of 450 ug/L at W11B. 1,1,1-TCA; Freon 1]3;1,1-DCE; 2-butanone; and chloroform were also detected in B-Zone ground water at concentrations of 110 ~.g/L or lower. C-Zone ground water: Intersil was not required to investigate the ground water quality of the C-Zone beneath the subject property. Ground water samples from the A-Zone and B-Zone were also analyzed for SVOCs and priority pollutant metals. SVOCs were detected in ground water at concentrations of.100 ug/L or less. Selected A-Zone wells were sampled for priority pollutant metals and other inorganic analyses. Ground water samples for analyses of antimony, arsenic, barium, total chromium, copper, lead, mercury, vanadium, and zinc were collected from five wells. Metals were either not detected or were generally detected at concentrations Less than the maximum contaminant level (MCL) established by the USEPA for drinking water. 5.2 REMEDIATIOIV ACTT VITZES In response to the investigation results described above, Intersil implemented the following interim remedial measures at the subject, property between 198b and 1988: • Removal of the "inactive" East Neutralization System and a vaulted solvent waste tank Quly 1986); • Installation and operation of a GWE/TS, consisting of four A-Zone ground water extraction wells and one perched-zone extraction well (1987); • Installation and operation of a soil vapor extraction and treatment system (SVE/TS), consisting of four SVE wells and vadose-zone vent wells (1987); and • . Removal of the North and East Neutralization Systems, the north and east scrubber sumps, and an above-ground chemical and hazardous waste storage area (September 1988). ~ 1 - 155 Erin 25 T.+~7.~uiuob~+v.o~ • si~or_ooi Privileged and Confidential In 1990, the RWQCB issued Site Cleanup Requirements Order No. 90-119, which approved the final remedy and established ground water and soil cleanup goals for the subject property and the Siemens faality immediately to the north. The final remedy included expansion of the GWE/TS and SVE/TS. The soil cleanup goal established for the site was 1 mg/kg total VOCs. The adopted ground water cleanup goals are: • TCE - 5µg/L; • PCE - 5 pg/L; * 1,1-DCE - 6µg/L; • cis-1,2-DCE - 6 dug/L; • trans-l,2-DCE -10µg/L; • 1,1,1-TCA - 200 µg/L; . Freon 113 -1,200 µg/L; and . • Toluene -100 }zg/L. As part of the final selected remedy, Intersil expanded the GWE/TS in May 1991 to include six A-Zone extraction wells and one B-Zone i 1 extraction well. The extracted ground water was treated with anair- stripper unit and the treated ground water was discharged to nearby Calabazas Creek, in accordance with NPDES permits. The SVE system was also expanded by May 1991 with the installation of three additional SVE wells and two additional vent wells. lntersil operated the SVE/TS until August 1993, when it was decommissioned with the approval of the RWQCB. Prior to closing the system, Intersil conducted additional soil sampling activities in late 1992 to verify that the soil cleanup goal (1 mg/kg total VOCs) had been achieved. The sampling activities included advancing 16 soil borings and collecting 80 soil samples for VOC analysis. All soil samples except one reported total VOCs at concentrations below 0.26 mg/kg. A single soil sample collected from 72.5 feet bgs in the north-central portion of the site (near W18B} reported 1.1 mg/kg total VOCs. Intersil conducted a statistical analysis of the soil results and the results of that analysis indicated that the soil cleanup goal had been achieved at the subject property. The RWQCB agreed with this conclusion and approved the closure of the SVE system in a letter dated '14 May 1993. At the time the SVE system was closed, Intersil estimated that the SVE/TS had removed 3,000 pounds VOCs from the subsurface. At this point in time, the RWQCB does not require additional soil vapor extraction, nor does the RWQCB require placement of a soil vapor barrier below future buildouts. 56 ~.w 26 7nv-r,~Li~9~_m-si~onoo~ Privileged and Confidenfial GE continues to operate the GWE/TS at the subject property. With the ;\ ~~ approval of the RWQCB, GE modified the system in 2002 and 2003 with removal of three A-Zone extraction wells. The GWE/TS currently utilizes three A-Zone extraction wells {E9AR, W10A, and W12A) and one B-Zone extraction well {W18B). The treatment system was recently replaced with a carbon system, which is located in the northeastern corner of the subject property.. GE has concluded that the A-Zone extraction wells are capturing and containing the VOC impacts of the resaturated zone. The RWQCB has not responded to this conclusion. If the RWQCB does not agree with this conclusion, the potential exists for the RWQCB to require " the installation of additional extraction wells within the resaturated zone. GE has agreed to perform ground water remediation activities according to the cleanup objectives and standards specified in Cleanup Ord"er No. 90-119. If the RWQCB requires the remediation of the resaturated zone, GE will retain the responsibility for implementing such activities. Although the GWE/TS has significantly reduced VOC concentrations in ground water, the RWQCB estimates that ground water cleanup goals may not be achieved for approximately 100 years with the current system. GE could evaluate and implement other ground water remedial alternatives to expedite the process.' Tantau Investments LLC, working with the RWQCB and GE have discussed more aggressive forms of remediation which may significantly decrease the remediation timeframe to perhaps 5 to 10 years. However, as GE remains solely responsible for ground water treatment, final decisions on ground water remediation approach will remain within GE's discretion. 5.3 ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATIDNAND MONITORING ACTIVITIES The following sections describe recent investigation activities and current ground water conditions based on ongoing monitoring activities conducted by GE. 5.3.1 Building T 2 Demolition Soil Sampling In Apri11997, GE collected soil samples from beneath the slab of former building T-2 when the building and slab were removed in 1997. One sample (DR-1) appears to have been collected for metals analysis. From the documents reviewed, ERM was unable to identify the location where that sample was collected. Metals were either not detected in the soil sample or were detected at concentrations consistent with background concentrations for Bay Area soils. Because only one soil sample from the former T-2 area had been tested for metals, ERM collected soil samples -- ~ ~ - 157 ERW 27 TAMAli / D069L~i.07 - 6/70/2007 Priaileged and Confidential from within the footprint of former T-2 for metals analysis to evaluate if t historical operations had released metals to the subsurface. Metals were detected in these soil samples at concentrations consistent with background concentrations for Bay Area soils. Therefore, an REC was not identified with metals in soil at former T-2. The soil sampling activities and results are described in detail in Sections 8 and 9. During the Apri11997 soil sampling event, GE also collected 15 soil samples for TPH analyses. One sample (F-11) collected from the northwestem cornet of T-2 reported 6,800 mg/lcg TPH-mineral spirits. This detection exceeds the RWQCB ESL for TPH in soil. Therefore, ERM collected soil samples in the immediate vicinity of F-11 for TPH analyses. TPH was not detected in these soil samples; therefore, an REC was not identified with TPH in soil in the northwestern corner of T-2. The soil sampling activities and results are detailed in Sections 8 and 9. 5.3.2 Current Ground Water Conditions GE is currently required to monitor the A-Zone and B-Zone ground water annually; the most recent ground water monitoring event at the subject property was conducted in October 2006. GE is not currently required to J monitor the resaturated zone and ground water samples from the resaturated zone were most recently collected in October 2004. Based on the results of these sampling events, the maximum TCE concentrations detected at the subject property were: • Resaturated zone: 300 }~g/L; • A-Zone: 100 }~g/L; and • B-Zone: 5.3 }~g/L. Because ground water samples from the resaturated zone had not been collected for nearly 3 years, ERIVI collected ground water samples from existing wells within the resaturated zone to document the current conditions of this zone. As described in Sections 8 and 9, ground water samples collected from vent wells in the resaturated zone were tested for VOCs and dissolved metals. TCE was detected at concentrations of 260 }~g/L or lower. Dissolved metals were detected, but at concentrations below RWQCB ESLs and USEPA MCLs, except copper, which was detected at 5.1 mg/L. The ESL for copper is 3.1 mg/Land the secondary MCL is 1,000 mg/L. The presence of VOCs in ground water within the resaturated zone, A-Zone, and B-Zone at concentrations above the site ~ ~ cleanup goals is identified as an REC and also as a "known hazardous substance", as defined in Section 1.3, and as such, GE will retain all responsibility for potential i7lvestigation and remediation of this 2g - 58 L•RM 7A\RAU/DOb'PL' .D7.3/30/2007 Privileged and Confidential REC/"known hazardous substance". Note that GE is already conducting j ground water remediation activities which are acceptable to the RWQCB and has agreed to retain all responsibility for operating the ground water remediation system in accordance with Order No. 90-119. The following summarizes the maximum TCE concentrations detected in . ground water at the Siemens property during October 2006: • Resaturated zone: 1,300 ug/L; • A-Zone: 340 pg%L; and • B-Zone: 150 pg/L. The elevated TCE concentrations detected in the resaturated zone on the Siemens property are detected in the south-central portion of the Siemens property in monitoring well SW-6S, which is approximately 80 feet downgradient from the subject property's northern boundary.. The source for these elevated TCE concentrations has not been identified and the RWQCB has not yet responded to this finding. Based on historical data collected at the subject property, it is GE's opinion that the elevated concentrations do not originate from the subject property and GE recently met with RWQCB to discuss these data. It is ERM's understanding that the RWQCB has not reached a conclusion regarding this matter at this point in time. As described in Section 5.2, Intersil conducted a soil sampling investigation in 1992 to support the curtailment of the SVE system at the subject property. One soil sample collected during that investigation reported total VOCs at a concentration above the site cleanup goal of 1 mg/kg total VOCs. ERM notes that the sample was collected from 72.5 feet bgs at boring VB-10 (Geomatrix,1993) and reported 1.1 mg/kg TCE. VB-10 is located in the north-central portion of the subject property (near W28B) and is approximately 150 feet south of SW-6S. Because the elevated TCE concentrations detected on the Siemens property are approximately $0 feet downgradient of the subject property and the RWQCB has not officially responded to this finding, the potential exists for the RWQCB to require GE to conduct additional investigation activities at the subject property to determine if the source of the TCE is on the subject property or the Siemens property. As stated in Section 1.3, GE has agreed to perform ground water remediation activities according to cleanup objectives and standards set out in the Cleanup Order No. 90-119. If additional investigation and remediation is required at the subject property for the elevated TCE, GE will retain all responsibility and liability for conducting such activities. It is ERM's understanding that GE is currently working with the RWQCB to resolve this still-open-issue. ERM 29 TAT~*CA4' /0069?D.07 - 8!70/2007 Privileged and Confidential 5.3.3 June 2006 Soil Vapor. Survey At RWQCB's request, GE conducted a soil vapor sampling investigation at the subject property in 2006 to evaluate VOC concentrations in soil vapor and potential human health risks associated with a commercial/ industrial land-use scenario. The investigation included collection of 76 soil vapor samples from 35 borings advanced on 100-foot centers throughout the entire property. The samples were generally collected at - each boring from depths of 5 and 15 feet. At two locations, soil vapor samples were also collected at depths of 25, 35 and 44 feet bgs. TCE, benzene, and 1,3-butadiene were detected at concentrations above RWQCB ESLs for shallow soil vapor in a commercial/industrial land-use scenario. The maximum detected concentrations were 21,000 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) TCE at 44 feet bgs;120 pg/m31,3-butadiene at 15 feet bgs; and 330 }zg/m3 benzene at 5 feet bgs. , In addition to the soil vapor samples, three soil samples (SP-1, SP-2, and SP-3) were collected from 4.5-5 feet bgs and analyzed for physical properties. The results indicated that SP-1 and SP-2 are fine-grained soils (clay to silty clay loam} and that SP-3 is mote coarse-grained (sandy loam). Because VOCs were detected in soil vapor at conceritrations above the ESLs, GE conducted asite-specific vapor intrusion assessment using the Johnson-Ettinger model. The vapor intrusion assessment utilized site- specific soil property data obtained from SP-1, SP-2, and SP-3. The potential for vapor intrusion to occur at the site was evaluated using two sets of parameters: • Physical properties (dry bulk density, total porosity, and water-filled porosity) for SP-3. Because SP-3 was the most coarse-grained soil sample and reported the highest air-filled porosity and lowest water- filled porosity, it was deemed to represent the "worst-case" scenario because it reported physical properties that are less restrictive to vapor intrusion than the physical properties reported at SP-1 and SP-2. • Average physical properties calculated from the results for SP-1, SP-2, and SP-3. This evaluation was deemed to represent the "average" scenario for potential vapor intrusion at the subject property. GE evaluated potential cancer risks and non-cancer adverse health effects to future potential commercial/industrial workers due to the migration of TCE, benzene, and 1,3-butadiene from the subsurface into future potential on-site structures: Potential risks were calculated using the following-sets of parameters: /~ 60 ER~7 3V TA\7AU/(ge9'J.Ir/ • &/:W/2007 Privileged and Confidential • Maximum detected soil vapor concentrations and the results for the "worst-case" vapor intrusion scenario; and • Maximum detected soil vapor concentrations and the results for the "average" vapor intrusion scenario. The potential risks calculated for these two scenarios were: • "Worst Case" Scenario: Cumulative theoretical upper-bound excess cancer risk = 2x,10-6 (i.e., 2 in l million). Cumulative non-cancer hazard quotient = 0.03. "Average" Scenario: Cumulative theoretical upper-bound excess cancer risk =1 x 10-7 (i.e., l in 10 million}. Cumulative non-cancer hazard quotient = 0.002. The findings of this soil vapor evaluation were documented in the Revised Soil Vapor Survey Results, Former Infersil Facility, Cupertino, California {Geomatrix, 2007), which the RWQCB approved on 29 March 2007. USEPA considers a theoretical upper-bound excess cancer risk level ranging between 1 x 10-~ and 1 x 10-6 to be acceptable. USEPA does not require further investigation or analysis at sites with a theoretical cancer ~ risk less than 1 x 10-6 {USEPA 1990). California EPA typically finds these risk levels acceptable, and the RWQCB has approved risk management thresholds of 1 x 10-5 for other commercial/industrial sites in the Bay Area. For non-cancer exposures, the USEPA and California EPA have defined that a hazard quotient equal to or less than 1 indicates that adverse non-cancer~health effects are unlikely to occur. As stated above, the cwnulative theoretical upper-bound excess cancer risks calculated for the subject property were 2 x 10-6 and 1 x 10-x, for the "worst case" and "average" scenarios. The cumulative non-cancer hazard quotients were 0.03 and 0.002. USEPA would typically find these theoretical upper-bound excess cancer risk levels and non-cancer risk levels to be acceptable for a site used for commercial or industrial purposes. As stated in Section 5.2, the RWQCB does not require the placement of a soil vapor barrier below future buildouts at the subject property. 11 - 161 exy 31 T.~xra~t inub9~~n.o~ -snor_um Privileged and Confidential b.0 AGENCY RECORDS REVIEW The following sections present the results of agency record reviews, interviews, and additional data reviews conducted by ERM. 6.1 ~ STANDARD STATE AND FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD SOtIIZCES ERM contracted EDR to conduct a database search for agency records. The report, presented in Appendix B, defines and summarizes the ASTM databases reviewed in the EDR report and notes if any sites (including the subject property) were identified in the specified radius. It should be noted that the computerized mapping technology used in the database seazch is based on available census data. The EDR report provides a list of unmapped sites for which inadequate location information was provided. ERM has reviewed the list of unmapped sites to determine if they are within the study radius. If the unmapped sites appeared likely to be within the search radius for a specific database, they are discussed in the sections that follow. Based on maps of the area, the required database search radius for a given database, and the site reconnaissance, it appeaxs that one of the unmapped sites is within the designated search distance for the identified database. The Hewlett-Packazd Company at 190447 Pruneridge Avenue is listed iri the Hazardous Substance Storage Container (HIST UST) Database. This site has been added to discussion of neighboring properties below. Sites identified within the study radii were evaluated to determine if they are likely to have adversely impacted the subject property. The criteria used to evaluate the potential for adverse impact to the subject property include: • Distance from the subject property; • Expected depth and direction of ground water and surface wa#er flow; • Expected storm water flow direction; and • The presence/absence of documented contaminant releases at the identified sites that have not been remedied to the satisfaction of regulators. The identification of a site as potentially upgradient or downgradient is based on the reported direction of ground water flow to the north. 