initial site assessment

INITIAL SITE ASSESSMENT STATE ROUTE 85 EXPRESS LANES PROJECT SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA DISTRICT 4-SCL US 101-PM 25.3 TO 28.6 SR 85-PM 0.0 TO 24.1 US 101 PM 47.9 TO 52.0

Prepared for: California Department of Transportation, District 4 111 Grand Avenue, Oakland, California 94623 Caltrans EA 04-4A790K

March 2011

INITIAL SITE ASSESSMENT STATE ROUTE 85 EXPRESS LANES PROJECT SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA DISTRICT 4-SCL US 101-PM 25.3 TO 28.6 SR 85-PM 0.0 TO 24.1 US 101 PM 47.9 TO 52.0 EA 04-4A790K

Prepared for: California Department of Transportation, District 4 111 Grand Avenue, Oakland, California 94623

Working in cooperation with: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North 1st Street San Jose, California 95134

Prepared by: URS Corporation 100 West San Fernando Street, Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95113 Project No. 28645170

March 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

X:\85 Hot lanes\420_Environmental Studies\ISA\ISA Report\2011-03-10_Submittal(Final)\2011-03-10_Final_ISA.doc iii

1. Section 1 Introduction and Project Description .......................................................... 1-1

1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 1-11.2 Project Description ................................................................................... 1-1

1.2.1 Background .................................................................................. 1-1

2. Section 2 Methodology, and Limitations ..................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Methodology ............................................................................................ 2-12.2 User Reliance ........................................................................................... 2-12.3 Limitations and Exceptions...................................................................... 2-2

3. Section 3 Study Area, Geology, and Groundwater ..................................................... 3-1

3.1 Environmental Study Area ....................................................................... 3-13.2 Geology and Groundwater Flow .............................................................. 3-1

4. Section 4 Records Review ............................................................................................ 4-1

4.1 Regulatory Database Search Report ........................................................ 4-14.1.1 Search Results .............................................................................. 4-14.1.2 Screening Criteria ........................................................................ 4-24.1.3 Screening Results ......................................................................... 4-2

4.2 Records Review ....................................................................................... 4-34.2.1 Geotracker and Envirostor Databases .......................................... 4-3

4.3 Project Site Historic Use Information ...................................................... 4-44.3.1 Historical Aerial Photographs ...................................................... 4-44.3.2 Historical Topographic Maps ...................................................... 4-44.3.3 Summary of Historical Uses within the Study Area .................... 4-54.3.4 Analysis of Historical Information .............................................. 4-5

4.4 Previous Initial Site Assessments ............................................................ 4-6

5. Section 5 Site Reconnaissance .................................................................................... 5-1

6. Section 6 Findings and Conclusions ........................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Findings.................................................................................................... 6-16.1.1 Potential Hazardous Materials Sites ............................................ 6-16.1.2 Aerially Deposited Lead .............................................................. 6-26.1.3 Naturally Occurring Asbestos ...................................................... 6-36.1.4 Leaded Paint................................................................................. 6-36.1.5 Pesticides...................................................................................... 6-3

6.2 Recommendations .................................................................................... 6-36.2.1 Soil Sampling ............................................................................... 6-36.2.2 Groundwater Sampling ................................................................ 6-36.2.3 Health & Safety............................................................................ 6-4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

X:\85 Hot lanes\420_Environmental Studies\ISA\ISA Report\2011-03-10_Submittal(Final)\2011-03-10_Final_ISA.doc iv

Tables Within text of report:

4-1 Regulatory Database Results within one mile of the Project Area

4-2 Summary of Aerial Photograph Coverage for Project Area

6-1 Potential Hazardous Materials Sites impacting the Project Area

Within Appendix B:

B-1 Sites with Potential Impacts to the Project Area EDR Environmental Atlas Report Worksheet with supplemental information from online regulatory databases

Figures 1 Project Area Location

2-6 Potential Hazardous Materials Sites

Appendices A Caltrans ISA Checklist

B Regulatory Database Search Report (on CD-ROM) and Table B-1

C Review of Previous Site Assessments

D Reconnaissance Survey Summary

E Reconnaissance Survey Photographs

F Summary of Historical Topographic Maps Reviewed

List of Acronyms

X:\85 Hot lanes\420_Environmental Studies\ISA\ISA Report\2011-03-10_Submittal(Final)\2011-03-10_Final_ISA.doc v

AST Aboveground Storage Tank

CA FID California Facility Inventory Database

DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control

EDR Environmental Data Resources, Inc.

ESA Environmental Site Assessment

ETS Express Lanes Electronic Toll System

FINDS Facility Index System

HAZNET Hazardous Waste Manifests

HOT High-Occupancy/Toll Lane (Express Lane)

HOV High-Occupancy Vehicle

ISA Initial Site Assessment

LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank

PSR Project Study Report

RCRA Resources Conservation and Recovery Act

RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board

SOV Single-Occupancy Vehicle

SPBD City of San Pablo Building and Planning Department

SQG Small Quantity Generator

SWEEPS Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System UST Listing

SR 85 State Route 85

TCE Temporary Construction Easement

URS URS Corporation

US 101 United States Highway 101

USGS United States Geologic Survey

UST Underground Storage Tank

VTA Valley Transportation Agency

WDS Waste Discharge System

SECTIONONE Introduction and Project Description

X:\85 HOT LANES\420_ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\ISA\ISA REPORT\2011-03-10_SUBMITTAL(FINAL)\2011-03-10_FINAL_ISA.DOC 1-1

1. Section 1 ONE Introduction and Project Description

1.1 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of the Initial Site Assessment (ISA) conducted by URS for the State Route 85 (SR 85) Express Lanes Project. The project includes the proposed conversion of 24 miles of existing high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes along SR 85 to express lanes (also known as High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes). An additional express lane would also be added along a portion of the corridor to create a double express lane. The project, located in Santa Clara County, would include the construction of express lanes on northbound and southbound SR 85 from US 101 in southern San Jose to US 101 in Mountain View (See Figures 1 and 2). The project would also include the continuation of the express lanes for 3.3 miles on US 101 in South San Jose, for a total project length of 27 miles.

The purpose of this ISA is to identify sites that have the potential to affect the proposed project with hazardous materials or waste from current or historical environmental conditions. The format and content of this ISA follow Appendix DD, Preparation Guidelines for ISA Checklist for Hazardous Waste, of the Caltrans Project Development Procedures Manual. A completed copy of this checklist is included in Appendix A.

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1.2.1 Background SR 85 is a 24-mile long freeway that connects Mountain View to southern San Jose. SR 85 passes through Cupertino, Saratoga, Campbell, Los Gatos, San Jose's Cambrian Park, and the neighborhoods of Almaden Valley, Blossom Valley, and Santa Teresa. SR 85 also intersects with SR 237, Interstate 280, Highway 17, and SR 87. SR 85 typically has 3 lanes in each direction, including 2 mixed lanes and 1 HOV lane.

The project would involve the conversion of existing HOV lanes to express lanes along SR 85 and a portion of US 101 in South San Jose, and is proposed to provide congestion relief through more efficient use of existing facilities, provide more mobility options along this corridor, and create an additional source of revenue for transportation improvements in the area. Three build alternatives have been developed; common features of all three alternatives are described in the following, followed by each alternatives unique features.