11 162 FRM 32 TAhTAU/U069'~?7.07 - 6/i0/?U(1. Privileged and Confidentuzl The following table summarizes the databases reviewed in the EDR repoxt where sites were identified in the specified radius. It should be noted that the computerized geo-coding technology used in the database search is based on available census data and is only accurate to 1300 feet. Summary of findings from. EDR Report Database Radios Sites searched Foand National Priorities List (NPL) 1 mile USEPA's database of uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites identified for priority remedia_1 actions under the Federal Superfund Program Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 0.5 mile 2 Information System {CERCLIS? Compi]aHon by the USEPA of sites at which the potential exists for contamination originating from on-site hazardous substance storage or disposal. CERCLIS contains sites t~iat are either proposed to or on the NPL and sites which are in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL. CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned (CERC-NFRAP) OSO mile Sites that have been removed and archived from the inventory of CERCLIS sites. Archived status indicates that, to the best of USEPA's knowledge, assessment at a site has been completed and that USEPA has determined no further steps will be taken to list this site on the NPL. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act -Small Quantity Generator 0.25 mile (RCRA - Sm. Quan. Gen) The database includes selective information on sites that generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Small quantity generators generate between 100 kg and 1,000 kg of hazardous waste per month. ' Engineering Controls Sites List (US ENG CONTROLS) 0.5 mile A listing of sites with engineering contro]s in place. Engineering controls include various forms of caps, building foundations, liners, and treatment methods to create pathway elimination for regulated substances to enter environmental media or effect human health. Record of Decision {ROD) 1 mile ROD documents mandate a permanent remedy at an NPL site containing technical and health information to aid in the cleanup. Cal-sites Database 1 mile The Cal-sites database contains potential or confirmed hazardous substance release properties. No longer updated by the state agency; it has been replaced by ENVIROSTOR. ,. 11 - 163 ~ 33 TAA~[AU/00692'-7.D7 - 8/3U/2007 Priaileged and Confidential } Database Radius Sites searched Found "Cortese" Hazardous Waste & Substances Sites List (Cortese) 0.5 m0e 3 The sites for the list are designated by the State Water Resources Control Board {LUST), the Integrated Waste Board (SWF/LS), and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (Cal-Sites). This listing is no longer updated by the state agency. Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUSTS) O.S mile 5 List of closed or unremediated reported leaking underground storage tanks. Facility Inventory Database (CA FID UST) 0.25 mile 1 Contains a historical listing of active and inactive underground storage tank locations from the State Water Resource Control Board. Spills, Leaks, Investigations and Cleanup Database (SLIC) 0.5 mile 5 Program designed to protect and restore water quality from spills, leaks, and similar discharges. Historic Leaking Underground Storage Tanks -Santa Clara (HIST 0.5 mile 2 LUST SANTA CLARA) A listing of open and closed leaking underground storage tanks. This listing is no longer updated by the county. Hazardous Substance Storage Container Database (H]ST UST) 0.25 mile 1 A historical listing of UST sites. Voluntary Cleanup Program NCPI ~ 0.5 mile 1 Contains low threat level properties with either confirmed or unconfirmed releases. State Response Sites 1 mile 1 Identifies confirmed release sites where DTSC is involved in remediation, either in a lead or oversight capaaty. These confirmed release sites are generally high-priority and high potential risk. l3IVVIROSTOR Database 1 mile 5 The database includes the following site types: Federal Superfund sites (NPL); State Response, including Military Facilities and State Superfund; Voluntary Cleanup; and School sites. 6.1.1 Subject Property The subject property was identified on ]7 databases searched by EDR; six of these database listings refer to the combined Intersil/Siemens Superfund Site. The database listings are summarized below: NPL Database. This listing identifies the status of the former Intersil and Siemens facilities as a combined site on the Final NPL and provides a summary of released contaminants and regulatory directives. The information in the database is consistent with information obtained from the reviewed site documents and interviews. sa ERM 34 TA~TAU/006927!.07 - 6/308407 Privileged and Confidential - - • SLIC Database. This listing indicates that organic solvents were ~.. ( released on the subject property and remedial action is currently ongoing. • Cortese Database. This listing refers to the subject property's inclusion in other .environmental databases. • CA FID UST Database. This.listing identifies the subject property as an inactive UST location. • Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System (SWEEPS UST) Database. This listing indicates that Intersil previously had - seven USTs on site: one 1-gallon, one 500-gallon, one 1,600-gallon, and three 8,500-gallon tanks containing waste, and one 6,300 tank containing diesel. These listings are not consistent with what is known to have existed on site. Three 8,500-gallon tanks, one 250-gallon tank, six 1,000-gallon tanks, and two 500-gallon sumps were present throughout the site's operation. As described in Section 3.4.1, historical documents reviewed for the subject property did not indicate the presence of a diesel UST and ERM subsequently conducted a file review. at the Santa Clara County Fire Department and performed a geophysical survey of the site. As discussed in Section 3.4.1, ERM conducted a geophysical survey to further evaluate the potential for a UST to be present at the subject property. The geophysical survey did not find evidence of USTs currently present at the subject property. Therefore, an REC associated with a diesel fuel UST is not identified. The geophysical survey activities and results are detailed in Sections 8 and-9. HIST UST Database. This listing indicates that Intersil previously had nine USTs on site: eight are identified as having been used for waste storage and one for product {diesel} storage. As stated above, historical documents reviewed for the subject property did not indicate a UST for diesel storage had been present at the subject property and the geophysical survey conducted by ERM did not find evidence of a UST at the subject property. Therefore, an REC is not identified for this listing. Bond Expenditure Plan Database. This listing indicates that a site- specific expenditure plan has been developed for the combined former intersil and Siemens facilities, as the basis for an appropriation of Hazardous Substance Cleanup Bond Act funds. • Emissions Inventory Database. This listing indicates that the subject property was regulated for au emissions during the years 1987,1990, 1993,1995,1996, and 2002 to 2005. 11-165 FRS} 35 TN~t7AL~/OOfi92Z7.07 - 8/30/?A07 Privileged and Conf7dentictl • CERCLIS Database. This listing identifies the former Intersil and i Siemens facilities as a combined site on the Final NPL and provides their assessment history. • RCRA-SQG Database. This listing identifies Intersil as a small quantity generator of hazardous wastes with no violations noted. • Facility Index Sys#emJFacility Registry System (FINDS). This listing indicates that the subject property was listed in the National Emissions Inventory, CERCLIS database, RCRA database, and Toxics Release Inventory System. • HAZNET Facility and Manifest Data. This listing indicates that Intersil disposed inorganic solid wastes, asbestos-containing wastes, PCB-containing materials, and laboratory waste chemicals. • ROD Database. This listing indicates that the subject property received ROD documents from the USEPA mandating a permanent remedy for the site. • US ENG Controls Database. This listing identifies the former Intersil and Siemens facilities as a combined site with engineering controls in place to create pathway elimination for regulated substances to enter environmental media or effect human health. • Waste Discharge System Database. This listing identifies the subject property as an industrial facility that treats and/or disposes of liquid or semisolid wastes. The operations conducted at the site are considered a moderate threat to water quality according to the database. • Envirvstor Database. This listing identifies the combined former Intersil and Siemens facilities as a Federal Superfund Site. • HIST Cal-Sites Database. This listing identifies the combined former Intersil and Siemens facilities as a confirmed hazardous substance release site. Additional RECs were not identified for the subject property based on the information provided in the database listings. 6.1.2 Surrounding Properties The database search results indicate that there are regulated sites in the vicinity of the subject property. Based on ERM's review of the database ~ information for these sites, these properties are not expected to have adversely impacted the subject property because they are in expected iss ~~ 36 r,~n~r.,~uioobsz~.m - sisor-are Privileged and Confidential down- or cross-gradient locations, no releases to the subsurface have been reported, or the sites have been remedied to the satisfaction of regulators. The former Siemens facility at 10950 North Tantau Avenue is located adjacent to, downgradient from, and immediately north of the subject property. The Siemens site is combined with the subject property as the Intersil/Siemens Superfund Site. The Intersil/Siemens Superfund Site has -been governed by RWQCB Site Cleanup Requirements Order No. 90-119, issued in 1990. Siemens occupied the adjacent property to the north of the subject property from 1978 to late 1999/early 2000. Siemens operations consisted of semiconductor fabrication, similar to Intersil. The primary solvents used at the Siemens site were TCE and TCA until 1978 and isopropyl alcohol since 1983. Prior to 1982, liquid wastes were stored in five USTs; after the tanks were removed in 1982, wastes were stored in drums in a hazardous materials storage area prior to off-site disposal. Site investigations conducted beginning in the early 1980s revealed VOC and SVOC contamination in soil and ground water. Remediation efforts at the site include SVE from 1983 to 2005, ground water extraction and treatment since 1986, and soil excavation in 1991. The RWQCB granted closure for ~ vadose-zone soil after the soil cleanup goal for total VOCs (1 mg/kg) was met. VOCs in ground water beneath the site have substantially decreased in concentration since the 1980s and ground water treatment and extraction at the site is ongoing. However, elevated concentrations of TCE are reported in ground water within the resaturated zone, as described in Section 5.3. Ground water at the former Siemens facility flows in a northerly direction, away from the subject property. Therefore, ground water impacts that originate on the former Siemens property are not expected to adversely impact the subject property. The former Siemens property is currently occupied by Kaiser Permanente for office use. b.2 INTERVIEWS ERM contacted Mr. Roger Papler with the RWQCB to obtain additional information for the subject property. Mr. Papler is RWQCB's project manager who oversees the environmental investigation and remediation activities at the subject property and former Siemens property. Information obtained from Mr. Papler is incorporated throughout this document. r~ ~ i - ~ s~ tiR\q ~ / T,~ \7AL' /4069227.07 - S/:10/2007 Priaileged and Confidenfial 6.3 ADDITIONAL DATA REVIEWS Publicly available environmental records for the subject property were searched for on the following on-line resources: • Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program Database (http://www.dtsc.ca.gov); and • State of California Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker database (http://www.geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov). The subject property was identified in the DTSC database as a Federal Superfund Site and in the GeoTracker database as a Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and Cleanups (SLIC} case. Detailed information regarding the site's inclusion in these databases .is presented in other sections of this report. . The information provided in these two data sources is consistent with the information obtained from site documents and agency record reviews: Additional RECs wire not identified based on the information obtained from these data sources. ss ~"'' 38 r,~h-r,au~oosm.~.ai - si~oizoo~ Priaiieged and Confidential ~ 7.d SITE CONDITIONS RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT t The following issues should be considered during the development . planning phases for the subject property. 7.1 SOIL MANAGEMENT PLAN Although the soil cleanup goals have been achieved at the subject property, GE prepared a SMP for the subject property because residual concentrations of VOCs remain in soil. The SMP specifies that soils will be managed in accordance with the SMP if the subject property is to be developed in the future. The SMP specifies that any soil excavated on the subject property for the purposes of repairing the existing irrigation system or other on-site utilities will be replaced in the excavation or otherwise remain on the subject property and not be disposed of off site. Other intrusive subsurface soil excavation activities that generate soil that will be disposed of off site are subject to the following requirements: • A health and safety plan for site construction must be developed before activities; • Vehicle and personnel access to construction areas should be controlled; • If needed, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be developed prior to activities that details procedures for minimizing erosion; • Temporary stockpiles will be managed accordingly, to min;m;ze dust and sediment runoff; • Excess soil generated that requires off-site disposal will be characterized by sampling and analyzing in accordance with the requirements of the disposal facility; • If needed, dust control measures will be implemented; and • The need for air sampling and monitoring will be evaluated if a major excavation is planned. T11e SMP specifies that the property owner will oversee implementation of the SMP. The RWQCB approved the SMP on 23 November 2005 with the condition that air monitoring be conducted during all excavation activities to ensure the protection of human health (RWQCB, 2005}. 11 - 169 eRa~ 39 r~n~.~uioosgu~.m-s~~~~oo~ Privileged and Confidential 7.2 COVENANTAND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTRICTION ON PROPERTY A Covenant and Environmental Restriction on Property was adopted on ~ October 2005. The following items are specified in the deed restriction: • Development of the subject property is xestricted to industrial, commercial, office space (including medical offices), or recreational use. The subject property cannot be used for residences, hospitals, schools for persons under 21 years of age, or day-care centers for children or senior -citizens. ~ -- • The RWQCB must be notified in writing at least 10 calendar days before any excavation work is conducted on the site, and excavation work must comply with the SMP. • Before the construction of any buildings to be used or occupied by persons on the subject property, the potential for vapor intrusion from soil and ground water should evaluated. This evaluation was completed by GE in 2007 (Geomatrix, 200 and is summarized in Section 2.4.3.2. . • All future development and use of the site should preserve the ground water remediation measures currently in place and ground water from r ; beneath the subject property cannot be used except as part of the monitoring and treatment system, unless otherwise expressly permifted in writing by the RWQCB. The RWQCB must be notified by registered mail within 10 working days of each of the following: {1) the type, cause, location, and date of any disturbance to any remedial measures that could affect the ability of such remedial measures, remedial equipment, or monitoring system to perform their respective functions; and (2) the type and date of repair of such disturbance. • The RWQCB shall have reasonable access to the subject property for the purposes of inspection, surveillance, maintenance, or monitoring. • No one can act in a manner that will aggravate or contribute to the existing environmental conditions beneath the subject property. • The deed restriction maybe modified or terminated by a written application to the RWQCB. -170 ~~ 40 TA VT,\li / 0069Z'J.07 - 8 /30/2D07 Priaiieged and Confidential •~ i ? &.0 PHASE II Il1lVESTIGATIONACTIVITI£S ERM conducted a Phase II soil and ground water investigation to evaluate potential RECs and data gaps identified during the Phase I ESA. Phase II investigation activities included a geophysical survey, collection of ground water samples from existing on-site wells, and collection of soil and ground water samples from borings. 8.1 GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY On 23 and 24 July 2007, Advanced Geological Services (AGS} conducted a geophysical survey at the subject property to evaluate the potential presence of USTs and undocumented underground vessels at the subject property. Ground penetrating radar and time-domain electromagnetic metal detection technology were used to complete the geophysical survey. Access for the geophysical survey was restricted in the area where demolition activities were being conducted for the former ground water treatment system. A detailed description of the equipment and field procedures used by AGS is included in the geophysical survey report (Appendix E): 8.2 SAMPLING OF EXISTING WELLS On 16 July 2007, ERM collected ground water samples from four vent wells (V1S, V1D, V2S, and V3S) to document current ground water concentrations in the resaturated zone. Well locations are identified on Figures 3 and 4. Samples from V1S and V2S were collected by low-flow purge technique, following GE's standard operating procedure. Samples from V1D and V3S were collected via traditional purge-and-sample techniques because the wells were misaligned and a pump could not be placed within the screened interval of these wells. Static water levels were measured far each well immediately before well purging. Purging and sampling via the low-flow technique was conducted using a 2-inch Grundfos pump. The pump and attached disposable tubing were placed in each well near the middle of the screened interval. The wells were purged at 300 to 300 milliliters per minute and depth to water was measured at timed intervals to ensure that draw-down within each well did not exceed 10 centimeters. Water quality parameters (temperature, pH, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, Exu 41 r.~~-rnt; roor~gz~.o~ - siaonoo~ Privileged and Confidential oxidation/reduction potential, and turbidity) were measured at timed intervals using a hand held water quality meter and recorded on sample collection forms (Appendix G}. Purging was~stopped and ground water samples collected after the parameters stabilized for three successive readings. Well V1D was sampled via traditional purge-and-sample techniques using the Grundfos pump. The pump and tubing were placed at 60 feet bgs, as --- - the pump-could not-be lowered to-within-the screened interval of 62.5 to 104 feet bgs. Well V'3S was sampled via traditional purge-and-sample techniques using a bailer. At both of these wells, three well casing volumes were purged before collecting ground water samples. All ground water samples were collected into the appropriate, laboratory- provided sample containers and stored in an iced cooler. The ground water samples were submitted under proper chain of custody to Entech Analytical Labs, Inc., in Santa Clara, California. Copies of the chain-of- custody forms are provided in Appendix H. Ground water samples were analyzed for the following constituents: • VOCs by USEPA Method 8260B. 1,4-dioxane by USEPA Method 8260B SIM. 1,4-dioxane was not previously tested for at the subject property and can be associated with TCE ground water plumes. California Administrative Manual 17 (CAM 17) dissolved metals by USEPA Method 6010B/7470A. Ground water samples from the resaturated zone had not previous]y been analyzed for metals. After sample collection from each well, the pump and tubing were removed. The tubing was discarded and the pump was decontaminated in accordance with GE's standard operating procedure. Purged well water was placed into 55-gallon drums and stored inside the fenced ground water treatment system area. The purged water will be run through the ground water treatment system. 8.3 SDIL AND GROUND WATER INVESTIGATION ERM collected soil and ground water samples at the subject property between 23 and 25 July 2007. The sampling activities are described below. 8.3.1 Permitting and UtilitJ Clearance Prior to initiating fieldwork, ERM obtained a drilling permit {#07E00146) from the Santa Clara Valley Water District. All conditions of the permit m.~, 42 r ~~~.~L ioar_~.o~ - s~~tvzom ~2 Privileged and Confidential were rnet during implementation and completion of the field i ~ investigation. All boring locations were marked in the field and cleared for utilities prior to drilling. Utility clearance procedures included the following: • Notification to Underground Services Alert at least 48 hours prior to beginning work; and - ~~ - ~ Identification of water, gas, fuel, electrical, communication, storm sewer, and sanitary sewer lines in the vicinity of the proposed drilling locations by a private utility locator. ERM also hand-angered each location to 5 feet bgs to minimize the potential for encountering underground utilities. ERM developed asite-specific health and safety plan (HASP) for implementation of the soil and ground water investigation. The HASP addressed all potential physical and chemical hazards associated with the proposed work. All E12M personnel and subcontractors participating in the investigation were required to review the HASP. 8.3.2 Surface Soil Sampling Twelve surface soil samples were collected at the subject property in the following areas: • Four surface soil samples were collected from the northern portion of the former T-2 footprint. The laboratory was instructed to composite these samples into one sample identified as SS-1. • Four surface soil samples were collected from the southern portion of the former T-2 footprint. The laboratory was instructed to composite these samples into one sample identified as SS-2. • Four surface soil samples were collected from the footprint of the former open-topped structure that housed the former ground water treatment system. The laboratory was instructed to composite these samples into one sample identified as SS-3. At all surface sample locations, a hand auger was advanced until native soils were encountered, l to 3 feet bgs, and soil samples were then collected from the native soils. The samples were submitted to the laboratory for analysis of metals and asbestos. The sample results are provided in Section 9. 11 - 173 ex~, 43 TA~T.~L'/D069?TJ.D7 -r/?l1/?AU7 Privileged and Confidential 8.3.3 Soil and Ground Water Sampling Between 23 and 25 July 2007, ERM completed the Phase II field investigation activities. Eight soil borings (SB-1 to SB-8) were advanced and five temporary wells installed to facilitate collection of soil and ground water samples for physical characteriza#ion and chemical analysis. Soil boring locations are identified on Figure 4. The objective for each soil boring location is summarized on Table 1. At all locations, the $orings were advanced manually with astainless-steel hand auger to 5 feet bgs to xeduce the potential for encountering underground utilities during drilling activities. The borings were then advanced with adirect-push rig from 5 feet bgs to the terminus of each boring. Boring SB-4 was advanced to 15 feet, SB-6 to 16 feet, SB-7 and SB-8 to 56 feet, and SB-1, SB-2, SB-3, and SB-5 to 60 feet bgs. Soil samples were collected continuously at each boring. As part of the soil sampling activities, the soil samples were (1) visually examined to characterize the subsurface geology according to the Unified Soil Classification System, {2) evaluated for visible evidence of contamination, and (3) field-scxeened with a photoionization detector (PID) for the ,` 1 presence of organic vapors. Soil descriptions and results of the P1D screenings are documented on the soil boring Logs included in Appendix I. Soil samples were collected in glass jars or acetate GeoProbe liners, sealed with Teflon tape and .plastic end caps, and stored in an iced cooler until delivered to the laboratory under proper chain-of-custody procedures. Upon reaching ground water in SB-1, SB-2, SB-3, SB-5, and SB-8, temporary wells were installed using 3/4-inch polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe with 5 feet of screen at the bottom. Ground water was encountered at a depth of approximately 53 to 56 Feet bgs in these five borings. Ground water samples were then collected from the temporary wells using a bailer. Groundwater samples were collected into the appropriate, laboratory-provided sample containers and stored in an iced cooler. The soil and ground water samples were submitted under proper chain of custody to Entech Analytical Labs, Inc., in Santa Clara, California. Copies of the chain-of-custody forms are provided in Appendix K Soil and ground water samples were analyzed for the following constituents, as summarized on Table L• • VOCs by USEPA Method 8260; • CAM 17 by USEPA Methods 6010B and 7471B; 174 ~~ `~~ TA\T.1L' /00692'J' .07 , S/'40/ 2007 Privileged and Confidential • Extractable total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH-extractables) by ~~_ i USEPA Method 8015; • Pesticides by USEPA Method 8081A; Upon completion of sampling activities at each location, the borings were properly backfilled with acement-bentonite grout and finished to match the surrounding surface area. The soil cuttings generated from the drilling activities were contained in two 55-gallon drums and stored on the property; coordination of proper disposal of the wastes at a licensed waste disposal facility is underway. 8.3.4 Soil SumlZIing Near Underground Vessels One 23 July 2007, GE collected a soil sample in the vicinity of one of the discovered underground vessels. GE removed soil from the excavation with a backhoe until native soil was reached, approximately 4.5 feet below the bottom of the. excavation, which corresponded to approximately 7 to 9 feet bgs. GE then collected a soil sample directly from the backhoe bucket with the use of a trowel and brass tube. The soil was pressed into the brass tube with the hand trowel and the tube was then secured with teflon tape and plastic endcaps. ERM collected a split soil sample at the same time, following the same sampling procedures as GE. 8.3.5 Survey Activities The surface soil sampling locations and soil borings were surveyed on 7 August 2007 far horizontal and vertical control by Foresite Engineering, a private land surveyor from Pleasant Hill, California. - - 175 ~ 45 TANTAL'/~69'?7.07 - R/x/2007 Privileged and Confidential 9.0 PHASE II INVESTIGATION RESi.ILTS . ~ 9.1 GEOPHYSICAL SLIRVEYRESULTS Data collected during the geophysical survey indicate the presence of buried utilities and several small buried metal objects, such as rebar scrap pieces; but no anomalies were detected that were indicative of large metal objects, such as a UST or other storage vessels. Magnetic anomalies were identified near the former scrubber sumps and former North Neutralization System vault. As stated in the geophysical survey, these anomalies do not represent USTs and are most likely attributed to piping that was associated with these former systems and sealed in-place when these features were removed in the late 1980s. Therefore, no RECs were identified from the geophysical survey. 9.2 SOIL RESt.ILTS The soil analytical results are summarized on Tables 2 and 3. } 9.2.1 VOCs TCE was the only VOC detected in soil. TCE was detected in six of 17 soil samples at concentrations of 0.0076 to 0.05 mg/kg. These samples were collected at SB-2, SB-3, SB-b, SB-7, and SB-8. The site cleanup goal for VOCs in soil is 1.0 mg/kg total VOCs. Based on the concentrations detected and the depth intervals in which TCE was reported, additional RECs were not identified based on VOC soil samples collected by ERM. 9.2.2 TPH Seven soil samples from four soil borings were analyzed for TPH-d, TPH- ~mo, TPH-kerosene, and TPH-mineral spirits. TPH-d, TPH-kerosene, and TPH-mineral spirits were not detected in the soil samples collected by ERM. As described in Section 3.8, TPH-mo was detected in soil at SB-3, located near the former East Neutralization System. TPH-mo was detected in soil at 1,10, and 48.5 feet bgs at concentrations of 13,000 mg/kg, 56 mg/kg, and 20 mg/kg, respectively. TPH-mo was not detected in ground water. Note that the RWQCB's ESL for TPH (residual fuels, such as motor oil) is 1,000 mg/kg. These data suggest a surface release of motor oil occurred at this location or fill material impacted with motor oil was used to baclcfill -176 ~'" 46 r,~r.~r,~t;ioubszz~.m • si3onom Privileged and Confcdential _ the excavation of the former East Neutralization System when i# was ~ r removed in 1988. The presence of elevated TPH-mo in soil near the former East Neutralization System is identified as an REC and a "known - hazardous substance". GE has a current plan for addressing these soils containing TPH-mo arid is working with the RWQCB to resolve this "known hazardous substance". 9.2.3 Metals As described in Sections 3.10 and 5.3.1, ERM collected soil samples for metals analysis. Two soil samples from within the footprint of former T-2 were analyzed for CAM 17 metals to evaluate if historical operations had released metals to the subsurface. One soil sample from within the footprint.of the former Building T-2 was analyzed for lead to evaluate if lead-based paint chips were released during the demolition of that structure. Metals were detected in these soil samples at concentrations consistent with background concentrations for Bay Area soils. Therefore, an REC was. not identified with metals in soil at former T-2 or lead at the former open-topped structure. 92.4 Asbestos As described in Section 3.9, ERM analyzed three-sail samples for asbestos from the footprints of the former T-2 and demolished open-top structure that housed the former ground water treatment system. Asbestos was not detected in the soil samples. Therefore, an REC relating to the release of asbestos during building demolition activities was not identified. 9.2.5 ~ Organachlorine Pesticides ERM collected three soil samples from across the subject property to evaluate if organochlorine-type pesticides were historically used at the subject property. As discussed in Section 4.1, organochlorine-type pesticides were not detected in the soil samples, suggesting that these chemicals were not used historically at the subject property. Therefore, an REC associated with the historical use of organochlorine type pesticides is not identified. 9.3 GROUND WATER RESULTS The ground watex analytical results are summarized on Tables 4 and 5. 11 - 177 exh+ 47 T~n~rawax,~~~.m • ei;aZ~,m Privileged and Confidential 9.3.1 VOCs TCE, PCE, benzene, toluene, and Freon 113 were detected in one or more ground water samples. All VOCs, except TCE, were detected at concentrations below RWQCB ESLs, USEPA MCLs, and site cleanup goals. TCE was reported iri all ground water samples except the sample collected at SB-1, which is located on the southern portion of the subject property. As indicated in Section 5.3.2, TCE was reported in the samples collected from the existing vent wells at 46 to 2b0 pg/L. TCE was detected in ground water samples collected from soil borings SB-2, SB-3, SB-5, and SB-8 at concentrations of 31 to 490 pg/L. The highest detection was reported at SB-8. This boring was advanced on the northern portion of the subject property, in the vicinity of boring VB-10. As described previously in Section 5.3.2, VB-10 is the location where TCE was reported in soil at 1.1 mg/kg at 72.5 feet bgs and is approximately 150 feet south of the Siemens well that reported elevated TCE concentrations in the resaturated zone. It is GE's opinion that the elevated TCE concentrations on Siemens do not originate from the subject property, but ~ the RWQCB has not responded. Therefore, the potential exists for the RWQCB to require GE to conduct additional investigation to determine if the source for elevated TCE is originating on the subject property. It is ERM's understanding that GE is working with the RWQCB to resolve this issue. If additional investigation and remediation is required for the . elevated TCE concentrations, GE will be responsible for implementing these activities. The presence of TCE in ground water at concentrations above site cleanup goals is identified as an REC and a "known hazardous substance." As stated previously, GE is currently operating a ground water remediation system that is acceptable to the RWQCB and remains responsible for continuing ground water remediation activities. 