Build Alternatives - Common Design Features

Lane Description The express lanes would be located adjacent to the center median, and would be created either by converting the existing HOV lane to dual use, or by adding an additional median lane to create a double express lane facility. The express lanes would include multiple intermediate access points from the adjacent mixed-flow lane to provide equal opportunity for prospective users, including carpoolers. These access points would consist of gaps in the striped 2-foot-wide buffer zone, allowing traffic to enter and exit the express lanes.

Lane Operation Static and dynamic overhead signs would be installed to advise qualified HOV and single-occupancy vehicles (SOV) users as they approach an entrance point. This includes displaying the



current toll rates relative to each destination and exit served by the facility. These signs would be updated as the system is managed for changing speed and traffic density measured at intervals along the express lanes. Vehicles using the facility must have transponders (similar to the current FasTrak) that would be monitored by an overhead structure installed at the beginning of the facility. The proposed express lane(s) would be separated from the existing mixed flow lanes by a striped buffer, up to two feet wide. Vehicles in the express lanes without a transponder would activate a signal that would be monitored by enforcement officers, who would observe from a distance whether the indicated vehicle is a qualified car pool (e.g., two or more passengers or is otherwise exempt).

Use of US 101/SR 85 Direct Connectors At the south end of the project area in South San Jose, the southbound HOV direct connector from SR 85 joins the existing southbound US 101 HOV lane, and both lanes run parallel for a short distance before merging together. The proposed express lane would end on US 101 where the two HOV lanes merge together.

In the northbound direction on US 101, the proposed express lane would also coincide with the beginning of the double HOV segment allowing SOVs to use the express lanes for a short distance ahead of the direct connector. The second HOV lane continues on the HOV direct connector to northbound SR 85.

At the north end of the project area, the two existing HOV lanes on southbound US 101 split prior to the US 101/SR 85 Interchange, with one lane continuing on to southbound US 101 and the other lane proceeding on to southbound SR 85 via the direct connector. The direct connectors at this location are not proposed to be part of the SR 85 Express Lanes project and would remain as HOV-only connectors.

In the northbound direction, the express lane would terminate in advance of the direct connectors allowing enough distance for SOVs to exit the lane and merge across the mixed-flow lanes to use the mixed flow ramp from NB SR 85 to NB US 101. In the southbound direction, the express lane would start shortly after the direct connector terminates on SR 85 allowing enough distance for SOVs entering SB SR 85 from the mixed flow ramp to merge across the mixed flow lanes to enter the express lane.

Construction Activities The project would be constructed entirely within existing right of way, and utility impacts are not anticipated. During construction, some lane closures could be required, but full closures are not expected to be necessary.

Build Alternative 1 Single Express Lane/Separate Access Points

Build Alternative 1 would include converting the existing HOV lane along both northbound and southbound SR 85 into a single-lane express lane facility, extending from US 101 in South San Jose to US 101 in Mountain View.

In the sections between US 101 in South San Jose, and SR 87 and between I-280 and US 101 in Mountain View, reduction in the width of the express lane and the inside mixed-flow lane from 12 feet to 11 feet would be required to create the 2-foot buffer. Between SR 87 to I-280, the 2-foot buffer would be created by reducing the inside shoulder width to 8 feet while maintaining 12



foot lanes. Four feet of the inside shoulder would be replaced with a full depth structural section to allow traffic to drive on 2 feet of the existing shoulder.

The 2-foot buffer zone would have designated entrance-only and exit-only openings with a transition lane to provide access into and out of the express lane facility. The additional transition lane would be approximately 1300 feet long in order to minimize impacts to both the express lane and the mainline traffic operations.

In the section between SR 87 and I-280, where the median is approximately 46 feet wide, additional pavement widening towards the median would be necessary to accommodate the transition lane at every ingress and egress location, reducing the a median width to between 24 and 35 feet. The existing thrie-beam barrier would be replaced with a concrete barrier Type 60 at these locations, as required for areas where the median width is less than 36 feet.

In the section south of SR 87, where the VTA Light Rail runs within the median, the outside of the freeway would be widened within the right of way to maintain 10-foot outside shoulders, and 12-foot lanes would be provided to accommodate the transition lane at every entrance and exit location. Where space is not available for full standard lane and shoulder widths, the express lane and express auxiliary lane widths would be reduced to 11 feet to accommodate the transition lane.

In the SR 85 section north of I-280, where the median width is approximately 22 feet, if outside widening is not feasible, the inside shoulders would be narrowed to 2 feet to accommodate a transition lane at the entrance and exit locations.

Build Alternative 2 Single Express Lane/Shared Access Points

Build Alternative 2 would include converting the existing HOV lane along both northbound and southbound SR 85 into a single-lane express lane facility throughout the corridor.

The sections between US 101 in South San Jose and SR 87, and between I-280 and US 101 in Mountain View would require the reduction of the express lane width and inside mixed flow lane width to from 12 feet to 11 feet to create the 2-foot buffer. In the section from SR 87 to I-280, the 2-foot buffer would be created by reducing the inside shoulder width to 8 feet while maintaining 12-foot lanes. Four feet of the inside shoulder would be replaced with a full depth structural section to allow traffic to drive on 2 feet of the existing shoulder.

The 2-foot buffer zone would have designated combined entrance and exit openings to provide access into and out of the express lane facility.

Build Alternative 3 Mixed Single and Double Express Lanes/Shared Access Points

Build Alternative 3 would include converting the existing HOV lane along both northbound and southbound SR 85 into a single-lane express lane facility between US 101 in South San Jose and SR 87, a double express lane facility between SR 87 and I-280, and a single-lane express lane facility between I-280 and US 101 in Mountain View.

In the section between SR 87 and I-280, widening into the existing median would eliminate the need to reduce the width of the left most mixed-flow lane. The 2-foot buffer zone would have designated combined entrance and exit openings to provide access into and out of the express lane facility.



In the section between SR 87 and I-280, where the median width is approximately 46 feet, pavement widening would be conducted in the median to accommodate the second express lane. The median would be paved and the existing thrie-beam barrier would be replaced with a concrete barrier Type 60.

No Build Alternative

The No-Build alternative assumes no modifications would be made to the current SR 85 corridor, including the continuous access HOV lane, other than routine maintenance and rehabilitation of the facility and any currently planned and programmed projects within the area.

SECTIONTWO Methodology, and Limitations


2. Section 2 TWO Methodology, and Limitations

2.1 METHODOLOGY An ISA is intended to screen for potential sources of hazardous materials within the limits of a proposed project. The result of an ISA screening is a determination of whether there is a potential that hazardous materials problems requiring further evaluation affect the project area.

This ISA was accomplished by, and limited to, a reconnaissance of the project area and review of the documentation described in Section 3 for information about past and current land uses that might involve the manufacture, generation, use, storage, and/or disposal of hazardous substances in the project area and study area.

The ISA included the following steps:

URS contracted with Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) to conduct a regulatory database search of known potential hazardous materials sites, including underground storage tanks (USTs); landfills; hazardous waste generation, treatment, storage, and disposal facilities; and subsurface contamination within an area extending up to 1 mile from the project area. This EDR report was performed for the entire proposed project corridor as well as for portions of US 101 both north of the northern SR85/US101 interchange and south of the southern SR85/US101 interchange. A copy of this report is included on CD as Appendix B.