9.3.2 , TPH Four ground water samples were analyzed for TPH-d, TPH-mo, TPH-kerosene, and TPH-mineral spirits. TPH was not reported in these ground water samples, including the ground water sample collected at SB-3 where TPH-mo was detected in soil. a ~~ ~ 48 TAI`TAL'/0069227.07-6/30/2007 Privileged and Confidential 1, l 9.3.3 Dissolved Metals Ground water samples from well V2S were analyzed for dissolved CAM 17 metals because samples from the resaturated zone had not previously been tested for metals, As described in Section 5.3, dissolved metals were detected in this sample but at concentrations below RWQCB ESLs and USEPA 1VICLs, except copper, which was detected at 5.1 Trig/L. The ESL for copper is 3.1 mg/L and the secondary MCL is 1,000 mg/L. 9.4 DATA QLIALIT'Y It~VIEW An ERM chemist reviewed the laboratory analytical results for quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) purposes. The QA/QC review considered temperature, holding times, trip blanks, and method blanks based on criteria presented in the IISEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review (OSWER,1999) and considered surrogate recoveries based on the acceptable limits provided by the laboratory. The results presented on Tables 2 to 5 have been qualified, as appropriate, based on the data quality review. Copies.of the laboratory reports and the results of the QA/QC review are presented as Appendix H. - 11 - 179 ~ 49 TAMAU/ao69227.07 - 3/30/2007 Privileged and Confidential 10.0 DATA GAPS The following table Summarizes. the data gaps identified during the sifie assessment. The significance of the data gaps with respect to the conclusions of this assessment is presented below. Data Gap ~ Sources Consulted to Address Significance Data Gap Interviews with former In lieu of the interviews and T..ow-medium owners/operators were not environmental questionnaire, E12M conducted. relied upon the historical _ documents reviewed during this Phase I ESA. Significance of data gaps to identify conditions indicative of releases or threatened releases to the subject property are rated from low to high. Low significance indicates that additions] information to fill the data gaps is likely to have no impact on the conclusions reached in this report. Medium ratings indicate that additional information may prove valuable, but may not significantly alter the conclusions of this report. High significance indicates that it is the consultant's opinion that additional investigation (either from reports or field sampling) is required to address the data gap, / ~ °L~' 5o rnnrr,~uiooc~vrn.o~ • sisa~zom 80 Privileged and Confidential 11.0 USER AND O WNER PROVIDED IlVFORMATION 11.1 iISER AND OWNER QUESTIONNAIRES The following information for the subject property was requested from Client and GE to determine the status of potential environmental concerns -- at the-subject property: - -- - • An evaluation of the presence of Environmental Cleanup Liens for the subject property; • Activity and Llse Limitations such as engineering controls (e.g., slurry walls, caps) and land-use restrictions or institutional controls (e.g., deed restrictions, covenants) that may be in place for the subject property; • Specialized Knowledge tFiat includes personal knowledge or experience related to the subject property or nearby properties based on professional experience or knowledge of the subject property; • Fair Market Valtce to evaluate whether a purchase price is significantly below fair market value; • Obvious Indicators that involve past or present spills, stains, releases, cleanups on or near the subject property; and • Common Knowledge about specific chemicals, possible contamination, or past use of the subject property and surrounding area. The laser Questionnaire for Phase One Additional Inquiries (User Questionnaire) was completed by Mr. Lazry Wallerstein (the Client and "User"). The User Questionnaire indicated that the User: (1) does not have specialized knowledge or common knowledge not already provided in this report that would identify conditions indicative of releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances to the subject property; (2) is not aware of any discrepancies between fair market value and purchase price based on the known environmental conditions of the subject property; (3) is aware of the Covenant and Environmental Restriction on Property (discussed in Section 7.2) established for the subject property; (4) is not aware of additional Activity and Use Limitations (AULs) or environmental liens that would identify conditions indicative of releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances to the subject property that were not already described in this document; and (5) is not aware of any other indicators in addition to those previously described in this 11 - 181 L-rt.~ 51 rwra~~oab~r~~.m - s~:+o~wm Privileged and Confidential document that would identify conditions indicative of releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances to the subject property. The Owner Questionnaire for Phase One Addifional Inquiries (Owner Questionnaire) was completed by Mr. James Van Nortwick of GE (the "Owner"). The Owner Questionnaire for the subject property indicates that the Owner: (1) does not have specialized knowledge or common knowledge not already provided in this report that would identify -----conditions indicative of releases or threatened releases of hazardous - - -- substances to the subject property; (2) is not aware of any AULs or environmental liens not already provided in this report that would identify conditions indicative of releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances to the subject property; and (3) is not aware of any other indicators that would identify conditions indicative of releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances to the subject property. Copies of the User and Ow_ ner Questionnaires are presented in Appendix K. 1T.2 ENVIRONMENTAL LIENS OR ACTIVITYAND LISE LIMITATIONS (A tILS) Mr. Hauer, representing the owner of the subject property, provided ERM with a copy of the Covenant described in Section 7.2. Mr. Hauer did not identify envirorunental liens, land-use restrictions or AULs recorded against the subject property in addition to the Covenant. A 40-year Chain-of-Title search was conducted by Chicago Title Company at the request of the Client for environmental liens against the subject.property. The lien search did not identify environmental liens filed on the deed for the subject property. A copy of the 40-year Chain-of-Title is provided in Appendix L. 11.3 SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE The User has no specialized knowledge regarding former and current activities associated with the subject property. 11.4 COMMONLYKNOWN OR REASONABLE ASCERTAINABLE INFORMATION The User has access to commonly known and reasonably ascertainable information associated with the subject property. The information and ~, ~ documentation, including previous environir-ental investigations was provided to ERM prior to the performance of the site visit and is ER.\S SG TANTAU/DlM9~?7.07 - 8/i0/2007 Privileged and Canftdenfial presented throughout this report in the relevant report sections and ~ appendices. . 11.5 ~ VALiIATION REDI,ICTION L'OI2 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSZI£S The User indicated that the purchase price of the subject property. is significantly below fair market value. The User is aware of the known conditions of the subject property. 11.6 OWNER, PROPERTYMANAGER, AND OCCi.FPANT INFORMATI011T The following information regarding the subject property was provided by the User: Entity Name Subject property owner General Electric Company Subject property manager Lance Hauer, owner representative Susan Colman, environmental consultant far owner Current subject property occupant(s) None 11 - 183 ~+ 53 7.~'~7AU/006927/.07 -&/30/2007 Privileged and Confidential 12.0 CONCLI.ISIONS On behalf of the Client, ERM completed a Phase I ESA and Phase II field investigation of the subject property located at 10900 North Tarttau Avenue in Cupertino, California. ERM conducted the Phase I ESA in accordance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Standard E 1527-05, - - which-describes-the,protocol-for"site-assessment-practices-that satisfy the due diligence responsibilities of participants in commercial real estate transactions." The purpose of the Phase I ESA was to evaluate the presence of RECs at the subject property as a result of past or current , activities at the subject property or surrounding properties. As defined by Standard E 1527-05, an REC is "the presence or likely presence of hazardous substances. or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, ground water, or surface water of the property, excluding de minimis conditions that generally do not present a material risk of harm to public health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if ' ~ brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies." ERM conducted the Phase II investigation at the subject property to evaluate potential RECs identified during the Phase I and to resolve or suggest resolu#ions to the Phase I ESA findings. The Phase I ESA and Phase II investigation were performed in anticipation of a potential purchase transaction and redevelopment of the subject property consistent with the General Plan for the City of Cupertino. As part of this purchase transaction, GE has agreed to the following: • "At its sole cost and expense, [GEJ will perform the Ground Water Remediation Activities according to cleanup objectives and standards . set out in the Cleanup Order No. 90-119, including any future modifications thereto, or such alternate standards and objectives as may be required by, or mutually agreed between GE and United States Environmental Protection Agency {USEPA), California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or other applicable govet7tmental authority, in accordance with the provisions of such Order, including any modifications thereto (collectively "Cleanup Standards".)" sa ewwz 54 r.~nTa~ i W ~:n.m • si:su~aom Privileged and Confidential • GE will indemnify the Client from and against all costs and liabilities ~ ~~ associated with the following: 1. Costs and liabilities azising out of environmental laws in connection with "known hazardous substances" and asserted by third-parties or governmental authorities with jurisdiction over the subject property. "Known hazardous substances" are defined as any hazazdous waste, hazardous substance, asbestos, polychlorinated - - - - - - - biphenyls (PCBs), and petroleum products -identified nthe subsurface of the subject property prior to the closing of the - purchase transaction. 2. Caused by GE's failure to perform the ground water remediation activities and supplemental soil remediation activities in accordance with environmental law, the site cleanup Order No. 90-119, and such other requirements for such activities as maybe imposed by the RWQCB or other,.. governmental authority. 3. Costs and liabilities asserted or threatened against the Client as a result of any requirement by RWQCB, USEPA, or other government authority that the Client becomes a party to site cleanup order No. 90-119 as a result of "known hazardous substances". Between 1957 and February 1988, Intersil's operations at the subject property consisted of fabrication of (1) integrated circuits, including watch clips, microprocessor memories, and linear and analog devices, and (2) discrete devices, such as individual transistors, diodes, and other semiconductor devices. Site operations included the use of chlorinated VOCs. The subject property has been vacant-since 1998 and was purchased by GE in December 1992. Intersil initiated soil and ground water remediation activities at the subject property in 1986. Intersil operated an SVE/TS between approximately 1987 and 1993 and reduced the concentrations of VOCs in soil to less than the soil cleanup goals established for the subject property. At this point in time, the RWQCB does not require additional soil vapor extraction, nor does the RWQCB require the placement of a soil vapor barrier below future buildouts at the subject property. Ground water has been treated at the site since approximately 1987 with a GWE/TS. These remediation activities have reduced the concentrations of VOCs in groLUld water but concentrations remain above ground water cleanup goals. Therefore, GE continues to engage in ground water monitoring and treatment at'the subject property. GE will maintain long- 11 185 era., 55 raxTntvuoa~~.~ - si3unoo~ Privileged and Confidential term responsibility for known conditions at the subject property, including ground water monitoring and treatment. ERM performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E 1527-05 of 10900 North Tantau Avenue, Cupertino, California. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 1.4 of this report. This assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions --- with-the subject proper-t~except for-the-following: - -- -- --- -- - - Ground water at the subject property is impacted with VOCs. GE will retain long-term responsibility for known conditions, including this REC, and indemnifies the buyer (Client). In addition to the REC listed above, ERM's Phase I ESA identified several potential RECs and non-REC-issues that may affect the redevelopment plans for the subject property. Each potential REC and redevelopment issue have been resolved. The potential RECs and non-REC issues are summarized on Table 6; the resolutions are also included on Table 6. As shown on Table 6, GE maintains long-term responsibility for the known conditions at the subject property. ~ ! ss F~ 56 ra!.r,~u/wvvz~~-o; -s/so/zom Privileged and Confidential 13.0 LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS OFASSESSMENT ERM performed these services in a manner consistent with the level of care and expertise exercised by members of the environmental - auditing/risk assessment profession and in accordance with the ASTM standard for Phase I ESAs, which is "intended to permit a user to satisfy -one of the-requirements-to-qualify for the innocent landowner defense to - - CERCLA liability." 'It is ERM's experience that environmental liabilities maybe incurred that are additional to those associated with CERCLA. NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR Ilv1PLIED, ARE MADE. ERM's assessment is limited strictly to identifying recognized environmental conditions associated with the subject property. ERM's assessment does not evaluate structural conditions of any buildings on the subject property, and sampling of soils, ground water, and surface water was not within the scope of work for this project. In addition, this assessment did not attempt to identify the presence of environmental contamination that exists in areas that cannot be visually inspected. This includes surface soils located under pavement, structures, vehicles, or other media interference; subsurface soils; ground water; or areas of the subject property or buildings on the property that are otherwise inaccessible due to locked or blocked accesses; geographic or vegetation impediments; weather interferences; or size of the property. Results of this assessment are based upon the visual inspection of readily, accessible areas of the subject property conducted by ERM personnel, information from interviews with knowledgeable persons regarding the subject property, information reviewed regarding historical uses, information provided by contacted regulatory agencies, and review of publicly available and practically reviewable information identifying current and historical uses of the subject property and surrounding properties. All conclusions and recommendations regarding this subject property represent the professional opinions of the ERM personnel involved with the project, and the results of this report should not be considered a legal interpretation of existing environmental regulations. ERM assumes no responsibility or liability for errors in the public data utilized, statements from sources outside of ERM, or developments resulting from situations outside the scope of this project. 187 ~` 57 rnxT,~Liao~r.~.m- srw~zan Privileged and Confcdential 14.0 PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS This assessment was conducted by Ms. Kimberly Lake and Ms. Chimi Yi of ERM. Ms. Lake and Partner-in-Charge Mr. Benjamin Leslie-Bole reviewed the contents of this report. The professional qualifications for Ms. Lake, Ms. Yi, and Mr. Leslie-Bole are included in Appendix M. The signatures for IVis. Lake, Ms. Yi, and Mr. Leslie-Bole are affixed onto the cover of this report. Mr. Leslie-Bole is the designated Environmental Professional for this project and prepared the following declaration. • I declare that, to the best of my professional knowledge and belief, I meet the definition of Environmental Professional as defined in X312.10 of 40 CFR 312. • I have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the subject property. I have developed and performed the all appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in ~ 40 CFR Part 312. , t ss ~" 58 TAnTCAL'/oo692J.o7.6/aD/2007 Privileged and Confidential \ ~ 15.0 REFERENCES Beak Consultants Limited. 1990. Remedial Investigation Report, Former Intersil Facility, Cupertino, California. June. California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 1993. - Curtailment of Soii Vapor Extraction, Intersil, Cupertino,.Catifornia:l4May.- RWQCB. 2005. Conditional Approval of Soil Management Plan, Former Intersil Facility, 10900 Tantau Avenue, Cupertino, Santa Clara County. 23 November. RWQCB. 2007. Approval of Revised Soil Vapor Survey Results, 10900 North Tantau, Cupertino, Santa Clara County. 29 March. General Electric Company{GE}. 2005. Covenant and EnvironrrientaI Restriction on Property. GE. 2005. Soil Management Pian, Former Intersil Facility, 10900 North Tantau Avenue, Cupertino, CaliforniR. Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. (Geomatrix). 1986. Removal of Inactive Neutralization System, Intersil Manufacturing Facilih~,10900 North Tantau Avenue, Cupertino, California. 18 September . Geomatrix. 1987. Site Inspection Technical Report, Intersil Facility, 10900 North Tantau Avenue, Cupertino, California. Geomatrix. 1988. Letter Report, Additional Soil Chemistry Data and Review of Additional Backg-round Information, Former Intersil Facility, 10900 North Tantau Avenue, Cupertino, California. 26 October. Geomatrix. 1993. Proposal to Curtail Soil Vapor Extraction, Former Intersil Facility, 10900 North Tanfau Avenue, Cupertino, California. May. Geomatrix. 2006a. Summary Environmental Assessment, Former Intersil Facility, Cupertino, California. Geomatrix. 2006b. Statement of Worlc for Transactions Involving Manufacturing or Services Sites, Former Intersil Facilihj, Cupertino, California. 11 X89 r~+ 59 TA\T ~U/ Wn9227.D7 - S/:W /IW7 Privileged and Conftdential Geomatrix. 2007. Revised Soil Vapor Survey Results, Former Intersil Facility, Cupertino, California. March. - Levine-Fricke (LFR} and Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. (Geomatrix}. 1995. Five-Year Remedial Action Status Report and Effectiveness Evaluation, Intersil/Siemens Site, Cupertino, California. 31 July. LFR and Geomatrix. 2000. Five-Year Status Report for the Period 1995 through 1999, Intersil/Siemens Site, Cupertino,- California, Site Cleanup- ----- -- _.- Requirements Order No. 90-119. July. LFR and Geomatrix. 2005. Annual Seif-Monitoring Report, January 1 through December 31, 2004, Intersil/Siemens Site, Cupertino, California. 28 January. LFR and Geomatrix. 2005. Five-Year Status Report for the Period 2000 through 2004, Intersil/Siemens Site, Cupertino, California., Site Cleanup Requirements Order No. 90=119. 28 June. LFR and Geomatrix. January 2007. Annual Self-Monitoring Report, January 1 through December 31, 2006, Intersil/Siemens Site, Cupertino, California, Site ~ ~ Cleanup Requirements Order No. 90-119. ~SYVER. 1999. i.ISEPA Contract Laboratory Program. National Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review. Treadwell & Associates, Inc. 1990. Closure of Intersil's 10900 North T'antau Avenue Facility, Including Removal of Certain Below-Grade Lbzits, Associated Pipelines, and Above-Ground Storage Areas, Cupertino, California. 9 April. . ~ ~~ 60 ' ' - ' ERM TANTAL~/0069227.07 - S/:10/Z007 ~~ N H' ~ W W LL Z ~ j Z a W < ~ N ~ FaAO W ~ J W ~ W _Z wFa-.~ ~ mw ZZ oa OJ KU a ~ Z O ~ U Z W ~ o F~--? Q~~--- a W~ O~ FU ~ <~Q __ o < ~ ZZd C~7~ Ow W ~ W =OOU S a, C7 ~ Z 6 Z ~ Z ~ ~ WK W O Q ~ c9 3 9 N <3 ~ 3 ~° a Ja _~ 'U ~ ~ yy 1 < < <~U at~g a d O a ~.o 3~U W ~ ~ Z ~ 9`~ aa 9". 6 p K ~ ~ ~~ ct e~LL W U a ~ Yu~ ~ u~`~ ~ ~~ ` ~ aam 0 : aav ~ Uoy ; .~ mom' ~~ ~ ~.,' ~ ~ ~ ~ a ;> ~ ~ f _. _ Y ~ ~ ~3o N m d W °Oaa 3Q0 WZU U ~ V2 ? aU> a UU Q U N R' c^ ~a~~ .. N zzz w mm _~ u~ w u~ m ~~ ~~ 3 d' ~ ~ ~ < p ~~ o Cw7 ~_ Q' 0 m - Ig W~ ~ . m ?~ 3 a~ ~~~ ~ g I ~u g `~. ~ I ~ q •~~ is t Y ~~ 9~1 ~ ~~~ ~Y °3 gs Dy ~~ i~ £ ~ 55- SQ ~~ ~ u _ `J} j ~~ yAe '~.~ ~ ~Y J Y J Yy ~~ ~a ~~~ ~~ y 3 a 3 a ~ ;: . ~~$~ ~~ ~~ E ~$ ~a. ~ ~ ~~ - ;~ :~ 9$$ e'a ~~ ~~§ §~ ? 2 c 8` 33 SIB Y ~~ ~s a:c 4! i_ a~ ~ ~ 3 3 ~ w- aa ~> Y0. y~ 3rw3nv rnlrrvl 11 - it ~~ ~~:, , cirv of CUPEt~TIN~ PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Exhibit F Project Title: Tantau Investments, LLC Project Location: 10900 N. Tantau Avenue .City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department Staff Use Only EA File No.EA-2006-06 ase File No. U-2006-03; ASA-2006-05 Project Description: The project is a request to construct a new 100 000 square foot two-story office building on a currently vacant site. Environmental Setting: The new building will be constructed on the east side of N. Tantau Avenue north of Pruneridge Avenue, and south of Homestead Road and Forge Drive Forge Drive is a private driveway that provides access to the subject property as well as surrounding properties to the north and east. The site is surrounded by Kaiser Permanente medical offices to the north, industrial/office uses to the east. an industrial office and asingle- family residential neighborhood to the south in the City of Santa Clara and the HP campus to the west across N. Tantau Avenue. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Area (ac.) - 287.496 s.f. (6.6 acres) Building Coverage - 17.5% Exist. Building - 0 s.f. previous building was 94.874 s.f.) Proposed Bldg. - 100.000 s.f. Zone - P MP G.P. Designation -Industrial/Residential Assessor's Parcel No. - 316-09-029 If Residential, Units/Gross Acre - Unit Type #1 Unit Type #2 Unit Type #3 Total# RentaUOwn Bdrms Total s.f. Price NA NA ~ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Applicable Special Area Plans: (Check) ^ Monta Vista Design Guidelines ^ N. De Anza Conceptual ^ S. De Anza Conceptual ^ S. Sara-Sunny Conceptual ^ Heart of the City Specific Plan ^ Stevens Creek Blvd. SW & Landscape X North Vallcopark Special Center If Non-Residential, Building Area - 100.000 s.f. FAR - 34.8% Employees/Shift - N/A Parking Required - 351 spaces Parking Provided - 403 spaces (up to 487 spaces) Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area - YES X NO ^ ~ ~ -192 4 -~- = `~ ~y , INI~I~=STUD_lf SOURCE LIST ~~ .:p- , ,~ ~~ ~ ~-~~ __ .,~ A. CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN SOURCES 1. Land Use Element 2. Public Safety Element 3. Housing Element 4.. Transportation Element 5. Environmental Resources 6. Appendix A-Hillside Development 7. Land Use Map 8. Noise Element Amendment 9_ City Ridgeline Policy 10. Constraint Maps 28. Cupertino Sanitary District 29. Fremont Union High School District 30. Cupertino Union School District 31. Pacific Gas and Electric 32. Santa Clara County Fire Department 33. County Sheriff 34. CALTRANS 35. County Transportation Agency 36. Santa Clara Valley Water District 36b Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program 36c San Jose Water Company B. CUPERTINO SOURCE DOCUMENTS _ 11. Tree Preservation ordinance 778 12. City Aerial Photography Maps ' 13. "Cupertino Chronicle" (California History Center, 1976) 14. Geological Report (site specific) 15. Parking Ordinance 1277 16. Zoning Map 17. Zoning Code/Specific Plan Documents 18. City Noise Ordinance 18b City of Cupertino Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Plan C. CITY AGENCIES Site 19. Community Development Dept. List 20. Public Works Dept. 21. Parks & Recreation Department 22. Cupertino Water Utility D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES 23. County Planning Department 24. Adjacent Cities' Planning Departments 25. County Departmental of Environmental Health D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES (Continued) 26. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 27. County Parks and Recreation Department E. OUTSIDE AGENCY DOCUMENTS _37-.-BAAQMD Sucvey.of_Contaminant __._. _ Excesses 38: FEMA Flood Maps/SCVWD Flood. Maps 39. USDA, "Soils of Santa Clara County" 40. County Hazardous Waste Management Plan 41. County Heritage Resources Inventory 42. Santa Clara Valley Water District Fuel Leak Site 43. CaIEPA Hazardous Waste and Substances Site 43b National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Stormwater Discharge Permit Issued to the City of Cupertino by the San Francisco Bay Regiona{ Water Quality Control Board 43c Hydromodification Plan F. OTHER SOURCES 44. Project Plan Set/Application Materials 45. Field Reconnaissance 46. Experience w/project of similar scope/characteristics 47. ABAG Projection Series A. Complete all information requested on the Initial Study Cover page. LEAVE BLANK SPACES ONLY WHEN A SPECIFIC ITEM IS NOT APPLICABLE. B. Consult the Initial Study Source List; use the materials listed therein to complete, the checklist information in Categories A through O. C. You are encouraged to cite other relevant sources; if such sources are used, job in their title(s) in the "Source" column next to the question to which they relate. . D.' If you check any of the "YES" response to any questions, you must attach a sheet explaining the potential impact and suggest mitigation if needed. E. When explaining any yes response, label your answer clearly (Example "N - 3 Historical") Please . try to respond concisely, and place as many explanatory responses as possible on each page. F. Upon completing the checklist, sign and date the Preparer's Affidavit. G. Please attach the following materials before submitting the Initial Study to the City. /Project Plan Set of Legislative Document /Location map with site clearly marked • (when applicable) • • ' EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: . c c ~' ISSUES: ~ ;~~-, ea H .,~~-, ~_ ~ o ' I- ;~ R o ca [and Supporting Information Sources] ~; c ~ = 3 ~' °- y a ~ N '~ ~ z ~ o ~ - a cn . o m , _ ~ cn ~ _ ~, a~ _ ~ in - I. AESTHETICS --Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a ^ ^ ^ p scenic vista? [5,9,24,41,44] b) Substantially damage scenic:resources, ^ ^ ^ p - including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? [5,9,11,24,34,41,44] ~. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual ^ ~ ^ ^ p character or quality of the site and its surroundings? [1,17,19,44] d) Create a hew source of substantial light or ^ ^ ~ ^ glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime,views in the area? [1,16,44] Items a, b, and c - No Impact There are no scenic vistas or scenic resources on the project site; therefore, the proposed project wilt have no adverse effects on scenic vistas or scenic resources. The proposed project is also not anticipated to degrade the existing visual character of the site, given that the site is currently vacant and is surrounded by other office/industrial developments and a developed single-family residential neighborhood. Item d -Less than Significant The proposed two-story office building will create a new source of light in the area; however, this source of light is not anticipated to adversely or substantially impact the area. The proposed project is anticipated to provide lighting in keeping with the surrounding commercial area; however, due to the location of these buildings adjacent to residential uses, conditions of approval shall be required to ensure that such lighting does not adverse) or substantial) im act the area. II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental ' . effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique ^ ^ ^ px Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- . agricultural use? [5,7,39] b) Conflict with existing zoning for ^ ^ ^ p 'agricultural use, or a Williamson Act ~~ - Asa contract? [5,7,23] ~'~.~ ~~ o° ~Rw i ~~ ISSUES: (and Supporting Information Sources] ~ ~ ~ a ;~ E F- ;~ w i o ~ :~ 3 ~ c H ~ ~ ~ :~ ~ o c~ Z ~ to '-~ fq ~ C J N c) Involve other changes in the existing ^ ^ ^ ~ environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of - Farmland, to non-agricultural use? [5,7,39] Items a through c - No Impact The project site was previously developed with an industrial building and is located within a developed urbanized area. There are no agricultural-Ian or resources on the subject property; therefore,-the-proposed - project will not impact agricultural land br resources. III. AIR QUALITY -Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of ^ ^ ^ ~ the applicable air quality plan? [5,37,42,44] b) Violate any air quality standard or ^ ^ ^ D contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? [5,37,42,44] c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net ^ ^ ^ ~ increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? [4,37,44] d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ^ ^ ^ ~ pollutant concentrations? [4,37,44] e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ^ ^ ^ ~ substantial number of people? [4,37,44] Items a through e - No Impact The proposed office building is not anticipated to conflict with any applicable air quality plan, violate any air quality standards, or create objectionable odors within the surrounding area. Standard mitigation measures will be applied to the project as conditions of approval to mitigate odors and dust resulting from construction-related activities. 11 - 195 `~ c ~ c c ~' ISSUES: co v ~ ~ s c° ° a ° N s ~ ~ ~ ° [and Supporting Information Sources] ~ ~ ~ ~ e. N = E z o ~ - a cn a~ •- •- o -~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ - ~ rn _ ~n - IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --Would ---- _ --~ ~,' the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either ^ ^ ^ ~ ~ directly or through habitat modifications, on -any species-identified-as-a-candidate, -- ____ sensitive, or special status speoies in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10,27,44] b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any ^ ^ ^ p riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the ._ California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10,27,44] c) Have a substantial adverse effect on ^ ^ O 1] federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? [20,36,44] d) Interfere substantially with the movement ^ ^ ^ p of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? [5,10,12,21,26] e) Conflict with any local policies or ^ ^ O ^ ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? [11,12,41] f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural ^ ^ ^ p Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? [5,10,26,27] 11 - 196 Items a through dand f - No Impact The project site was previously developed with an industrial building within a developed urbanized area and has since been vacarrt since the demolition of the building. Therefore, the proposed project will not have a substantial adverse effect on ~ threatened or endangered biological resources. I f Item a -Less than Significant Impact The project is proposing to remove a total of 37 trees, many of which are shame) and modesto ash trees within the interior of the lot to accommodate the new office building. Additionally, two liquidamber trees and one redwood tree are proposed to be removed to accommodate the new parking lot and driveway. The applicant is intending to retain all existing trees on the perimeter of the site, including many trees that the City Arborist does not find worthy of retaining due to the health and/or structural defects of the trees. A condition of approval will be required to replace any trees removed on the property, or to pay an in-lieu tree replacement fee in accordance with the City's Protected Trees ordinance. Additionally, any dead of hazardous trees shall be required to be replaced in accordance with the City's Protected Trees ordinance. _ ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ +'' C ~ ~ ISSUES: ~ V V _;E-~ O L V t +•+ ~ ~'"~ =moo r t V V F-~-a r V oQ -[and-Supporting-Lnfor-oration-Sources]- -~;-~-~ a' _ -vi-~ 3 °'_° a~ _N_E ~ a' _ Z .E- o . _ a cn ~, o ~ in ~ _ ~ , --t ~n _ V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in ^ ^ ^ ~ the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? [5,13,41] b) Cause a substantial adverse change in ^ ^ ^ ~ the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?.[5,13,41] c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ^ ^ ^ ~ paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? [5,13,41] d) Disturb any human remains, including ~ ^ ^ ^ ~ those interred outside of formal cemeteries? [1 ,5] . Items athrough d - No Impact , The site is not within a sensitive archaeological area of the City and has no historical resources on site. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as ^ ^ ^ ~ delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology ', Special Publication 42. (2,14,44] ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ^ ^ ^ 0 ', [2,5,10,44] iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including ^ ^ ^ ~ liquefaction? [2,5,10,39,44] it -ts7 ~R z =3 ~ c ~ c ISSUES: ~. ~ ~ ~ 0 ~~ ~ ° y ~ ~ s c ~ ~ ~ [and Supporting Information Sources] ~ ~ ~. as E ~ a~ a . y ~' = E Z ~. E a°in ~E~c°, ~ J°' y ~ iv) Landslides? [2,5,10,39,44] -- -- - - ^ ^ ^ p ~ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the ^ ^ p _ p loss of topsoil? [2,5,10,44] c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is ^ ^ ^ p unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, . subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? [2, 5,10, 39] d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined ^ ^ ^ p . in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? [2,5,10] e) Have soils incapable of adequately ^ ^ ^ ~ supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? [6,9,36,39] Items a through e - No Impact The proposed project is not anticipated to expose people or structures to rupture of a known earthquake fault, seismic ground shaking, or landslides. According to the Geologic and Seismic Hazards Map of the Cupertino General Plan, the project site is located in a VF, Valley Floor, zone. The VF zone includes all relatively level valley floor terrain with relatively low levels of geologic hazard risk. Additionally, the project site is not known to have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. VI1. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or ^ ^ ^ ~ the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? [32,40,42,43,44] b) Create a significant hazard to the public or ^ ^ ^ ~ ~ the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions j involving the release of hazardous materials ~ into the environment? [32,40,42,43,44] ~~ 198 ~ ~ 0 ~= ~~ H ~ = ~ i ~ ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] ~ o :~ E ~~o ~ :~ ~ c t -~ ~ ;~ ~ o z ~ a cn -u cn r ~ -~ cn 3- c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle ^ ^ ^ ~ hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? [2,29,30,40,44] d) Be located on a site which is included on a ~ ^ ^ D ^ -list of-hazardous-mater-ials-sites-compiled- -- - _ pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? [2,42,40,43] e) For a project located within an airport land ^ ^ ^ D use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? [ ] f) For a project within the vicinity of a private ^ ^ ^ ~ airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? [ ] g) Impair implementation of or physically ^ ^ ^ ~ interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? [2,32,33,44] h) Expose people or structures to a ^ ^ ^ ~ significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with ._ wildlands?