URS reviewed multiple existing ISAs that addressed portions of the study area. A summary of these reviews is included in Section 4.4 and a more thorough summary is included as Appendix C.

URS staff visited the project area on September 22 and 23, 2010, to perform a site reconnaissance. A summary of this reconnaissance is included in Section 5; a more detailed summary and a photographic log are included as Appendices D and E.

URS reviewed available historical aerial mapping photographs covering the project area and adjacent areas using the program Google Earth. A summary of the findings are included in Section 4.3.

URS reviewed available topographic maps covering the project area and adjacent areas. These files were generally reviewed using available online services including the University of California at Berkeley; a log documenting the sources is included as Appendix F and the findings are summarized in Section 4.3.

For select properties within or near the proposed right-of-way that showed potential for environmental impacts to the soils and/or groundwater of the project area, URS staff reviewed the applicable available files from the Envirostor and Geotracker web-based databases maintained by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), respectively. Copies of researched files are available upon request.

2.2 USER RELIANCE This report has been prepared for use solely by VTA and Caltrans and shall not be relied upon by or transferred to any other party, or used for any other purpose, without the express written authorization of URS.

SECTIONTWO Methodology, and Limitations


2.3 LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS This report and the associated work have been provided in accordance with the principles and practices generally employed by the local environmental consulting profession. This is in lieu of all warranties, expressed or implied.

It should be recognized that this study was not intended to be a definitive investigation of potential contamination in the project area and the recommendations provided are not necessarily inclusive of all the possible conditions. This ISA is not a regulatory compliance audit or an evaluation of the efficiency of the use of any hazardous materials in the project area. Soil and/or groundwater sampling was not undertaken during this investigation. Sampling for asbestos, radon, lead-based paint, and lead in drinking water was also not performed as part of this ISA. Given that the Scope of Services for this investigation was limited, it is possible that currently unrecognized contamination might exist in the project area.

The conclusions presented in this report are professional opinions based solely upon indicated data described in this report, visual observations of the project area and vicinity, and URS interpretation of the available historical information and documents reviewed, as described in this report. Unless URS has actual knowledge to the contrary, information obtained from interviews or provided to URS by the client has been assumed to be correct and complete. URS does not assume any liability for information that has been misrepresented to us by others or for items not visible, accessible or present in the project area during the time of the field reconnaissance. The conclusions are intended exclusively for the purpose outlined herein and the project location and project indicated. The Scope of Services performed in execution of this investigation may not be appropriate to satisfy the needs of other users, and any use or reuse of this document or the findings, conclusions, or recommendations presented herein is at the sole risk of said user.

Opinions and recommendations presented herein apply to the project area conditions existing at the time of our investigation and cannot necessarily apply to project area changes of which URS is not aware and has not had the opportunity to evaluate. Changes in the conditions in the project area may occur with time due to natural processes or the works of man in the subject project area or adjacent properties. Changes in applicable standards may also occur as a result of legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated, wholly or in part, by changes beyond our control. Opinions and judgments expressed herein are based on URS understanding and interpretation of current regulatory standards and should not be construed as legal opinions.

Changes may occur after the date of issue of the report. Some examples of project area condition changes that limit the useful life of this type of report are as follows: property usage changes, change in ownership, the occurrence of additional environmental releases, implementation of regulatory changes, updating of regulatory agency files, and/or development of new investigation or remediation results. These or other potential changes could affect the recommendations in this report.

For the purposes of this evaluation, URS has assumed that regulatory agency cases that have been closed do not represent further potential hazardous materials risks to the project Site.

SECTIONTHREE Study Area, Geology, and Groundwater


3. Section 3 THREE Study Area, Geology, and Groundwater

3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY AREA The ISA considered both a project area and a broader study area, which are defined as follows:

The project area consists of the existing Caltrans right-of-way along SR85 and US101 segments that are within the project limits.

The study area consists of the project area plus an approximate 1-mile radius, for purposes of the records search only.

This assessment focuses on the potential for contamination in the project area as well as in the study area, which may have impacted the subsurface soil or groundwater below the project area.

3.2 GEOLOGY AND GROUNDWATER FLOW The study area is located within the Coastal Range geomorphic province. The Coast Ranges are bound by the Pacific Ocean on the west and Central Valley on the east and are characterized geologically by steep northwest trending ridges and narrow valleys. The ridges and valleys were formed by mostly compressional tectonic deformations during Mesozoic time (between 65 and 250 million years ago). This compressional tectonic activity was replaced by strike-slip lateral faulting during early Tertiary time (between 40 and 65 million years ago), resulting in the formation of such major structures as the San Andreas, Hayward and Calaveras faults. The San Francisco Bay is a flooded structural depression formed as a result of faulting activity, which continues to the present time. The study area is located along the western margin of the San Francisco Bay, which occupies a major structural depression between the Santa Cruz Mountains to the west and the East Bay hills to the east. Groundwater in the northern portion of the Study area is under the influence of either incursion of Bay waters or tidal pressure effects. Groundwater has been detected in monitoring wells near the Bay at average depths ranging between 2 and 6 feet below ground surface (bgs) near US 101 in Mountain View (URS, 2010a), and at depths of up to 10-20 feet bgs near the southern end of the study area (URS, 2010b).

Historical groundwater information included in Envirostor (the database of the DTSC) and in local agency databases was used to establish the most likely groundwater flow direction in the project area. While regional groundwater flow typically flows towards the Bay, local groundwater flow may be subject to local variations, and may be under tidal influence and subject to local and temporary changes. In general, URS has assumed that groundwater flow is towards the Bay, and therefore has only considered sites upgradient (generally south) of the freeways or adjacent to the freeways, as having the potential to impact the study area.

Based on multiple recent Caltrans and VTA projects in Santa Clara County, the potential presence of naturally-occurring asbestos (NOA) represents a potential environmental concern.

SECTIONFOUR Records Review


4. Section 4 FOUR Records Review

4.1 REGULATORY DATABASE SEARCH REPORT

4.1.1 Search Results The services of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) were retained to provide the radius environmental database report (EDR report) for this ISA. The EDR report is attached in Appendix B in electronic format and presents the results of a search for properties within the study area that are listed on 32 federal, 5 Native American, and 18 state or local environmental databases, as well as 3 EDR proprietary databases. The study area for the EDR report was based on the original project limits of the SR 85 Express Lanes Project, which included 3.3 miles of US 101 north of the SR 85 interchange in Mountain View that has since been excluded from the project limits. The summary of data in the paragraphs and table below reflects the entire EDR study area (unless noted otherwise), whereas the interpretation of the data in Section 4.1.2 and following sections reflects a study area based on current project limits.

The results of the database search include the following:

Addresses of known underground storage tank (UST)/aboveground storage tank (AST) sites;

Hazardous waste generation, treatment, storage, and/or disposal facilities; and

Subsurface contamination known to be present in the study area. The goal of reviewing the database report was to identify facilities with known and documented environmental problems that may negatively affect the proposed project.

The EDR report identified a total of approximately 350 cases in and within 1 mile of the original project limits. Locations of the 350 properties are shown on the map included in the EDR report (included on CD in Appendix B). Note that each property may be occupied by multiple facilities or have changes in ownership or listing name for the same property. In addition, some properties are listed in multiple databases. Approximately 260 of the cases are in and within 1 mile of the current project limits (i.e., excluding the 3.3 miles of US 101 in Mountain View and Palo Alto).