[1,2,44] 11 - 199 ` I C . C ~+ C R C 'i+ ~.. = ~ C ISSUES: ~- ~ ~= ~ ~ "= "= a ° N ~`= z ~ [and Supporting Information Sources] o ~ ~ • ~ e. ~ ~ 3 = ~ ~ E ~ !, i o ~ Items a throughc and a through h - No Impact The proposed office development is not anticipated to generate hazardous waste, increase the risk of accidental explosion, release hazardous substances, interfere with emergency services, increase exposure of people to hazardous waste or increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass or trees. The project site is not within atwo-mile radius of the nearest airport (Moffett Airfield/San Jose Airport). Item d -Less Than Significant Impact The project site is a 6.6 acre site that is located within a 15 acre US Environmental Protection Agency _Superfund_Lis#1~ccQr_ding to the Phase I and Phase II Environmental Conditions _Report prepared by Environmental Resources Management in August of 2007, the site was placed. on this list in 1989 due to chlorinated VOC (volatile organic chemicals) contamination found in soil and groundwater within the project site. From 1967 through 1988, the site was used for industrial purposes for the fabrication of integrated circuits and other semiconductor devices. Since 1986, remediation activities have been initiated on the property to mitigate this contamination as required by the US EPA and the RWQCB. A soil vapor extraction and treatment system was placed on site to mitigate the soil contamination, and in 1993 the soil contamination clean up was completed. per the Regional Water Quality Control Board's (RWQCB) requirements. Therefore, the soil vapor extraction, and treatment system was subsequently removed. The Phase II investigation found some residual . . VOC concentrations in the soil; however, this will be remediated in accordance with the Soil Management Plan of 2005 that was approved by the RWQCB for any intrusive subsurface soil excavation activities. The ground water extraction treatment system is still in operation at the northeast corner of the site since remediation activities are still in operation. The remediation activities have reduced concentration of VOCs in the ground water, but concentrations remain above the ground water clean up goals. The RWQCB anticipates that the ground water clean up goals may not be achieved for approximately 100 years with the current round water treatment system; however, the site may still be developed with the on-going ground water treatment systems for industrial, commercial, ofrce (including medical offices), or recreational use. The site is restricted-from development for residences, hospitals, schools for persons under 21 years, or day care centers for children or senior citizens. Anew ground water treatment system was installed in early 2007 to replace the previous ground water treatment system and consists of three 1,800 pound capacity tanks and associated piping. All remediation of this site will be separately overseen by the RWQCB per federal US EPA standards, and not by the City. Additionally, the previous property owner, General Electric, is the responsible party to perform the remediation activities in accordance with the RWQCB and US EPA standards. Therefore, the hazardous materials im act of the ro osed ro'ect is considered less than si nificant. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or ^ ^ p ^ waste discharge requirements? [20,36,37] b) Substantially deplete groundwater ^ ^ ^ p supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned-uses for which permits have been granted)? [20,36,42] c) Create or contribute runoff water which ^ ^ ~ ^ i would exceed the capacity of existing or ~ planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? [20,36,42] d) Otherwise substantially degrade water D ^ ^ ~ ~ C~00 quality? [20,36,37] ~~ Cam? C ~ ~ ~ R o~ R t~ V V ISSUES: ~' w-. c~ ~ ~E H ;~ ~ a o y ~= 3 ~ °- E- ;~ ~ ~E ~ o ~ Z ~ [and Supporting Information Sources] , E y off- a cn m~ o ~ in ~ ~ mom- -~ cn - e) Place housing within a 100-year flood ^ ^ ^ D hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? [2,38] f) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area ^ ^ ^ ~ structures which would impede or redirect _ flood flows? [2,38] ; g) Expose people or structures to a ^ ~ , ^ ^ O significant risk of -loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? [2,36,38] h) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or ^ ^ ^ D mudflow? [2,36,38] 11 - 201 Item a -Less Than Significant The proposed project as an office development will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge j requirements as an office development. However, the project site is a 6.6 acre site that is located within a 15 acre US Environmental Protection Agency Superfund List. According to the Phase I and Phase II Environmental j Conditions Report prepared by Environmental Resources Management in August of 2007, the site was placed ~ on this list in 1989 due to chlorinated VOC (volatile organic chemicals) contamination found in soil and groundwater within the project site. From 1967 through 1988, the site was used for industrial purposes for the fabrication of integrated circuits and other semiconductor devices. Since 1986, remediation activities have been initiated on the property to mitigate this contamination as required by the US EPA and the RWQCB. The ground water extraction treatment system is still in operation at the northeast corner of the site since remediation activities are still in operation. The remediation activities have reduced concentration of VOCs in the ground water, but concentrations remain above the ground water clean up goals. The RWQCB anticipates that the ground water clean up goals may not be achieved for approximately 100 years with the current round water treatment system; however, the site may still be developed with the on-going ground water treatment systems for industrial, commercial, office (including medical offices), or recreational use. The site is restricted from development for residences, hospitals, schools for persons under 21 years, or day care centers for children or senior citizens. Anew ground water treatment system was installed in early 2007 to replace the _ previous ground water treatment system and consists of three 1,800 pound capacity tanks and associated -- --- piping. .. All remediation of this site will be separately overseen by the RWQCB per federal US EPA standards and not , by the City. Additionally, the previous property owner, General Electric, is the responsible party to perform the remediation activities in accordance with the RWQCB and US EPA standards. Therefore, the water quality impact of the proposed project is considered less than significant. Item c -Less Than Significant Impact The project site is currently a vacant property that once accommodated an approximately 95,000 square foot industrial building that was developed with a paved parking lot. The proposed office development will contribute towards water runoff due to development of the building and a paved parking lot; however, the site is not anticipated to result in a substantial net increase of impermeable surface on the project site because the site is still developed with the previously paved parking lot. Standard conditions of approval will be applied to the project requiring construction to provide additional stonnwater control measures to reduce run-off in accordance with BAASMA guidelines. Items band d though h - No Impact The proposed project is not anticipated to substantially deplete groundwater supplies, degrade water quality, place housing in a 100-year flood zone, or expose people or structures to risks involving flooding, or tsunamis. The project site is located within a B flood zone per the Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel Number 060339-0004-C, dated May 1, 1980. The project site is currently vacant, except for the ground water treatment system on the northeast comer of the site and is relatively flat and paved, with the exception of some ~ landscaping within the former parking lot and along the perimeter of the site. ' ... ~°cca~ c ~.. ~ ,~~ o v c ,., .c~~ ~ ISSUES: d S I f _ ;~ cv H ;~ ~ Ro 3 ' N " H ~ ~ ' o ~ Z (an upporting n ormation Sources] w; c E c ~ ? N c ~ ~ ~ c IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project: a) Physically divide an established ^ ^ ^ p community? [7,12,22,41] b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, ^ ^ ^ p policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? [1,7,8,16,17,18,44] 11 - 202 S V V = R +~+ L v~~ t~II C R t V V i V ISSUES: :~' ~ ea ~ ~E H ~. = ~ o N 'c 3 ~' a F- ;~. ca 'c ~ o ca Z ~ [and Supporting Information Sources] , E y ~ a° in ~ .N ~ ~ _°; in c ~ I c) Conflict with any applicable habitat ^ ^ ^ D conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? [1,5,6,9,26] I Item a through c - No Impact The proposed development will not physically divide an established community and will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plans. The proposed _offce develoPment_is~ocated~~E(MP) zonin~c district which allows for office development. X. MINERAL RESOURCES --Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known ^ ^ ^ ~ mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? [5,10] b) Result in the loss of availability of a ^ ^ ~ ^ ~ locally-important mineral resource recovery . site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? [5,10] Items aand b - No Impact No known mineral resources exist on the project site. XI. NOISE --Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, - ^ ~ ^ ^ ~ noise levels in excess of standards ~ established in the local general plan or noise . ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? [8,18,44] b) Exposure of persons to or generation of ^ ^ ^ ~ excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? [8,18,44] c) A substantial permanent increase in ^ ^ ^ ~ ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? [8.18] d) A substantial temporary or periodic ^ ^ ~ ^ increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? [8,18,44] e) For a project located within an airport land ^ ^ ^ ~ use plan or, where such a plan has not been j adopted, within two miles of a public airport '~I or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ~ ~ - 203 i [8,18;44] i ISSUES: ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ o o ' = ~.. v [and Supporting Information Sources] c ~ a~ = E F- ~ ° o y 'E ~ a. ~ w c a m ~ a E o ~ z a p 1= o ~ - a rn as ~ o ~ cn ~ ~ ~ .~ -.i cn ; 3- I f) For a project within the vicinity of a private ^ O ^ p airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? [8,18] Items a, b, c, a and f- No Impact The proposed project will not expose people to groundbome vibration, groundborne noise, or noise levels in excess of standards of the general plan and noise ordinance. The project is not located within an airport land - -use-plan-area-or-private-airstrip. Item d -Less Than Significant •• The project site is currently surrounded by industrial/office developments and asingle-family residential neighborhood. The proposed office development is not anticipated to create a substantial increase in ambient noise levels within the neighborhood. An increase of temporary ambient noise levels will occur with construction of the project. However, this temporary ambient noise is considered less than significant. The project will be ~ re wired to com I with the Ci 's construction hour re uirements er the Ci 's Noise Ordinance. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: a.) Induce substantial population growth in an ^ ^ ^ p area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? [3,16,47,44] b) Displace substantial numbers of existing ^ ^ ^ p housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] c) Displace substantial numbers of people, ^ ^ ^ p necessitating the construction of. replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] Items a through c - No Impact The proposed office development will not induce substantial population growth, displace existing housing and would not necessitate replacement housing elsewhere. a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the ' construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? [19,32,44] ^ ^ ^ p Police protection? [33,44] ~ ^ ^ ^ ~ Schools? [29,30,44] ^ ^ ^ p Parks? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] ^ ^ ^ p Other public facilities? [19,20,44] ^ p ^ p ~ Item a (Fire Protection, Police Protection, Schools. Parks ar~d Other Public Faciltiesl - No Impact The project site is currently located within an urbanized area that is served by municipal services, including fire, I police, and public facilities. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to create additional impacts onto ~ 'I the existing public services. ~ = ~ C I ISSUES: '•~ •~ c~a H c a' ~ ~ v . ~ o ~ (and Supporting Information Sources] .~ c ~ N c ~ ~• N c ~ z ~ off- n- cn m~so ~ cn ._ _ mom- -u ~ - 3- XIV. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of ^ ^ ^ p - - - - - - - and regional parks or neig h boyhood existing otherrecreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] b) Does the project include recreational ^ ^ ^ 0 facilities or require the construction or expansion.of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? [5,44] Item aand b - No Impact The proposed project will not increase the use of existing recreational facilities in the area and will not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities within the area. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is ^ ^ ^ O substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? [4,20,35,44] b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, ^ ^ ^ ~ a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? [4,20,44] c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, ^ ^ ^ D including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (4,?] d) Substantially increase hazards due to a ^ ^ ^ ~ I design feature (e.g., sharp curves or I dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? [20,35,44] ~, e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ^ ^ ^ i ~ ~ [2,19,32,33,44] 11 - 205 i -''a = c ~3=° ~_ ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] rt, °~~ ~ ~ ~c~~ ~ ~ °c ~~~ N ~ ~. ~ Z a E y . ~ ~ J d. to v -- ~ _ ~ ~ f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ^ ^ ^ p [17,44] g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or ^ ^ ^ p programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks-?-[4;34 - Items a through p - No Impact The proposed office development is not anticipated to create substantial increased traffic, result in a change in air traffic patterns, substantially increase hazards due to design features, result in inadequate emergency access and/or parking capacity, or conflict with adopted policies/plans on alternative transportation. The project site is within a zoning district that allows for office development and is surrounded by industrial/office developments. The project will exceed parking requirements for standard office use for the proposed 100,000 square foot building, and may be used partially for medical office use based upon the provided parking. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment ^ ^ ^ p requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? [5,22;28,36,44] b) Require or result in the construction of ^ ^ ^ a new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? [36,22,28,36] c) Require or result in the construction of ^ ^ ~ ^ p new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? [5,22,28,36,44] e) Result in a determination by the ^ ^ ^ p wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? [5,22,28,36,44] f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient ^ ^ ^ p permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? [?] g) Comply with federal, state, and local ^ ^ ^ p statutes and regulations related to solid waste? [?] ~ i - 2os Items a through q - No Impact I The project site is served by sanitary sewer service. The applicant, like other users of the system, will be l required to pay District fees and obtain a permit for construction of the project. A condition of approval will be incorporated that will require necessary improvements, if any, to be completed prior to building occupancy. The project will be required to comply with all federal, state and local statutes and regulations pertaining related sanitary sewer and solid waste. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .. _ (To be completed by City Staff) ~,~ t4 +r ~ c c~ co ~ R O +~ c~ ca ~ r ~ ~.. ISSUES: ~ ~ d o F' ;~ ~ a o '~ 'c 3 ° ~ °- H ~~ -., a N 'E o a z [and Supporting Information Sources] E .,.. ~ . - ~ N = L ~ N E E _ O ._ a~ O O J W ~ v d .~ J y c a) Does the project have the po#ential to ~ ^ ^ D degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or j animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ~ b) Does the project have impacts that are ^ ^ ^ ~ individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, ' and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental ^ ^ D ^ I, effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ~ PREPARER'S AFFIDAVIT ~- I hereby certify that the information provided in this Initial Study is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and, belief; I certify that I have used proper diligence in responding accurately to all questions herein, and have consulted appropriate source references when necessary to ensure full and complete disclosure of relevant environmental data. I hereby acknowledge than any substantial errors dated within this Initial Study may cause delay or discontinuance of related project review procedures, and hereby agree to hold harmless~the City of Cupertino, its staff and authorized agents, from the consequences of such delay or discontinuance. ,, Preparer's Signature ,,/ Print Preparer's Name ~ tl_ S~l~l~~ 11 - 207 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (To be Completed by City Staff) tNVIKUNMtN I AL F-AG I UK5 1'U ~tN TIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ^ Aesthetics O Agriculture Resources ^ Air Quality ^ Biological Resources ^ Cultural Resources ^ Geology /Soils ^ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ^ Hydrology /Water Quality ^ Land Use /Planning ^ Mineral Resources Noise ^ Population /Housing ^ Public Services ^ Recreation ^ Transportation/Traffic ^ Utilities /Service Systems ^ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) finds that: D The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ^ Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. , ^ The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ^ The proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ^ Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Sta valuator ER irperson Date X21 ~I~o~ Date 11 - 208 Exhibit G Mr. Steve pTaseckfi Community Development Dept. City of Cupertino ?030.0. Torre Avenue Cupertino, Ca 95014 Dear Mr. Pfiasecki: 1696 Quail Avenue Sunnyvale, Ca 84087 December 6, 2007 Re your NOTICE QF PUBLIC HEARING on December 11, 2007. I tivill not be able to attend this meeting but would like to make my abjection known. As the owner of a property not too far from 10.900 North Taritau, T would.like to express my dfsapprvval_ of a 10.0,00.0 square foot office bufildfing on a 6.6 acre site. There is already too much. office space available in Cupertino and adjacent cities -- much. of it sitting vacant -- so why add more? When Sieman's left their property in that area,. we were informed that there was a plume gunning under our property. Have you checked.to mike sure~thfis particular area.fis free of contimination? It seems a shame to remove 34 trees to build an un- . needed bi'fice:.