Table 4-1 summarizes the types of cases listed on federal, state, and/or local databases as presented in the EDR report.

Table 4-1: Regulatory Database Results within one mile of the Project Area

Agency Database Cases Identified

U.S. EPA RCRA SQG. Registered Small Generators of Hazardous Waste 207

U.S. EPA RCRA NonGen. Non Generators do not presently generate hazardous waste. 57

State Landfill (SWF/LF). Inventory of solid waste disposal facilities or landfills in California. 1 CORTESE. Hazardous Waste & Substances Sites List and include sites from LUST, SWF/LS and Cal-Sites. This database is no longer updated by the state agency. This database includes drinking water well with detectable levels of contamination, hazardous substance sites selected for remedial action, sites with known toxic material, USTs having a reportable release, and solid waste disposal facilities from which there is known migration.

42

State Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) List 253



Agency Database Cases Identified

CA FID UST (Facility Inventory Database). Contains a historical listing of active and inactive underground storage tank locations from the State Water Resource Control Board.

27

SLIC. A State Water Resource Control Board source. Includes Spills, Leaks, Investigations and Clean-ups.

61

UST. Active UST facilities gathered from the local regulatory agencies. 5 HIST UST. Historical UST Registered Database. 161 AST. Aboveground Storage Tank database from the State Water Resource Control Boards Hazardous Substance Storage Container Database.

2

SWEEPS. Former UST database updated by early 1980s. No longer updated or maintained. 140 Notify 65. Proposition 65 Records. This database contains facility notifications about any release which could impact drinking water and thereby expose the public to a potential health risk.

1

Drycleaners. Cleaner Facilities. 33 WIP. Well Investigation Program Case List. 1 San Mateo County Business Inventory (San Mateo Co. BI). This database includes Hazardous Materials Business Plan, hazardous waste generator, and underground storage tanks.

104

Envirostor. The DTSCs Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program (SMBRPs) 48

4.1.2 Screening Criteria The following screening criteria were used to identify which of the approximately 260 cases identified in the EDR report should be further evaluated based on their potential to have impacted the subsurface below the project area:

The facility is either: adjacent to the project area (i.e. the SR 85 Corridor, or segments of US 101 within the project

limits)

upgradient or crossgradient of, and within a distance of 1/8 of a mile from, the project area

a site (typically an NPL site) with a known plume extending to the project area;

and:

The facility is listed on one of the databases of reported hazardous materials releases (Federal NPL, Federal CORRACTS, Federal CERCLIS, State CORTESE, State LUST, State SLIC, RESPONSE, Envirostor, etc.); or

The facility is listed as an RCRA large-quantity hazardous waste generator (LQG), or a dry cleaner facility.

4.1.3 Screening Results A total of 18 facilities in the study area met the above screening criteria. Table B-1 included with Appendix B provides a description of each facility. After reviewing the information for each of the 18 facilities, URS also researched the online Envirostor and Geotracker databases and USEPA Region 9 Superfund website (discussed in Section 4.2.1), for additional sites, and to gather further information on sites identified in the EDR report but for which there was



insufficient information to allow URS to determine if the site represented a concern to the project area. Based on these reviews, URS determined that two facilities (which have a merged contaminant plume and therefore are treated as a single entity) had a high potential of impacting the project Site while an additional two facilities had a medium potential. These facilities are listed below, and Table 6-1 in Section 6 discusses each in further detail, as well as other potential impacts to the site corridor. The facilities identified in the EDR report are discussed by appropriate project location below:

Northern US 101/SR 85 Interchange to I-280/SR 85 Interchange: Teledyne Semiconductors Inc.: 1300 Terra Bella Ave, Mountain View, CA

94043 Approx. 3,000 ft west of the northern US 101/SR 85 interchange, crossgradient, plume known to extend to US 101. Note: for the purposes of this report, the Teledyne and Spectra-Physics facilities are considered together as one site, due their merged contaminant plume.

Spectra-Physics Inc.: 1250 W Middlefield Road, Mountain View, CA 94042 Approx. 3,000 ft west of the northern US 101/SR 85 interchange, crossgradient, plume known to extend to US 101. Note: for the purposes of this report, the Teledyne Semiconductors and Spectra-Physics facilities are considered together as one site, due to their merged contaminant plume.

Intel Corporation: 365 Middlefield Rd, Mountain View, CA 94040 Approx. 3,000 ft east of SR 85, upgradient. This is a component of the regional Middlefield-Ellis-Whisman (MEW) NPL plume of VOCs in groundwater from multiple sources. The plume is known to extend to near the interchange of SR 85 and US 101 in Mountain View.

SR 85: I-280/SR 85 Interchange to southern US 101/SR 85 Interchange: Conoco Phillips #6080: 21530 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino, CA 95014

Adjacent to SR 85, cross-gradient.

4.2 RECORDS REVIEW URS reviewed the publically-available Geotracker and Envirostor web-based databases maintained by the RWQCB and DTSC, respectively. No additional sites (to those listed in the EDR database) were identified. Based on a review of the EDR report, URS also selected sites for which additional information may be available on these publicly available databases. Please note that sites which were listed as closed by EDR, or sites that were already known to represent a potential environmental concern to the project area were not further researched. These records reviews are described below.

4.2.1 Geotracker and Envirostor Databases Two facilities were reviewed on Geotracker. All information included in Envirostor is also included in Geotracker, and therefore only the Geotracker database was considered. Files reviewed are available upon request.



Texaco: 975 Shoreline Blvd, Mountain View. URS reviewed the Additional Investigation Report for former Texaco-branded service station 21-1179. This site, located approximately 500 feet south of the Project Area, has several monitoring wells in the northern direction. Groundwater impacted by petroleum hydrocarbons has been determined to flow north from this Site. However, contamination has not been detected at the northernmost well, which is south of US 101. Therefore, no impacts to the project Site are considered likely.

US Postal Service: 21701 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino. Approx. 800 ft southwest of SR 85, cross-gradient. No records available, but Geotracker indicated that the case was closed in 1993, therefore no impacts to the project Site are considered likely.

4.3 PROJECT SITE HISTORIC USE INFORMATION Historical aerial photographs and topographical maps were reviewed using available sources. The purpose of the review was to evaluate if past uses may have created potentially significant environmental conditions that would not appear in the regulatory records review, nor be visible during the field reconnaissance conducted for the ISA.

4.3.1 Historical Aerial Photographs URS used the Google Earth Professional program to review historical aerial photographs of the project area for evidence of previous activities and development potentially involving hazardous materials. Historical photography was not available for the entire project corridor for each year, as shown in Table 4-2 below.

Table 4-2: Summary of Aerial Photograph Coverage for Project Area Year Aerial Photograph Coverage

1948 Northern SR 85/US 101 interchange to just south of Saratoga Avenue.




1998 Entire project/study area.



A summary of historical use within the study area, based on information found in historical aerial photographs and other historical data reviewed, is given in Section 4.3.3 below.