~ui.ld.ing. Had you ever thought about converting this type property to a Park.? My son also owns a home in this vicinity and wants to add his objection to this project. Very truly yours, 11IVIAN KRODEL~_ I am joining in this objecti_~on. GRE 1' KRODEL ~~~~~~~~~.1 ~~~ ~ ~ ~(~~~ 11 -209 Exhibit B CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE November 28, 2007 As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure, adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1983, as amended, the following described project was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee of the City of Cupertino on November 28, 2007. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION Application No.: U-2007-09, ASA-2007-14 (EA-2007-10), TR-2007-06 Applicant: Tantau Investments Location: 10900 N Tantau Ave DISCRETIONARY ACTION RE VEST Use Permit to construct a 100,000 square foot, two-story office building on a 6.6 acre site Architectural Site Approval fora 100,000 square foot, two-story office building and site improvements Tree Removal of 34 trees to construct a 100,000 square foot, two-story office building and site improvements FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration finding that the project is consistent with the General Plan and has no g/erc/REC EA-2007-10 11 -210 Director of Community Development o r z w O N Q ~ C~ ~ ~ ~ 'd Q ~ M ~ ~ i ° ~ o ~ o ~ w v ~+ - ~~ O ~ M ~ ~¢ ~ 33 y ~ ~ YWW. ~ $q ~zF~ ~~ ~ ~ X 44 ~a F ~~~~O7F~ }yy{, ~y a ~y ~ ~ ~ F ~ 8awp bls W~ ~~~ g w ~~ .~.^^ VI w ~a 3 E b ~ F Yi ~ ~ u ~ AVMSS3tldX3 30fl3MNYl Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m O w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~F- ~ ~ F~~ ~ < 7. g .. .. . dU1 ~ ~ „ °~ ~ Z X ~ ~ *~ ~ . .. ~3NIiAry M1NY1 ~ ~ ~ ~~€ . ~ rnG rii~ t ZZ O S ~ g 1 g 7 7 U <~O 2 FO ` ~ ~ ~~~ •~ N ~_ ~ ~~ y ~ i~ri rc~ ~ R'~ 8 0 ~ g .. p m Z @ k OYOtl 3lIOM ~ Q ~ j ~ ~ ~ ~ y R s ~~- , ~` g„~ ~ n S~ .. U7 ~ 0 / ~ ~ F ~ y du~ n~Z~Z°~p 5 ~ gF~ ~~~~~ ~~~ ~$ <~ ~' a5~ € g~~ GG° ~~ ~ ~ ~ < ~gy j~ ~ i mc ~3S ~~ dY ~a a v ~ ~ d W b ~b b W~i ~ F_ 8 ~ ~BG 5 w~ O F ,Qa ~~9 m~y ~ ~~~ G h ~ ~ ~ • r `./ W Q £ BB ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~m~ ~ ~~o ~~ ~ r ; V ~ U J ~ ~~ ~~g -~~ ~ °~~~ ~ ~~ a3€~ 3a=~~ ~~ ~ F-+ O ~ ~ a Q y{ tl~° «p G ~a gyQ ~8ff~6 ~"3 z_ ~ ~ O ~ ~~9 35~~:~ ~ ~<7 $~gg§g ~~S NN ~ W ~' rn a o~ [-~ ~ '-' U ~ ~~ F- -~ ~..~..~ >~~ w F N p~ p O FI~~ ~~ sJ O ~ "~~"~~ Q ``' Z~"O1'N a Q ~um~ U ~ V) w In~~ ~~~~ ~d ~9 ~~ 11 - Q U VI O m0 m ~ i~'~~S ZO U ~. p¢ z~ 4i Z z Q ~ rnv~0i( a r- z U W b€$~ ~~$~ m O a -~ = e°a~ v O °~ ~6~m J W g°°~~ ~~~< ~ U O N Q ~ ° O N y o p O M ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ gR p ~ Q$@~ ~~ ~~ Q~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z Z Qo ~ m Z m w ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~a~~ ]3~~~ ~C a ~ ~~~E~G ~I~~d~ O ~ m ~ $~~ w ff < u ~ i~_ ~ z w ~ ~ ~ ` ~ a w ~ i w ~ a O ~ ~3~~~~~~8:4~a~sa~~~~~a~a~~~~~ ~~'~+~Ess~.`~ ~ z Z a ~ ~° ~<~ a ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U m in 0_ O X ~ O J S Q ~ m c3 a i,. Z O v Q ~ ~ Q ~ U ~ ' 4 yyv ~~ ~n F --yy S~ om ~ ~ ~s2 ~ W ~ ~I. ~ g ~ ~ 2' m ~ g 4 ~i ~ F y ~~ ~~~~ ~ F ~ ~ ~ ~g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E-- O e ~ ~ 3~ ~~~ ~3 ~~ ~SFY r8 G~~ ~7 r~r~~~ ~ ~s~ ~~ O _ N 0: ~ W w pp$~7 yy WW y3 p$ ~yy ~55 p R5 W ~yy ~ }9q5 w ~~~~~~~ii ~~~0600~II~~c1~~~~C ~GG ~ya1 ~~J~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~i~ ~ q~ y( m S ~ g s~ ~ ~ ~ O o m r ~ Q ~ ® ~~~e~~9Y<•r~8~~~atas~a~~eW6reeee~~~~s~a~1~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ? ~ ~~ ~~~ ~R g'^° ~S o ~i~ ~o ~ ~ ~ F- ~ 'n ~ i Z °°ima ~ °~ k' ~ _ W ~~~ ~~ ~ g3°iK' ~g ~ N ~ . h O ~' U w U Jaom Z Q U `~ per y F- U . . O ma ~ ~~Z a ~ ~ ,y Q ~ ~ ~ a ~ UO _ ~ ~ .~S ~ ~ ~ ? $ ~ ~ ~ 6 ~ ' s ~ ~`~ k ` ~ ~ 4 ~~ ~a a'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ „~ ~ ~ o b~ ~ R~~ z ~~~~ E ~ ~ w ~~ ~y ~ Ro ~ ks ~ ~ S g ~®®~~~~g~ 333 ~ z ~ ~ OU O ~ ° a Y ~ O Z J ~ ~ m s~ ~ ~ ~ 3~ a ~°~ ~~ ¢ ~ P ~ ~ M _oB~ _; ~ ~3~° ~~ ~~ g~ ~~a ,z, ~ E~Ntl~ ~ ~a~ZG °°e~ ~ b ~~.ff ~~ ~~~~ a ~ ~ ~ .__1 ~ Z g g ~ b ~ g Pu ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ S~ ~y A ~~s YY ~~~~8 L _~ ~ ~ ~ ° m w z z p m ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~e~ <~ ~t~s g~ o ~`g<~~~ ° ~~1N €~ g$ < ~g~3g ~ :a: ~~ ~ w~~c~~ ~ a~=~ ~~ ~~ ~ e~~ Fj ~~ ~ m ~ B g $ € ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e o ~6 ~, ~~ ~~ U OU ¢ cQi o 0 -~ a ~d o W C~ g~~ 06 ~~ c&~~fs ~ t~~Wb S~ a~ ~..~'~d~ Sj~ ~~ ~~ ck~ ~> >c 9g 6~ t '~<c~w ~~~ ~m < ~~W ~3~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s a ~ Y ~ ~ S ~ S ~ S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~g4,~~~ ~~~~~~ ~ W U c~ ~ w w o ~ ~ ~ LL a a ° q-°°~ a~ ~ ~qq ` ZiS~Z ~~ ~ ~~ ~g~g ~ W~~ ~~~~ m~ ~k~ ~h ~~ ~~x~?~ ~ ~~~o~ ~~ ~S ~g ~ ~~~ ~a~~ ~~ ° ~ ~ ~~' ~~ ~ @ ~ ~~~ §~~~ a~ ua ss~oszc caozrsn~ •a+a~rova~nvuni ur~p\.e P:107~7J TRMM11P~1.d.Ewq, ]2/S/100111:S6:tl PM E ~yy v~ tl SN ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ FORGE DRIVE X61 I _.I §. .. .~ .. wsc~ ,. ~ ', d D .i .". .'. ..,.,.,. .., GAS PNT ' ~I.., ~ f / m { ' _ ~ I oi . <~ ._.... i'X'. -_ .~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ _ -- - ~' m ; ' ~ __ _- '. I . £ C.1 _.. , . ~ ~ ___ ~ r. I -- __ • ~ . °-~~.I __ y~,, ~ ~ N .;D.~ Z . .I m.' ~z~ ~~ Z n O ? J 7 ~ ~.I ~~ .___. ~ ® ~~ ~~~~ 1 ~ ff ~ i., . _ . O z ~~~N f ~ O CrJ o _~ O Z Z O ,,~ C) ~ 0 _L.J ~ N_ o bz t ~~oo ~~~~o ~~$~ ~ 1\ N ,/ 2 rn 0 2 = O m .5' 37.5' ~o ~o _~ ~~ 4 ! k~ u i .._ N 89° 24' OS" E REGIPRIGAL DRNEWAY EASEMENT FC W~ ~ ~ i i ~ I,' ~ I .__..___ ____~ AAA _. 1',b: 16'4' 21'-0" 16'-0' 44' - iG'O` ~- ', ~r ~ r~l ~~~~.:. ~' ' . - .~ ~- ~~.'~ . g ~u ~:.. ,_ _. ~---: -1{I -- t~-~ -- ~ P - ~~ ____ r( ' __ r rn ~._ ~ ; -- -- ~ 4 _ ~ _ (ryQAj~I~ _- ,,. V sn ormt:o coovsRr'bw.vi'ivdNr~va t<rca~:a onm~n rarrtau~ra~.z.ewo, zz~saam e:m:sa aM ~~~RC~~~~ "~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ c ~ ~n O ~a~ ~~gg e~ ~~~p~~ ~ ~g~ ~~ €$~~ U q ~ ~Y ~~~~~~ ~~ ~~ i ~~ ~~ 9~~~ ~~ ~~ 9~~~A~~ 'S ~~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ $ ~ O ~9 a §~ iu ~~ i U_ A gq~S Z ~ ~ R ~ ~ Z Q U q 3 G 3 ~ ~ 0 ~ Z O M~ l / O O z~ o~ ~~ `~ • u P O z 0 u ~~ '4 ~ A~ ~ m n a N Z ~ P < NN C~ ~ u O 1 b ((1 n -i ® ~ ~ A c m ~ O ~ O ~ ~ N 3~ ~i ~ ~ ~ 0 i y N ~ ~ f// ~ ~ N ZO Z ~ in ~ x 0 ~~~ Z r H Q ~ § -- --- I ~ I r..-- - -- - - - - I ~- ---- 1-- L_ --- - - I I I I I e n 4 I i ~ ~ m ~ ~ o ~ o ~ ~ I i I I I ~ ~ i ~ z g I I I I I x ~ i o ~~~ B d- - - - ' I I ~ I i l ---- - - --- - --- - ----- - --- - - -- - --- I _ -- - - - --- - --- - o ~ a ~ i I ~Sl c-- § X ~ ! ~ m - - - -- I - - - I I I - --- - - a -- - - - --- -- ---- ----- --- - - ---- I I -- ~ ~ I I o ~ ~ a ' a r - ~ l ~ p- -- --- - - - -- - -- - -- - ---- - --- - --- _ - - I I T- 4 x I I ~ I I I I o ~~ o Z O- ' - -- ~ ~ r --- ~ s - I- --- - ---_ ...--- ~ -- ------ -- ---- ~ - - - - - _ __ I --- - I i J ~ ~ ~a~ I ~ X I N~ I . i I ~ I ~ I ~ ' .. I I mA rr 4_..~ Q I I I I I\ ~ ~ i , ~ O z I I I I ' \ N rc D ~~ 4 ~ --' I~I i i i ~ I ---- - ----~ - -- ~ - - ---- - ---- -- - --- - ---- a - __ - ----- - -- - ~ -r - - ~- I I I I I 1 o~ ~ w Q ~ ~ ~ ~ I j r--I r~ O ~~J ~ A I I ~ I I I } I m ,~ II ~a ~ ~ _- --- i-- -- ------------ --------- -;------------- I I I I I - , z ~ ~ ~ ~~ Q~ d r X I I I I I I I F-a ~" (n ~ ¢=? p~ ~' ;s U Z 8 O. __-___ _. _ _ I ___~ ___ _-.__ . .-__._ _ ___-__ _a ._.___ ____ ______ ~ I i I ; _r _- ~ I i .. _ ___._~__, ___.__ .-__ __ ~ -.-_ __ ._. _. .__ _ __ .~ __ _ ______ _ __-_..___ _I ______ _ _ ___ _ _ -__ ~ I I I I i __.___ I I I d ~ ~ Z ~( ~_. __ _-_ I ~ ___ . ___ _ _.. 1 __-_ _. -_____ ._ -_- a _-_.. _ ._.-__ _ -____ I __.____. _ -___ _ -__._ __ _ _ _ ~ I I ( _ -- ~ LL B ~ J 4 I i ~~ A I I I I I O - . _____ I ~ ~ .___-. _ .___- _ ._ .i ______ ._ -_..__._ _ _.._____ _.~ ______ _ -._._. __ -____ ~ ____.. _ ____.. _...__._.__ I I I I i _~-_ il!le ~~ 111 l~ 9 ~ ~ p X - -- -- t ~ i I I ~ i I ' --- - -- - ~ -~ - -- - -- I ---- - ----- - ----- ~ - ~- -- -- - --- I I ! ! ~,,1`~, iii ' T ., ~ I I i I i I ' ~~ ~ gggg ss~ nsE K~~~~~ O._. __ _. _ -_~ ~ I .._. _ __ _ -__ ~ _. _. ._ .. __ .. - ____ _ .. ._ ._ _ _ _- __ -_._ _ ..--__. --__ -. -.- _ _-- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- _' __ _ j ~~ I~Y ~ k~' ~ c ,O-~9E I .o.r. .0 1 .o-ec I .oec ~ ~l o b 0 0 m ~ ~~ ~ ©' ~~~~g~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ 0 9 ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ o ~~~~~ WV 9Z~EI~B LOOZJSIZI 'O~+~V'1'ZVJUItlINgl [(FLO\-d v~~o>'-sn rurt~HVru.:.mv, iz,sRam e:n:u u~ ~ ~ ~8~~ ~~ ~ i ~ ~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 96'-0' j 96'9' %'-0' ~ j6~-0" Ii i ~j¢^Z~y~E~~ w ~~ ee~t ~e ' (~ _ O S e s~ ~ p pp ~ E _ ~ __ _ 4 p gQ$~~"~ ~~~Aee~~~ q ~ v~v y~ _ _ r ---- - --- _. ... _._- _. ---- ---- - -- i - ~ ------ ~ ~ 1 -._.. - __ m Q ~~~e~~~ a m M9 I I I I I I k 4 i I I I - - - - -- -- ~ --- - - - -- - I - - - -- - - - - - -O £ ,i{ ~ r r ~ ~ I I II . '~~ I I I ~ I 3 p. ._.I ii~l flll _ I I I I I 4. ___._ _ -___ _ _-_ . ~ ___. -.. _ _.___.. ._ . .. _ _ I _ _-_-. __ ~_. _. - __ .. _.___-. II ~ -_ _ _ __ /~ _-l'J D}z ^~ --- I I I , , I I I I I I - --- ...._..-- - ---- __.--- - --'--- ._ ._ __.__. - ---- - - '-- - - _. -- YA V ~ r r 01T ~ ~ D ~~ . I I I I Y ~ - ~ ~ I I I I ~ - - --- - -_ _- r ---- - ------ - - t- --- - --- - ------ ~ - - i --- -o I I I I I Y ~z ~ I I i r ---- - ---- - -- ~ ~ I I I I -- C ~~ O~ ~ i i I ~ ~ ~~ k 4 TAO j~ _I ~ _ i I I ~, I I , -- - - ----- - - - - - -- ~ i ~ I ~ I ~ 'I I I I I ~ rp~~ I ~ I ~ 4 ~~.{ ~~ //'~~ V ~1,J ~ o ~mn I I I I i V ~ O T - _ _ __-l__ _ __ __.__. i.. ._.___- __ ._____._ _ __..____ I- ~ I _ _ ___ _. -._._-. I 5 ~ - -- --- I- -_-- - --- - - ----- ` .-_-. - ~ - g 3- Q ~-.yl ; 3~~ ~ ~ I I i I I ! ~ ~ \ o z ~~. I I >~_ _1 _ __1 ~ ' nn I ~t-Ni I ~ d ND~ I I „zV Z I I I I I ~ _ a - - -- - ---- f ---- -- --- - --- ----- - ----- - - - ----- --- i -- t ' rrn __ _ -O O $ E~ ~~~ i i I ~ I I I I c i i Q I I i I .t _ -_. _ __-_-_ ~ __ _ _.____.._ _ _~ _ _ _ _. --_ _ __ _ _~ m N p 0 (~ z I I I I ~ I k 4 4 N ._____ I I f . I ....__._- - ___..__ - _.._._ _._ _ ____ ____- -.-..-. _ -_.__ _I ___-_ ~ _____.__ __ ____ _ _.__ ___._.-_ _-__ .. _^ `l 4 ~ ~ i I I I I' m i ~ k § ~ ~ Z ° -- I I I I -,t---- -~--------~--- ---- r---- _-- ~ ~ - O I I I I '. I I I ' A A I I I Y z I I I I I ~ I I I I I y N `m. = ~ ° ~ ~ D ~ ~ z I ' ' ~ ~ I i I ~ 4 C~ y y a 9 1 I I I I - - - - - ----- - ----,------ ---~- - I - - i - - O o ~ N N ~ N Z Z M ~ N W Q -- ' I --- T -- - _- - - -' -- I I - e ~ k h I z ~ o ~ 3 o U w O_ _ I I I I I ~. _ ._ ._ _ _ ~ _-_ ___. ~ __. _ __ - -_- ~ _._._ - ._ -___ __ __T. ~.I ~_____ I 1 I I x I ' ~ ~ z ~ I I I I - - --- ~ --- -- - - !- -- - -___. - --- ~ --- - -- - ---- I - -- - --.. - -- - - ~ - ,--- I O 1 I I ~ I ~ ~ ~ o x ~ ~ ' I I I I m ' I ~ ~ I 5 a0 O_. _ _ ~_ -___ . ~___ __ ~_ _-__ ._ ____ _. ___-- ~ _ ._ _-__ _ _ -__ U h aS I I I E~ I ~ I I I p µ ~ I ~~ ~~~ I ~ ~ ~ (n W Q: D LL _ . _ -_- ._ ___-_ 1 _ .. _._ ._ - _ _ __._ I I I I i ~ I I I I I I , O I ~ O Z __- i7 - - ~ ~ -.--... .-- _. .._- _ _ __. _.__- __ -.__.. I I _ I .- _. }~ __ __- y. __.___. _ -__.... -_..- F~ i I ~ < ~-_ I x ~ 1IT n1 W 1 . I I i i ~ ~ I lJ (~y~ ~` I I I I I I I O I ~ ~ Z 4 X I ~ I I I ~ I I `+ L ~ ~ I I I O O a ~ ° - --- -- - - -- ...- --- ~ --- - -- - - - --- - ! - - -- ~ - - - - - - - - _ _ ~ ---- - - W ~ I ' 4 , I I ~ ~ ~ ~W r ~~ ;, o ,-~ U J / I - I ~~'/~ zo e i I I I I I ~ ~ ~ ~ o Z V O ~ " ? ~ ~ o -- --- - - - - ~ -- - ----- - - , --~- I - ---- - ----- - -- _ _ -- - - - -' ~ ~ ' -, - I I i I a --- ~ --- - - --- ~ -- -- :: ~ ~ - - --- ~ --- - - - -- ~ I I -~- ~~ F x '- I I I ( I II , Q- X . 1 -I t ---- - --- - -, -- -- -' - - ~ I I I I I Iiif i ~ I I I ~-- i O__. . ._. ____.-~ ~ -.__ _. ___- _ ~ _. _ -_. _ _` _.__ __..._ ~ .~ _____ _.. _-__._ _ -- __ I I I I _T-_ X i I I ~ I I ~ ~ ~ I o - - - - ----- - - - - - - - -- I I , ~ ' I ~ i § I 1 ~ I I ~ 4 9~'~ s ~ O. ~ _-.. i _ _- _ - _ _.._ _ _- _ _ - ._ __._ _ _ __ .-~ - __ _ _ _- _ _-- _ ~ __ - ~ ~ ~ ~j ~~ ~W a ~ ~ $i 6 B& Y c ,.O-.9E -o.ac yaa .o-.vc .o I DGI ~~ Q ~~ ~~6pg~ ii22 ~~5t' lY~ to b ~ o o b b ~~ ~~ ~~~~~~ 1~1~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ID~~~~g~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ 33 3$3$ ~b~~1~ NY 9~~Z[~Y [OOi/SKt'6'W'['NdV1VLfv1 E/lCOl~d R:~eN'!] *ANtnULRn3.l.ewg. tl/sReo~ u:ss:o~ rrt ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~ _ o - - --- o ---- -- 4 'a~ ~g~ ~~ ~ k ~• Y ~~~~~~~ ~~ ~ a -- - -- -O - ---- -O 4 _. _ -- ---Q __.... ' 4 ?O ~~ fs ~' ? ~ ~~ x 4 4 ra 4 ~ - - -- . 0 _ ~ --~ d~-- - - -0 ., a - k o Y 4 0 4 4 - - - ~ {~ - _._Q 66 3' - ~ 4 -- 0 4 c sag zn 4 ~ ~i 4 ge n ~~~ ~~ m ~ g ~ p c -- -~ D - -- „ ---Q -- - -0 $ m ~ Z `-~ O 2 _ k k 4 4 - o: -- of ~O/ d0 ~- 40 _ 44~ ~ o x k c ad~ d-0• 6~ e«~ c i~ O a• t~ O - -- - ~ ~ - - - ___ _ . 111--z~~~ - _ - o -- - _ Y k /1 4 4 4 ~~ - - O ~'s ~ -- -O - _-O k Y 0 4 z 0 0 ® ~ ---- Q ~ d0 4 o". d^ o ~ q 4 m <_ ~ O ea _Q ~ § - --~~- -- x vZi - - g _..__ 3~ 3~ 5 3° 4 k Y Q u 4 8 3° 3° m -- fl ~~ 30 ~a ----- -Q rn ~~ _ ~.' 3 r -- - -- O G k ~' k 4 6 p 0 -_ ~ --- - ~ ~ lP o ~ ~ a• ~ 4 F, ~ D O ~• m m $ ~ i Z - ~ ~ 30 ----- 4 - --~ ~ \ ----- - -0 ~ O i0 ---- ~ ~ Z ~ ---- ----- 4 ¢ 4 RY. LIHE ROOF LINE xo e'-0~ C~C~000000 n'^' ~N g ~~ e~ ; ~~ ~ ~,~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~a~~~F ~ ~~ m y ~1 O r ~~ N .¢r~ Z .o-u v.a ~rr~ ~a aol.o-,c ~V3N111O.01.O.G GrdX 10 HpLOB.LT.9 TK d0 d01.OF ?!IS invtd LRY JO d01 .[r,G QriH ~O HC)110G .CY.OI N ~ 6 ~ z~ = y! 3 U W 1- W ,; ~ a o ~ _ ~. ~ / u O ... I o a -. _ _T!. .- _- _. ~. __ , . V ° °° a ° r 9 ° W 1. ~--------~-- 9------ ---- ..__ _ °_ ~ ._._ --y---- 4 --- dl z m ~' a z O h u~ o a 0 d z ~U H ~O z ~~ H oW ~a o~ o~ e U O ~a ~~ ~~ ~? 3~ ~q~~ ~ ~~G~~g c ~~~ e ~~ ~~~~$ ~~ ~~ wr a:sx:v rmx/5Rt'~VZ'cre\nvwri scrcW:a ~:10J-111 ieNieU10R9.l.tlwp, li/SR~i 8:15:61 MI N~~L~~ 00999999 bG P3 p~p ~ f $5$ qe ~~~~~Y~ ~~ ~~ g~5~~~g~~~ di.RQ~~9t~ 47 ~ ~& ~Ff ~ ~~ ~ ~ ,{ ~Y2~ $k ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ q a ~ py~L Z ,yp Q py i ~~~ a~~ G o ~ ~ - ~ Q ~ ~ _ _ -- - 9 ~ ° v z ~ -- ~ ~ 4 M O ~~ £ ~ <Y~ ~~ £NI P ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~P $ ~,/ O z y ] ~ o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u O 1 IC i J qq ~~ 84 ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ N l J ' F yy Z o (ll ~PP' / rn ~ ~ ~ ~ Z Y ~ 3 ~ ~n ~ ~ c\ E o ~ v+~ u ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r~ ~ ~ 3 ,, ~d $ N ~ 4 `' D moo. ~^ ~ ~' Q » I ~ I ~ I I ~ //\ ~~ € o (/1 rn ~ 3 I I ~ ~ ~ F { q ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ $ ~~9a ~~~~ ~^ g ~ 1e'a' o' s'o' I I s ~ 4, , ~ ~ ~ £ 2 °° F~ ~ q g I ~ ~ I I b ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I g ~ I I , ~ u ~~ ~ 4 $ 4 ~ N d c ~ ~~ ~ ~g~ t ~ ~~eT ~ ~~ ~ a ~ ~e r~ ~ ° ^ o ed ed ° m ~~ DO ' 41 41 m = m ~ ~ yu ~ D ~ m Z p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e•'vr e ~ Pp N u ~ i s P - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~i i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ RKY -6 eH 'f d #s ~ iy Nn C y s 1 ~~ ~ ~ u ~ " g tN ~ ~RF gY ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ II I F `• • - ~ ~ z h~ ~Ai ~ ° ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ?> ~ R ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ ~ a ~ ~~ ~ ~ 4 S< ~ ~ p ~ y T ~ ~ ~R ~ ~ .~i 4 e'er' ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ a P ~g~ ~ ~ 0.Q ~ ~~ 9 00" F N ~ ~ m a Q ~. ~~ ~AOe sa e d ~r ~oss V~ 'ONLLM3df1~ IA02 40N ~ z Vv, 3 ~ uxua~ 1~3f'021d f1d1Nb'1 °'° ~ r ~ _ Naggn~ NV~d 9NIOV21~ lVflld3~N0~ ~_., ~ SNV"ld lV(lld3JN0~ ~,aa suoa:uwivaNS we uvp ' ~ ~ Si 1n~ R o B P Ll/ \ ~ ~ u ~' ~- I p ~ a , ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ g I ~ « ~ ~1 ~ ®fl ~pN a~]Sfln UNNOa~ ~ ~ er1' 4!T - -~- - ~- I I I I I I n ~ p ti P I I I4~ 'IT ~ BB ral'K_ a'i.YI [~ -\ n BI rao I _ ~` °° j}. ~ I (II I l N ~` . ~ x W I r i ~ ~~' l i Ka I 13a> 3SNlU -~ ~- _ ' ~' I I I I ~ I D I, $j r- dl .~ ,~ .~ S73ai ~5 ~ ~~ z D I ~o I I - ~_ i A` ~ ~ i3sN3a j ~ ~ -- San pSI I ~ r' I ~ I I C I ~ r•gil D ~ < fTl I I _ ' ~nL ® ~ -- _ _ _ G .~~ I I ` nrr _J ~_ ~ ~ , ~ II ~.. ~` - _ wgl 9I I- I i I _ -ti - ' 6 I I \r, -'1 r.~ - ~ - -= ~a . r~ ~~ . o ' .., .... ~ ~ I I S" i ~ '.' 4.1 _ [f'6r1 ~~ 9 ... .4 m D• Slit S" ~.t'a.~ . _~ o ~ ..N I I arr ~rs.~ I 1I II <417 rl J L_ l I ~ .. 533+11 _ I 01 ` 1 rr w~ .v. i.. N I I E ' ~ Z - _ _ ~I I -~ ~ 3a1 3SN3a ~I _ ~ S3r~ m* I ~ -1 r- n., 1 ,y _ ~3 ~ 1 acre r ..' a.~ i ~.i I ~~ +'~.d ~ ~ ~ I I ~" _ I I t S I. _ _ ~_ el -~ ~- ~ ~ •~~ ~~ ,.' ~..r ,..~ a~ ' ~~J., \ _ _ Ise a~: I ~ '~ # c cG.1 ~ _~ ~_ I _ 3 ~ I I I ¢ oii ~ '~~ =x~ - ~~r _ ~ , - I ~ ... n I ~ . it ~ ~ II 1i • fir' o ~'il ai o '.any _ .,rl r~ .~1 11 ~ rcr ~I cA~l I II ~' ~ S - r _ ® O r 16 n S _ 1 3SN3Q -.~_ - - yy _ _-_ __- -_ p= l li r I -.~~ ~- ~ ~ ~iiii ~ ~ ry+' a?