4.3.2 Historical Topographic Maps URS reviewed historical United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps maintained on the online database of the University of California at Berkeley (http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/histopo/) for evidence of previous activities in the project area that may suggest the potential presence of hazardous materials. URS also reviewed historical topographical maps included in Phase I ESAs performed for the Vector Control Yard (URS, 2004) and Stion Corporation (URS, 2010b). This review included the USGS 7.5-minute maps of the Mountain View, Cupertino, West San Jose, and East San Jose quadrangles and 15-minute



maps for Palo Alto and San Jose quadrangles. A detailed log of the maps reviewed is included as Appendix F. A summary of historical use within the study area, based on information found in historical topographic maps and other historical data reviewed, is given in Section 4.3.3 below.

4.3.3 Summary of Historical Uses within the Study Area Based on a review of available historical information, including aerial photographs, topographic maps, and previous studies within or near the study area (discussed further in Section 4.4 below), the following presents a brief summary of historical land use within the study area and surrounding areas.

Land use within the study area was primarily agricultural until at least around 1940. At that time, State Route 85 had not yet been constructed. US 101 is shown on the topographic maps, but is aligned along the current-day SR 82 (El Camino Real in the north and Monterey Highway in the south). In the northern project area, the current-day US 101 is present, but is labeled as BY 101. The cities of Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Saratoga and Campbell are visible as small settlements.

Accelerated development of the northern project area began in the middle to late 1950s. Agricultural lands were progressively converted to industrial, commercial and residential uses. By the early 1960s, SR 85 is under construction as a four lane divided highway (Stevens Creek Freeway) from the northern project limits as far south as the I-280. Construction of SR 85 has not begun in the southern project area, and agricultural land use is still dominant, with small pockets of development. Monterey Highway is still labeled as US 101, and the BY 101 connects with the Monterey Highway near the present day Blossom Hill Road/US 101 interchange.

By the mid-1960s, industrial and commercial facilities in the northern project area were mostly concentrated near the intersection of SR 85 and SR 237 (Mountain View-Alviso Highway). The central portion of the study area appears to be predominately residential development. Some industrial and commercial facilities and residential construction is underway near the southern project limits, in the vicinity of Cottle Road. SR 85 is still not constructed in southern project areas.

During the 1970s and 1980s, the last significant agricultural lands (greenhouse operations along Ada Avenue) within the northern and central project areas were replaced by residential developments. Major new commercial developments during this period occurred between Route 85 and Route 237. Sometime in the early 1980s, the US 101 in South San Jose was realigned to its present-day alignment.

By 1991, SR 85 has been constructed as far south as Stevens Creek Boulevard; and appears to be under construction for the areas south of this throughout the early 1990s. By 1998, SR 85 and its southern interchange with the US 101 are complete, and the northern and central project area is largely developed. Urban development in the southern project area continues to occur throughout the 1990s and 2000s, however there are still small pockets of undeveloped/agricultural land, even at the present day (e.g., between Great Oaks Boulevard and Perimeter Road, to the northwest of SR 85 near the southern project limits).

4.3.4 Analysis of Historical Information Based on the historical use information presented in the previous sections, the following potential environmental concerns have been identified:



The presence of Aerially-Deposited Lead (ADL) in soil adjacent to freeways constructed prior to the mid 1980s (i.e., the northern US 101/SR 85 interchange, and SR 85 north of I-280) is an environmental condition of concern.

The presence of significant agriculture in the region indicates that pesticides are also a potential environmental condition of concern.

Some areas have contained industrial facilities since at least the 1960s, particularly in the northern portion of the study area. Some of these older industrial facilities are likely to have created environmental concerns.

4.4 PREVIOUS INITIAL SITE ASSESSMENTS URS reviewed the following documents which were located within or near the project area in developing this Site Assessment:

Initial Site Assessment Route 85/101 Project, Mountain View, California, prepared by Engineering-Science, Inc., January 14, 1994.

Initial Site Assessment Highway 85/101 Interchange, Mountain View, Santa Clara County, California, prepared by Lowney Associates, February 2, 2000.

Initial Site Assessment Portions of Route 85/US 101 Interchange Project, Mountain View, Santa Clara County, California, prepared by Kleinfelder, June 14, 2002.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Former Vector Control Yard Facility, 750 Moffett Boulevard, Mountain View, California, prepared by URS, October 25, 2004.

Supplemental Environmental Investigation Former Vector Control Yard Facility, 750 Moffett Boulevard, Mountain View, California, prepared by URS, December 20, 2007

U.S. 101 Auxiliary Lanes Project - Embarcadero Road to Shoreline Boulevard, Palo Alto and Mountain View, California, Baseline Environmental Consultants, April 2008.

U.S. 101 Auxiliary Lanes-Embarcadero to State Route 85 04-4A3301, Hazardous Waste Materials Investigation Final Report, prepared by URS, May 17, 2010.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment - Stion Corporation 6311, 6325 and 6331 San Ignacio Avenue San Jose, California, prepared by URS, August 17, 2010.

A discussion of each document is included as Appendix C. The first seven documents covered various portions of the project area from the US 101/SR 85 interchange in Mountain View to Hwy 237 at SR 85 in Sunnyvale. The review of the Phase I ESO for Stion Corporation covered the SR 85/ US 101 interchange in south San Jose. In general, no additional environmental concerns were identified in these reviews. These reviews confirmed information provided in the EDR report and deduced from a review of the historical aerial photos and topographical maps that the portion of the project corridor near the US 101/SR 85 interchange has been impacted by VOCs and petroleum hydrocarbons in groundwater, and that ADL has impacted soil adjacent to the freeways. The review of the Supplemental Environmental Investigation for the Former Vector Control yard, located immediately east of the interchange of US 101 and SR 85, confirmed that groundwater in that area is impacted by VOCs, likely transported to the site via a network of subsurface utility lines.

SECTIONFIVE Site Reconnaissance


5. Section 5 FIVE Site Reconnaissance

Mr. Joe Bandel of URS Corporation in San Jose, California, conducted a general reconnaissance of the study area on September 22 and 23, 2010. The reconnaissance was conducted from points of public access, including the freeways and adjacent ramps, and included a drive-by survey of the surrounding and adjacent properties.

A detailed discussion of this reconnaissance is included as Appendix D, and photographs of the project corridor and adjacent properties are included as Appendix E.

A general discussion of the characteristics of the project area is provided below:

SR 85: Northern US 101/SR 85 Interchange to I-280/SR 85 Interchange The area of SR 85 between the northern US 101 and the interchange with I-280 junction mostly consists of residential areas. There are a few commercial areas and gas stations at the exits at El Camino Real and Homestead Avenue. Two large water tanks can be seen from the freeway at the SR 85/Interstate 280 interchange.

SR 85: I-280/SR 85 Interchange to Southern US 101/SR 85 Interchange The area of SR 85 between the I-280 and the southern US 101/SR 85 interchange is primarily residential with isolated light commercial areas, primarily office parks. East of the interchange of SR 85 and SR 17, the VTA Light Rail Line is located within the project median. Several gas stations are located at the intersection with De Anza Boulevard. Good Samaritan Hospital is located at the intersection of SR 85 and Bascom Avenue. As SR 85 approaches the southern US 101 interchange, the area is increasingly commercial. Gas stations were observed at Almadan Expressway, Blossom Hill Road, and Snell Road, near SR 85. A Caltrans maintenance yard is located at the intersection with Bernal Avenue.