~ w . ~--- 3p -_ -- l ~r - J -- - -- --- --S33ai 3SN3p AH a3WIJSflO pWYJa'J Issn I I aa. r~N N I a , ,r~ I I I , ,.. a" ~ l I ,. a,.r S33ai 3 r I S 3a1 ~.SN~ II ~~ .<., _ _ 'ti ~a~ I I I I II II .- rl---- __~__ FORGE DRIVE ---_ --- --------- - I I II o~ ~ I E I ® E I I ~ - ~i - r ~`"~f~. ~ ~~ ~ ~ I I I ~ ~° ~ ~ T, = 8 ~ II e o II ~~ 7r 7C ba ~ $o ~ ~ _ - II ~ - - ~~ _ 7[ aF fl 'R i yr ~a~v ~$~~ ~ $ g ~ II I I - ~ $ I II E R. I# I L I I ~~ I~ -~ ®_-~.-1-----r- k R P B_ a~ a a-~ ~ Z ~ e tl - a ~ ~ G y r Z ~~ ' 'a ~ ~~ p ~ .i I C- ee ~a _ ,~ ~ x e yi 9 ~ qyqy F ee ~C ~ e ~c 6 ~ ~~ ~ pp ~ ~~ la ~ ~ s p b a~ x " 6 ~ y a ~6. ~~ `~S (€ Avg °~ p o own nc sxcrr sc ~m°xs s* n w+ CONCEPTUAL PLANS g x ° °""'" CONCEPTUAL DETAILS AND SECTIONS uggerl R ~~ N ~ TAN TAU PROJECT lensen ~ ~r x° ~ CUPERTINO CA )Azar a Assoclntes , m~ ~ ~o~Q ~ ~ ~~ ~~ m ~8 ~ ~~ r GAS ~~ ~' ~~ ! { ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ A F~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ Z Z ~ ~ ~~ D D ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~8 FORGE DRIVE omo ~- R s GGG .~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ L~~f~ ~7~~Q~ ~ = O~ y- ~ 1i~ 7~](i~) a8~ ~ f 8~ ~ ~ ~~ Y ~ ~~ i ~ ~ ~ ~_ ~ ~ r~ ° ~: D ~`5f" ~~ ~ ~~ ~ - - 0 o~o ~~ 0 191.83' ~ '~ ~ 5 10900 TANTAU AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA ,~* "~'~o ~~~ ~ -~ HILL n A7>=~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN ~`~ ~~~ ~ *l~31~~ °°° ~ ~ -,, .. r~o°~ ;. - - ~,. ,r ~~ ., ~~ ~ ~~ ,~. -- ~. \ - j ~~~,, . .~~, O a~Y mU ~M~B ~R+oN &Y ei • rx°~'~'+~ ~, ~C}~~ZECT ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ p ~ t " ^ ~ ~ ~ & g `d0 ON112~3df10 ~ ~ ° fA H am, *sP~ 3f1N~/~`d flb'1N`dl 00601 0 8 ~ $ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~~~aaaaa~aaaaasasaaaaa~aaiaaaaaaaaaaaa~x~a~~a~~aaaa~~~~~~~~aaaassaa~~~aaaaaaaasaaaaaaaassaaaiax$aa$isaa~~~~~a~~~~~~~~~~~~as~a~~$~~asaaaas ~yy~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ k w w~.' n ;y h•.'o.• n n n R y, an n +~ bn ~afsEa~iro3~~iE~9e~ -~..R..di~o~~~iEo~RAis~~E~S~tYO~'s'st~aocsc~R.I..IFtii3itS1i717R~ aR'~a~''a~~Ra17R~ifitlcl~F~v°6~17SGF~ibe~flubc~iinR~°nkf~i~baAFn~RifiFi~kkN~lJl.~b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ooooo~~~~o oooo~o~ Qo ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~a~~~~o ~~~~~~~~oooo D e~~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ aaa aaa ~ a ~ a a ° as ~ ~qy~ g s »:~;~>~~~~»»»~~~~~;~ ~ ~ ~ 333`3 ~~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 88 5g~~~ ~ ~ s » > a ss s ~~~~ag~n~~s~.:~s~:ssP~pdxp,~K~s~a~~gxe:~ac~l>~axs~~~~~~~:~~:~:'3~~~~8~~~'~~~8~~~~~s~$~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~6~~~~~1~~~~~~~~~$~~~~~~~~I~~~~~~Ss~~~s~mds ~ ~ ~ 1 Q ~~ ~ n ~ .g 0 L6 L ,60 11 SV lal~~ .S .1 N 'l91 gg ~ p" I ~ r ~ ~ ~~3 .a R I I ~~~m 6 ~ ALL' w $ _ \ AI .•~ ~V`V A ,~ ~AVA~~~ A~ ~~ ` \~ 00 B ~ .II A ~ \ A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ _ ~ Q ~_~~~ ~ tt~ i. A. ° _ ~ ~ ,A v ~` ~2\`l A~ r~ \., ~,d~ J ~~~ \ ~ ~~ ~~VA~V~\ ~ "~uw~ ~j~ ~ii~~ .c \~~~ ~. \~~ ~ ~ \ \ -`~ \ \ \ ~ \ ~~~~~ .u a ~ n . ,~, ~, ~ n ~ ~ a3W~~ 1°~Er ~Ej I~ ~'Waa° ogFp m _ \ ` ~ ~ Iy \ '. ~~ ~ ~ > ,~~ -fie ~A r ~_ ~`ei rye .` .~ VA ~~ ti k ~~ ~ m ~ mry~ 6 U A ~ ~_ j-- ~.~ ~ A~'~~~A~~ ~ Q ~'~~ dw~j p0 ~ \ ~ ~ ~ INCH \ _ i i _- \ ~ ~ \ ~ ~. ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ 1r~s ~~ ~ ~. ~ ~ \VA-~, A Lr. f ~~~ .~I ~ _,,\~~ ~` ~; .__ ~.;;`\ ;`off ~,_ > ~ =a~~G Nav -~ r- `\ ~ Q $ ~ Y~`j m FQ~ ~ m v evrti ~_ ~ ~V A_ ~ n ~ ~ ~1~LL~m ~~ r OIO~ CIOI i i _ - __ .:~,1\\' I `^ ~F ~~3Q ~~ WO~O~O~ ~a Ilrl~ ~ ~ f _~ ~ s° I~ ~ I I ~ ~° Q~a a~ ~~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ m Q _~ ~ \ 6 01 . \ . ~ `~ a` ( .. a Z J •I .J ~__` '. ,...-~ ..~ ©~'. '.r~ ' 1 d Svc W ~ yyyO~~~U ~UJm ~ ~~~m~~ ~~~ ~~ t ~tti ~~ YN ~ ~ ~ •ro a O O ~~~ ~Q o~~~~~ m ~ ~ b ~a .I ~~, , y. W ~~su ~ '~W ~ ~€ ~~ ~ ~p "' ~ vu3nlaa ~Y- dlo3a _ "__ __ I~N/ ~ Q d a km m m U ~ ~1 ~ ~ Q ~ ~ O ".9.w ~ .so,Pc„rsaN ~ - - a ~ L.1. ~~ 0'1 ~~ riQ~~~~~ m~ ~ ~ .~~ r o 3niaa 3~ao~ I ~ O~Ipn Pnesbl0-00 TaM kw Q.I.lry OA M, MOl - 2:S7pm Z FORGE.- DRI~~E m ®~ 4 _ _.-_- 1 - ~ -~ --- - - --- ~- - ---- - - - c, END 3/4"1. I ~ cDii I I OPEN (R3) I ~° I - __ _ _ DW I ~~1 -- I - ` iTi ` ~ -~- -- I I ~' lil _ _~ I GAS PNT / / -~~-~I---~1lL~ ...~~.~~I ~ \ ` r ~I! ... ~ - - - _ - I N ~ ~ ~ III \ - - --- I I {w~ - ~ ~ I k--- -- I I < ® I I I I v) I I_......._ --- I - I s ' ~ ~ I -- z I - --- ----_-~_.__ _ ~. ~- i I ~I _ I 3~ ~ I ~ i i - i I ~ I ~ o I --- -~- -. I D _ -- I z ~ ~, I ~ ~--~- i I ~ ~ I ~~ ~ - --- I D - ~ I ~ i --- ~~ _ - ~ -- - I I < ~~ - ' I I r ~, I I I ~- I ~ ~, I -- ®--- ---- I I I --- _ I I hl ~ I ® -- I I -~ I _ _ I I I - --- ~ ~- - I I I I 37.5' 137.5' I ~ I ~ I I I ~ I ~ - - 3 I ~ I ' I __ - - - I I I I ~ £I I I ~ I __-_ I I ~ -~- ___- -__ I __ I I ~ I I ___-~ _- -_ _ I I I I ~ ~-T- -~ - -~_ ___ - _ -- _ I I F ___~ ~ _._-_ ___- - I N ~ __ I I z _~_ ~\ r---- - -- - ~__--- ~ I I ~ \\ -1- ---' - --- ~ -~~ - g I I I I \\ / I I ' ; --l___1_L~ _i_E_E_11.1___ E_1~L1~~1~_! I _ - _ _ I -- ~ ~ ----- I .-- - J__ _ _-I_ _ ~ -- -- - - ---- - -~_- i_ ~ _~ _ __. __ - - I ~ m Q ~o~i3i~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~R ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ j ~~~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~'~i C o • ~~ ~i ~ ~ ~ ~I ~ u m o ~ ~3 ~ ~~~~~R~I ~~ ~° ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ y i•~~~ ~~~e ~ ~e - e Z ~c ~ m ~ ~~' ~~ ~i ~ i ~ ~~ ~ N ~ ~~~~ a ~~ ~ ~ e ~ s 1 _:. #~ ~ ~ _ Z N N W o s § o S ~ ~ ~ ,; I~ 7 a J ] 7 ] a ] ] ] i J J 7 ] . , J 7 ] a 1v' {~ rg i ] ] ] 1 J . l l . ) ] } T ) 7 } „ . ) ] a ] a 7 a ) ) ] J x ] ] i ] } 7 ] 7 a 1 ) a ] } ] } ] T ] ) + T } 7 i i : ) ] 7 a . . J 7 i 7 ] ] a T ] 7 ] 7 ] 7 a a } . 7 ] 7 ) i O O } T ] ) ] i I a ) ] ) ) a i ) a a ) ] a J ] ~ Jl Q ~~I } i ] ] T ) ) a J ] ] ] i ] ] 7 ) a i ] ) 7 ) i 7 ] ] } 7 7 . ] 7 ] ) ] , m ~ 5 s e 3 5 5 5 a a a 3 a ] ~ x ~ a a i a a a r ] a a a i . i i ] } a a i a a . . 3 a > J a ] x a ] i ) a = ] ] ) 7 a ) i ) ] a . x J a - -® J ] 7 ) ] a a s ] . ] J - a ] ] ] 7 i N Z ~ w I ] ) ] ] T ] ] ] ] 7 - ] ] ] ) D ] l ) ] 1 ) J tq o ) i ) D ~ i ) 9 f ] i ) 7 ) ) ] ] ) J ) ] ) l r! ! # 7 7 J 7 } } 7 ) 7 7 l } ] l a 3 • 3 - i • • • • a ] 7 • i i ] ] ) J ) T . ) ] } ] ] i 1 ] J ] ] 1 ] i ] w 7 ) 7 ] J J ) - ) } a ) x ] a r~ ~ ~ 3 } a a i ] ] 7 ) ] ] a a T a ] ] a ] ] a J a T ] ] i d = - ~ ] a i a ] a f i 3 a ] - a ) ) T a a a - a a ] } 7 ] i i ] ] a i • a G~ F-i ] ] ] ) a ~ a a 3 } ~ L • ~ J a a J i a ) a a ] o a a ) a O _ ` a } a ] 7 J ] a ] ] a a ~ 0 ~ '-' U } • T ] ] ] i 7 7 ] ] 1 ) i 7 ~ a ] } -] x J ) i ] } T } } J } T ] f Z ° a F.. ~a a 7 J 3 ] ] ] i ] ) a a ~ 7 O ~ ~ ° ° ~ , ~ z~ ~ ~ V ] ] J a f J i ~ 7 ] J ° 7 i ) x ~ U? ~~ ] a ] } a a ] a ] 7 ] ] ] i 3 7 ~/O ° ° ° ] 7 J a a a a } a ] a a l T ] ) x ] } ] F 7 ] ] 7 ] 7 . ] ] 7 T ) 7 T ] a ] 7 ) 7 a > ] ] ] ] ] ] a J ] ) i ] . 7 7 a } ] J ) 7 a } -n ~ ) ^ J > J ] a } 7 ] ] ] ] A 3 ] a J 3 ] a 7 ] ] ) 7 ] ] ] ] ~, ) I l 3 J ] ) i ] 7 J T T ] l ] ) ] ] ] } . ] ) ] } 7 } ) T } J i 3 l i a ] i x ] - ] x i i ] ] } ] ] a a } A 7 ] > i ] x ] a ] J ] ] T - ) i ] 3 ) ] ] i a 7 J ] 7 ] J • • ] ) a • • ) J a l a ] 7 ) - i a ] i ) ) ] T 7 ) J i ) ] x ] } - > i i i ~ ) ) x ) a C ) i ] i J 7 J/ a ~ '® : : f ] 7 a ~ ) 7 ) ~(y; 3 ~~p i i ] : a ] i a ] a a ] A a ] a ~ ~~~ k EEEE fr } } ] a } a ] s a a a a a i ) a ] a a a ] 7 a i a ] ) a a ~ ~ ~~Y6 . a a a ] ] a a a . a ~. ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ) 3 ) a _ } ] a A ) ) J T i . ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ 2Y ~ ~ 6R6R MQ O ~ ~$gg ~ S ~ ~ ~ tltltl } '.. t ~. t ~. i-t e Sp v __ :a. d q .1 a f d by ° ° k x ~3}.- a ~ycd '_ a ~ ~ ~' ~~ a .s .... t'~ v~ 1 { is x a - ~ u $ si ~~R+;~ G •v } s ~a~ i s s3 • E E ti t 'E ~ c &. Il ~ r'; q ~' s _ $ '~-~ ~: ~ ~ ~ f # ~ $ `~ u s ' ' s r r' „ r S ''! ~ I f ? f F s a p .. ~ ~ a e t . ~ s ~_. a a ti§ i~ ~r E " r -.' r a F.£ 5 ¢E x s ar - L -< ~ ~~ 7 .r ~ ?~Z, i~ r - y ,. ~ § x a- se ~, ..~ ~ ~- 7 xL ~,~qi z ~a k;. f ~ x at€~ S;F Pa ^ ~ . e x ~ F. - K~~ .~5r rx ~~ St. 5 E 4 ~ B _ $ 3 E i~ ~~ P- ~3 x„ ~ C l ~ _~ ~Gy aF,y-~~ + t~C.~~ $ g ~ as#- }.~:. ~€ l~ #~ ~r S r ;r. 7~ ~ _ ; ~ 3 _ze ~ - f x ~z '~~,. a} siS 1 ; F E #as ° ~7~ : y r# ~ ?t ~~ I', ? #, ~ gtl$ I ~ ^P x $'~as Sy a. frT r "~~ F~ '~~ i ~ s ~ 7~ t fi ~ §' # ~ ° 5 s' s: s t h t;ax hi '~ - }2 _ i ~ s y is ~~ r r ~ E_ T F v `tl~g ~e h;` ga E~ $ ~+,.~ z ~ ~, s ~9 ~Pti ~.4. ~ ° 5 x Y ,~ ?.g.1 ; is ~.. 6 ji'• $ s xi r ~ ~. ; , ~ .¢£ • e ^7F~ '33 i sE ~ s~zt# _S. r a s ~ i a _ F 2 s ~n .'j~ 'r r' ~rq ~ 4 $~ A Fs zy °¢ e ~ ~ ;S.•~ Be #Y sr F 7 ~:.~a ~ $ _$F ~4. s~S z~ z .y ~s€~ g.. ~ d rr~ ~€; ~ s ~E ~_ a~~ ; a° is` ij; ~ r eD_ '. 4 _. g ~"$ "4 g ~kya. ~:~i ,°,s9 ^k f 3 g $;r ~~'' ~ o-';. ~ t ; ;~- ' a 9g ~ sx ° $&::. p''3 as 3 SF $,,: .- # ~eai~ c ° ..~~v $3s 4~ b a39 _.~$ $ a 4 3 3' ~~ (li ~ .5. ~P 5+ aL :~'~ i ': ) ~ Y~ ei";, S 1} ., F, ~ -~ ( ~ ax ~ 9 ipi~$ t s" 3Ckq {a ~'; x.%p Sik 4"ry F c. sa sgP $ ~ { € c~ is x ~ ~;- ~F n1 - t ~ r7. F~ e $. .q€ s• ri 3 ~ c• 9s d 'p p e 4p D Fa~:! 4 i e : 8 s ~ s ~~;~33- s lz.Sj,91 ~~£ I$ &$~ z° ° t°'? A S ~~~.: k,~, ~ ~ z z ~ ~ f 34 s i .. s ~'_S 3 s ~ .s g&g ~z~S ,;' '. ~ -..: '{' v~~~' i s 2 ` ~ a 5. x ~k~` r: r 'SF. se` Sy$$S z,k ~ #s3'R ' N~ ~,a~~.~t €~ r E~~5 s r z-Y ~ f3 iJ~ ~~~ a~ $ 3~ ~~ Q ~ o y k~ ` ~~ , -- ~g ___ ~m -------- a ADD z ~ ~ ~ ~~ hoc ~'a rnmr IF ' o~v_ ~~ ~~ . v fN~ C N MEADOW AVENUE DUMOND DOC# 08836921 KAO-TENG DOC# 11464778 _ _ _ _ _ _ I~ i9 - I a 3~d pz~s e° 45+~~ , ir, , s r° ~ ~~ 4r x~~ FYR7r P fr p~F ~. $s ~; I i -i-i I I ---I ~1; i i ~ I ~ I t jai I II I ;i~ f t ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~F :5 ~s 9 , a N. TANTAU AVENUE p ~' PUBLIC U71EIllE6 EASEMEP __ b° 7 •y i n ~ ~ •~ 4 ~ S 5 ~ ~ ~~ A ~ •4 0 0 g N m 0 9 0 m µ aF D ~ r D O ~ ~. m - -~ (- ~~ O ~ ---I ~ n V ' T ' 1 O s f •a ~ - b~ s ~ '.z V v ~._ _._fi ~ _.... i ,,@@ b" n F f I A . ~~ Ell 91.Y1 _ - _ _ t i ., $ O 4 f• n F Q •f $ ~ O~ ~ p ~~ ~ s ~ .- -- I i__ . _.._ .. _. D ~ ~ O ----- - / ~ ~o = ~ ~~ ~s$ o~ ~' _i ., 4$ ~ I =~R ~ ~ I w~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 c~ o° ' ~; ~ I ~ ~ ~~ s ~ =; gq'a '~ ~ O _I .. 4~ / A ~ ~ ~ 4 . 4 l ~ ~ ~ ~ ws PxT O ~+ ~ ~ ~ I - ... ~ ~ i -• 1 oF'WOOD FENCE. 6't ~m ~ ~ 80 4 . i ~ ~ 9 ~~ ~ O ~' ~ , i~ e~ a • ^ nt ~ ----------n~ /,~-------------- ~ ~. ~ g D ~ ~ 9F ~ gg ~A .-mss-- - ~-lL-- e~ .~ ~°~ ~ >i n 5 18922 FORGE DRIVE, LLC DOC# 17290752 i i A ~~ i k a ~ __.. ~.. ? ~~ y rl~ T ~ i~~ alt r:~; u~~F +~t3uo t ntaF aye YI I: 1:iNti TlC; ZvF A'r- s3F; us.:-, a 1 i 1~ C.tFRTINO CAI It --?lA _..._~_ _... _..._....-._.._~_..__L~.~_~. _.-_~~._...._......~~_.. _.._..._~._._..~..... _._.-._... ~ILI ~+Y 6'411 Et L11P'P Ui;4 Y i,~. Y,' ~~ 1 IL 3II P11f I1'Ptill t, tFy _ . r„ sz u ~ _ ; l.i ~~ F" ?2;a0 .T ~ o6i 5Fi12!~-1t E~ D Z #D Z v c~ m w ~' ~ ~ ~ z n C m z O Q~AFT ORDINANCE NO. 07-2014 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING SECTION 13.04.150 (H) OF THE CITY ORDINANCE CODE RELATED TO USE OF BICYCLES IN CITY PARKS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN THAT SECTION 13.04.150 (H) OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: , 13.04.150. (H} Vehicle Requirements No person in the park shall do any of the following: H. Ride a bicycle on other than a paved road or path. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no person may ride a bicycle on a paved road or path where such activity is prohibited by posted signage. A bicyclist may wheel or push a bicycle by hand over any grassy area, wooded trail, or over any other area in which bicycle riding is otherwise prohibited. Publication Clause The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City within 15 days after its adoption, in accordance with Government Code Section 36933, shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and her certification, together with proof of publication, to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of the Council of this City. INTRODUCED at a regular adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 20th of November, 2007 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 8th of January 2008, by the following vote: PASSED: Vote: Members of the City Council Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor 12-1 12-2 ~~~,Fr ORDINANCE N0.07-2015 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL AMENDING SECTIONS OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING ADVISORY COMMISSION CHAIRPERSON AND VICE- CHAIRPERSON TERMS AND EXTENDING THE TERM EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN AND PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSIONS FROM JANUARY '~~ 15 TO JANUARY 30 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO HEREBY AMENDS THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE: Amendment Section 2.88.050 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.88.050 Chairperson. A. The committee shall elect its chairperson and vice chairperson from among its members and shall appoint a secretary. Terms of the chairperson and vice chairperson shall be for one year. .Upon approval of the City Council, the City Manager may appoint a secretary who need not be a member of the conunittee. 2. Amendment Sections 2.92.020 and Section 2.92.040 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.92.020 Members-Terms. A. Commissioners serve at the pleasure of the City Council. The term of office of the members of the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission shall be for four years and shall end on January -lath 30th of the year their term is due to expire. No commissioner shall serve more than two consecutive terms, except that a commissioner may serve more than two consecutive terms if he of she has been appointed to the Commission to fill an unexpired term of less than two years. 2.92.040 Chairperson. The Commission shall elect its .chairperson and vice-chairperson from among its members and shall appoint a secretary. Terms of the chair and vice-chair shall be for one year. ~ra ~~,~» ~o ,. rio+o ,,,, ,.,.,,,~~„ , ~+i, 13-1 Ordinance No. 07-2015 2 3. Amendment Section 2.80.040 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.80.040 Chairperson. The Commission shall elect its chairperson and vice-chairperson from among its members and shall appoint a secretary. Terms of the chair and vice-chair shall be for one year. °„a °'~~"''°-~~mr'°+~ „r T~„.,~~, , c~k Upon approval of the City Council, the City Manager may appoint a secretary who need not be a member of the Commission. 4. Amendment Section 2.86.050 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.86.050 Chairperson. The Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson shall be elected from among Commission members. Terms shall be fox one year. Amendment Section 2.68.040 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.68.040 Meetings-Quorum-Officers-Staff. The Library Commission shall hold regular meetings at least once every other month, and, at the discretion of the Commission, such other meetings as may be necessary or expedient. A majority of the Library Commission shall constitute a quorum for purposes of transacting the business of the Commission. The Library Commission. shall elect a chairperson and avice-chairperson, both of whom shall serve at the pleasure of the Commission. Terms of office for the chairperson and vice-chairperson shall be for one year. 'may-Gar Staff services as required shall be provided to the Commission by the City Manager. 6. Amendment Section 2.36.040 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.3b.040 Chairperson. The Commission shall elect its Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson from among its members. The terms of the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson shall be for one year. a~ ~,,,.,.a~~,,.- ~~ o ,.t, ,~ a„i,.., „~oa 13-2 Ordinance No. 07-2015 3 7. Amendment Section 2.32.040 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.32.040 Chairperson. The Commission shall elect its Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson from among its members. The terms of the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson shall be for one year. a~ ,.,,, ., ; ,,,,~~ ~ .t,a ~o ,.4'+t,o „~,. .rt,o.. „4'~t,o r-~,,,,.,,,,;r~;,,., o ,,;,-e .,„a ..+:1 ~t,,, ,_ ......~. .._.a;. ; ,,., 8. Amendment Sections 2.60.020 and 2.b0.040 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.60.020 Term of Office. A. Commissioners serve. at the pleasure of the City Council. The term of office of the members of the Public Safety Commission shall be for four years and shall end on January ~# 30th of the year their term is due to expire. No commissioner shall serve more than two consecutive terms, except that a commissioner may serve more than two consecutive terms if he of she has been appointed to the Commission to fill an unexpired term of less than two years. 2.b0.040 Meetings-Quorum-Officers-Staff. The Public Safety Commission shall hold regular meetings at least once every other month, and, at the discretion of the Commission, such other meetings as may be necessary or expedient. A majority of the Public Safety Commission shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of transacting the business of the Commission. The Public Safety Commission shall elect a chairperson and avice-chairperson, both of whorri shall serve at the pleasure of the Commission. Terms of the chairperson and vice-person shall be for one year. . Upan approval of the City Council, the City Manager may appoint a secretary who need not be a member of the Commission. Staff services as required shall be provided to the Commission by the City Manager. 13-3 Ordinance No. 07-2015 4 INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 20`~ day of November 2007, and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 8th day of January 2008 by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: Mayor, City of Cupertino 13-4