US 101: US 101/SR 85 Interchange to Metcalf Road The US 101 freeway in this section is adjacent the Coyote Creek riparian corridor and has residential units and open grassland areas on both sides. A large utility substation is located just south of Metcalf Rd. along US 101. Findings Based on the Site Reconnaissance, URS observed the presence of a Caltrans maintenance yard and a large utility substation, which may have impacted groundwater below the project area.

SECTIONSIX Findings and Conclusions


6. Section 6 SIX Findings and Conclusions

6.1 FINDINGS

6.1.1 Potential Hazardous Materials Sites Five potential hazardous materials sites outside of the project area but within the study area were identified during the regulatory database search, local agency records search, and reconnaissance, as shown in Table 6-1. URS recommends additional investigation for potential impacts to the project area from historical or current conditions at these properties, in conjunction with the site investigation for aerially-deposited lead. The location of these five potential hazardous materials sites is shown on Figure 2.

Table 6-1 Potential Hazardous Materials Sites Impacting the Project Area

Site No. (Figure Shown)1

Source of Information

Owner or Occupant/ Address Description

Further Investigation

Recommended?

1A and 1B (2)

EDR report

USEPA Region 9 Superfund website

1A - Teledyne Semiconductors Inc.

1300 Terra Bella Ave, Mountain View, CA 94043

1B - Spectra-Physics Inc.

1250 W Middlefield Road, Mountain View, CA 94042

Manufactured semiconductors since 1962; CRWQCB (lead); NPL site. The site has used a variety of toxic chemicals, primary chlorinated organic solvents which contaminate ground water. Investigation in June 1984 revealed that contaminants had migrated to the north and had affected approx. 50 private domestic wells. Teledyne is planning on pumping the contaminated ground water in upper aquifer to the surface for subsequent treatment. The Teledyne NPL site is being managed in conjunction with the Spectra-Physics NPL site, as the contaminant plumes have merged.

Yes

If dewatering is planned downgradient of this property (to be determined during final design phase), groundwater samples should be collected to evaluate whether the known VOC releases would affect project construction activities.

2A and 2B (3)

EDR report

URS Corporation Supplemental Environmental Investigation for the Former Vector Control Yard Facility, 750 Moffett Blvd.

2A - Intel Corporation

365 Middlefield Rd, Mountain View, CA 94040

2B Former Vector Control Yard Site, 750 Moffett Blvd.

Intel Site: CRQCB- lead; VOCS (TCE, DCE, and Vinyl Chloride) have been detected in soil and shallow groundwater at the site and in shallow groundwater downgradient of the site. Since 1982 Intel has been pumping groundwater and treating by carbon adsorption. This is part of the MEW (Middlefield, Ellis, Whisman) joint NPL cleanup site.

Site believed to be currently occupied by Opcode, World Energy Labs and Skywatch Energy.

Former Vector Control Yard Site: Investigations performed by URS Corporation suggest that VOCs may have been spread to interchange of SR 85/US 101 via utility corridors. Investigations suggest a potential source is the MEW plume.

Yes

If dewatering is planned downgradient of this property or near the SR 85/US 101 interchange (to be determined during final design phase), groundwater samples should be collected to evaluate whether the known VOC releases would affect project construction activities.

3 (4) EDR report Conoco Phillips #6080

21530 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino, CA

Preliminary site assessment underway; LUST.

Site believed to be currently occupied by a

Yes

If dewatering is planned downgradient of this property (to be



Site No. (Figure Shown)1

Source of Information

Owner or Occupant/ Address Description

Further Investigation

Recommended?

95014 Union 76 gas station (Conoco Philips). determined during final design phase), groundwater samples should be collected to evaluate whether the known Petroleum and/or VOC releases would affect project construction activities.

4 (5) Site Reconnaissance

Caltrans Maintenance Yard, Intersection of Bernal and SR 85

Caltrans maintenance yard where substantial vehicle fueling and maintenance operations may take place.

Yes

If dewatering is planned downgradient of this property (to be determined during final design phase), groundwater samples should be collected to evaluate whether the potential Petroleum and/or VOC releases would affect project construction activities.

5 (6) Site Reconnaissance

PG&E Substation, Intersection of Metcalf Road and US 101

Large PG&S substation. Yes

If dewatering is planned downgradient of this property (to be determined during final design phase), groundwater samples should be collected to evaluate whether potential releases would affect project construction activities.

1. Numbers correspond to numbered sites on Figures. Number in parentheses lists the figure number where the site in question is shown.

6.1.2 Aerially Deposited Lead The presence of US 101 and portions of SR 85 within the project limits for several decades indicates that exposed soil in the immediate vicinity is likely contaminated with Aerially-Deposited Lead. While limited soil excavation is planned, where un-paved areas will experience soil disturbance, investigation of the soil for ADL is recommended. Based on discussions with Ray Boyer (Caltrans District Branch Chief - Hazardous Waste), ADL investigation for the portion of SR 85 between I-280 and US-101 in South San Jose is not recommended except at interchanges, because this portion of the freeway was constructed after the period when lead-based gasoline was in use and prior use of the area was agricultural except at interchanges. This section of SR 85 was constructed in the early- to mid-1990s. Federal standards to phase out leaded gasoline were first implemented in 1973, and as of 1 January 1996, the sale of leaded fuel for use in on-road vehicles was completely banned.



6.1.3 Naturally Occurring Asbestos Based on URS familiarity with the site geology and recent projects within Santa Clara County, soils adjacent to SR 85 within the project limits may be impacted by naturally occurring asbestos (NOA). While limited soil excavation is planned, where un-paved areas will experience soil disturbance, investigation of the soil for NOA is recommended, in conjunction with investigation for aerially deposited lead.

6.1.4 Leaded Paint Thermoplastic paints on the freeways are likely to contain lead. Standard Caltrans SSPs for removal of yellow paint should be followed. No additional testing of this paint is recommended.

6.1.5 Pesticides Based on the historical use of many areas within Santa Clara County as agricultural land, soils adjacent to SR 85 within the project limits may be impacted by pesticides. It is noted that during original construction of SR 85, much of the highway was built after excavating up to ten feet below the original ground level, which will have reduced the likelihood of potential pesticide contamination in many areas. While limited soil excavation is planned, where un-paved areas will experience soil disturbance, investigation of the soil for pesticides is recommended, in conjunction with investigation for aerially deposited lead.

6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

6.2.1 Soil Sampling At this time, limited earthwork is expected to be performed for this project. However, where surface soils will be excavated, they should be investigated for appropriate analytes based on the findings in Section 6.1, including lead, pesticides, VOCs and PCBs. Additionally, soil sampling for naturally occurring asbestos should be performed at several locations throughout the project site from deeper soil samples collected associated with the placement of future electronic signage.

Soil found to have environmental impacts should be properly managed per applicable regulations and/or the Caltrans variance with the DTSC.

6.2.2 Groundwater Sampling The results of this assessment indicate the potential for petroleum hydrocarbons and chlorinated solvents, and residual amounts of lead to be present in surface soil and shallow groundwater. Although groundwater sampling is recommended to take place prior to or during soil excavation activities, the exact sample locations, sampling depths, sample media (soil/groundwater), and constituents analyzed should be selected with all potential identified impacts to the project area in mind to prepare a comprehensive sampling plan based on the findings in Section 6.1. Therefore, groundwater sampling, analysis, and characterization are recommended before the start of construction to investigate safety precautions for construction personnel. Furthermore, treatment and disposal options for extracted groundwater will need to be determined prior to any dewatering of excavations due to construction activities.



Groundwater should be properly characterized and disposed of at an appropriate facility per applicable regulations.

6.2.3 Health & Safety Contractors working at the project site, or removing soil materials and/or groundwater from the project area, should be aware of appropriate handling and disposal methods or options. Higher levels of the potential contaminants could be present at some locations and, therefore, material moved or removed may require individual or specific testing to verify it is at levels below any regulatory action limits.

SECTIONSIX References


California State Water Resource Control Board. 2010. Geotracker database. Available online at http://geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov/ (accessed October 1, 2010).

Caltrans Project Development Procedures Manual, including Appendix DD, Preparation Guidelines for ISA Checklist for Hazardous Waste.

EDR DataMapTM Environmental Atlas. Inquiry Number 2797797.1s, SR 85 Express Lanes Project, Santa Clara CA. June 28, 2010.

Engineering-Science, Inc., 1994. Initial Site Assessment Route 85/101 Project, Mountain View, California. January 14, 1994.

Kleinfelder, 2002. Preliminary Site Investigation Portions of Route 85/US 101 Interchange Project, Mountain View, Santa Clara County, California. June 14, 2002.

Lowney Associates, 2000. Initial Site Assessment Highway 85/101 Interchange, Mountain View, Santa Clara County, California. February 2, 2000.

Stantec Consulting Corporation, 2010. Additional Investigation Report, Former Texaco-branded Service Station 21-1179, Mountain View, CA. May 25, 2010.

SAIC, The Benham Companies LLC, 2010. First Quarter 2010 Groundwater Monitoring and Remediation system performance results, Chevron Service Station No 90288. 2300 Homestead Road, Los Altos, CA, 94024-7338. April 30, 2010.

URS Corporation, 2004. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 750 Moffett Boulevard, Mountain View, California. October 25, 2004.

URS Corporation, 2007. Supplemental Environmental Investigation, Former Vector Control Yard 750 Moffett Boulevard, Mountain View, California. December 20.

URS Corporation, 2010a. US 101 Auxiliary Lanes-Embarcadero to State Route 85 04-4A3301, Hazardous Waste Materials Investigation Final Report. May 17, 2010.

URS Corporation, 2010b. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for Proposed Stion Facility at 6311, 6325, and 6331 San Ignacio Avenue, San Jose. August 17, 2010.

USEPA Region 9 Superfund website (accessed September 30, 2010). Available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/vWSOAlphabetic?OpenView.

Figures

8 9 240 1

1240

1245

1250

1255

1260

1265

1270

1275

1280

1315

6

7

8

9

1320

1

2

3

4

1325

6

7

8

9

1330

1

2

3

4

1335

6

7

8

9

1340

1

2

3

4

1345

6

7

8

9

1350

6

7

8

9

170

1

2

3

4

7

8

9

170

1

7

8

9

170

1

2

3

4

175

6

7

8

9

180

1

2

3

4

185

6

7

8

9

190

1

2

3

4

195

6

7

8

9

200

1

2

3

4

205

6

7

89

210 1 2 3 4 215 6 7 8 9 220 1 2 3 4 225 6 7 8 9 230 1 2 3 4 235 6 7 8 9 240 1 2 3 4 245 6 78

9250

1

2

3

4

255

6

7

8

9

260

1

2

3

4

265

6

7

8

9

270

1

2

3

4

275

6

7

8

9

170

1

2

23

4

215

6

7

8

9

220 1

4

195

6

7

8

9

200

1

2

34

4

195

6

7

8

9 2001

2

3

4

205

6

7

8

85

CALIFO

RNIA

Figure

PROJECT

SR 85 EXPRESS LANES

Feburary 2011Scale: 1" = 750

2

MOUNTAIN VAIWMOUNTAIN VIEWN

N. S

horelin

e Blv

d

US

Old M

iddlefi

eld W

ay

Rock

St

Sierra V

ista Ave

W Middlefield Rd

N R

engsto

rff Ave

Amph

ithea

tre Pk

wy

La Av

enida

St

POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES

LEGEND:

TELEDYNE/SPECTRA-PHYSICS SUPERFUND PLUME

SITE #1ATELEDYNE

SITE #1BSPECTRA-PHYSICS

APPROXIMATE PLUME LIMITS APPROXIMATE SITE BOUNDARY

8

9

240

1

1240

1245

1250

1255

1260

1265

1270

1275

1280

1285

1290

12951300

1305

1310

1315

1320

13251265 6

7 89 1270 1 2

34

1275

6

7

8

9

1280

1

2

3

4

1285

6

7

8

9

12901

2 3 41295

67

8

9

1300

1

2

3

4

1305

6

7

8

9

1310

1

2

3

4

13156 7 8

91320

12

34

13256

78

91330

12

34

13356

78

91340 1

2

3

4

1345

6

7

8

9

1350

3

4

235

6

7

8

9

240

1

2

3

4

245

6

7

8

9

250

1

2

3

4

255

6

7

8

9

260

1

2

3

4

265

6

7

8

9

270

1

2

3

4

275

6

7

8

9

280

1

2

3

4

285

85

CALIFORNIA

Figure

PROJECT

SR 85 EXPRESS LANES

Feburary 2011

3

US

237 S

outh

bay

Fw

y

Centr

al E

xpy

Moffett B

lvd

E M

iddle

field

Rd

NAVAL AIR STATIONMOFFETT FIELD

N

N Whisman Rd

Ellis St

MOUNTAIN VAIWMOUNTAIN VIEW

Scale: 1" =1100

LEGEND:


SITE #2B

FORMER VECTOR CONTOL YARD

APPROXIMATE PLUME LIMITS

SITE #2A

INTEL

MEW SUPERFUND PLUME

APPROXIMATE SITE BOUNDARY

89

91010123410156

78

9

1020

1

2

3

4

1025

6

7

8

9

1030

1

2

3

4

10356

7

N

Ste

vens C

reek B

lvd

CUPERTINOCUPERTINO

85

CALIFORNIA

Figure

11x17 PtrHH-FullSht

PROJECT

SR 85 EXPRESS LANES

Feburary 2011

CONOCO PHILLIPS #6080

Bubb Rd

Peninsula Ave

Gra

nd A

ve

Alhambra Ave

Empire Ave

Santa Clara Ave

Mary Ave

Scale: 1" = 200

4

LEGEND:


SITE #3

CONOCO PHILLIPS #6080

APPROXIMATE SITE LIMITS

2525

2530

2535

2540

2545

255080

123

4

85

6

7

8

9

90

1

2

3

4

95

6

7

8

9

100

1

2

3

4

105

6

7

8

9

110

1

85

CALIFORNIA

Figure

PROJECT

SR 85 EXPRESS LANES


5

11x17 PtrHH-FullSht

SAN JOSESAN JOSE

Monterey Rd

Blvd

Great

Oaks

Bern

al

Rd

US

N

SITE #4

CALTRANS MAINTENANCE YARD

LEGEND:

POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITESAPPROXIMATE SITE LIMITS

G-1

Figure

PROJECT

SR 85 EXPRESS LANES


6

11x17 PtrHH-FullSht

US

N

Met

calf

Rd

Monterey Rd

SAN JOSESAN JOSE

PG & E SUBSTATION

Coyote Ranch Rd

Coyote

Ran

ch R

d

LEGEND:


SITE #5

PG & E SUBSTATION

APPROXIMATE SITE LIMITS

Appendix A Caltrans ISA Checklist

Appendix DD - Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment (ISA) Checklist for Hazardous Waste

Preparation Guidelines for Initial Site Assessment (ISA) Checklist for Hazardous Waste

The ISA Checklist is a guide for district screening and assessment of projects for potential hazardous waste involvement. It is not intended to take a lot of time and effort to complete; however, some assessments may take longer to complete just because of the magnitude and/or location of a proposed project. Project Information Section Be sure that the Project Manager and Project Engineer have been identified. Do not begin the ISA until the written project description and location maps have been provided (Since hazardous waste could effect project development, it is important to know what type of work is proposed and where it will be located). Location Map It is suggested that the location map provided by Design be attached to the ISA Checklist to provide a record of the area that has been assessed, as well as the findings. All future project limit changes should cause Design to request further assessment for hazardous waste. Project Screening Section Items 1 and 2 are risk indicators that could be used to determine the level of effort required to complete the ISA. Generally, a project that requires new right of way, excavation, structure modification or demolition, or utility relocation will have a greater potential for hazardous waste involvement than a project that does not include these features. An urban location would generally present more of a risk than a rural location; industrial land uses would generally be more risky than commercial uses; and so on. Items 3 through 6 deal with the actual assessment:

First, check available records to see if a known site is present. This item should not take a lot of effort, but it will require contacting the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Department of Health Services, and the city/county agencies that deal with leaking underground tanks.

Next, conduct a field inspection to look for indicators of potential hazardous waste or

contamination. Identify businesses that store or use potentially hazardous materials (service stations, auto wrecking yards, paint companies, machine shops, metal platers, electronic manufacturers, dry cleaners, agricultural chemical suppliers, etc.). Other things to look for include landfills and dumps, surface storage of potentially

Project Development Procedures Manual 07/01/99 DD-3

Appendixes Project Development Forms and Letters plus Policy and Procedures Documents

hazardous materials (sumps, pits, steel drums, etc.), illegal dumping sites (especially on rural projects), and serpentine.

Based on the field inspection, if there may have been a previous land use that could

still present a hazardous waste or contamination risk, it may be necessary to verify the previous land use (e.g., abandoned service stations can usually be identified by the type of structure and location: the underground tank may still be there).

ISA Determination The ISA determination is simply "Yes" or "No."

NO: No findings have been made that would indicate a known or potential hazardous waste problem within or near the proposed project.

YES: A known or potential site has been identified that could affect the proposed

project and will take more time and effort to define and coordinate cleanup options.

07/10/99 Project Development Procedures Manual DD-4
snjuser1Oval

Appendix DD - Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment (ISA) Checklist for Hazardous Waste

etric

Caltrans

Initial Site Assessment (ISA) Checklist

Project Information District ____ County _____ Route _____ Post Mile ____________ EA _____________

Description

Is the project on the HW Study Minimal-Risk Projects List (HW1)?

Project Manager phone #

Project Engineer phone #

Project Screening Attach the project location map to this checklist to show location of all known and/or potential HW sites identified. 1. Project Features: New R/W? ______ Excavation? ______ Railroad Involvement? ______

Structure demolition/modification? ______ Subsurface utility relocation? ______ 2. Project Setting

Rural or Urban

Current land uses

Adjacent land uses (industrial, light industry, commercial, agricultural, residential, etc.)

3. Check federal, State, and local environmental and health regulatory agency records as necessary, to

see if any known hazardous waste site is in or near the project area. If a known site is identified, show its location on the attached map and attach additional sheets, as needed, to provide pertinent information for the proposed project.

4. Conduct Field Inspection. Date ____________ Use the attached map to locate potential or known

HW sites.

STORAGE STRUCTURES / PIPELINES: Underground tanks Surface tanks Sumps Ponds Drums Basins Transformers Landfill Other

Project Development Procedures Manual 07/01/99 DD-5
snjuser1Typewritten TextNsnjuser1Typewritten TextYsnjuser1Typewritten TextNsnjuser1Typewritten TextNsnjuser1Typewritten TextNsnjuser1Typewritten TextUS 101 from Mountain View, all of SR 85, US 101 to S. SJCUrban, transitions to residential and rural as go southsnjuser1Typewritten TextCommercial, light industry, agriculture, and residentialsnjuser1Typewritten TextProject area is entirely within existing road ROWsnjuser1Typewritten Textsnjuser1Typewritten Text9-22&232010snjuser1Typewritten TextOff-Sitesnjuser1Typewritten TextNonesnjuser1Typewritten TextLimited offsite, non-haz and hazsnjuser1Typewritten TextNone onsitesnjuser1Typewritten TextNonesnjuser1Typewritten TextNonesnjuser1Typewritten TextNonesnjuser1Typewritten TextNonesnjuser1Typewritten Textsnjuser1Typewritten TextMultiple known LUST and UST sites - See Reportsnjuser1Typewritten Text25.3/28.6 and 47.9/52.00.0 / 24.1 04-4A790Ksnjuser1Typewritten Textsnjuser1Typewritten Text4snjuser1Typewritten TextSCLsnjuser1Typewritten Textsnjuser1Typewritten Text10185snjuser1Typewritten TextNosnjuser1Typewritten TextRamsey Hissen408-297-9585Chadi Chazbek408-297-9585snjuser1Typewritten Textsnjuser1Typewritten Text85 Express Lanes Project

Appendixes Project Development Forms and Letters plus Policy and Procedures Documents

Initial Site Assessment (ISA) Checklist (continued)

CONTAMINATION: (spills, leaks, illegal dumping, etc.)

Surface staining Oil sheen

Odors Vegetation damage

Other

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: (asbestos, lead, etc.)

Buildings Spray-on fireproofing

Pipe wrap Friable tile

Acoustical plaster Serpentine

Paint Other

5. Additional record search, as necessary, of subsequent land uses that could have resulted in a hazardous

waste site. Use the attached map to show the location of potential hazardous waste sites. 6. Other comments and/or observations:

ISA Determination Does the project have potential hazardous waste involvement? ______ If there is known or potential hazardous waste involvement, is additional ISA work needed before task orders can be prepared for the Investigation? ______ If "YES," explain; then give an estimate of additional time required:

A brief memo should be prepared to transmit the ISA conclusions to the Project Manager and Project Engineer.

ISA Conducted by _______________________ Date _________

07/10/99 Project Development Procedures Manual DD-6
snjuser1Typewritten TextNonesnjuser1Typewritten TextNonesnjuser1Typewritten TextNonesnjuser1Typewritten TextNonesnjuser1Typewritten Textn/asnjuser1Typewritten Textn/asnjuser1Typewritten Textn/asnjuser1Typewritten Textn/asnjuser1Typewritten TextNOA a potential concernsnjuser1Typewritten TextN/asnjuser1Typewritten TextSeveral sites with snjuser1Typewritten Textknown contamination. Presence of VOCs and hydrocarbons insoil and groundwater a concern. ADL likely in soil north of intersection of 280; however little or no excavation planned there.South of 280, ADL unlikely except at intersections due to date of US 85 construction. Pesticides and Naturally Occuring Asbestospossible in soil throughout site.See report for details.snjuser1Typewritten TextYessnjuser1Typewritten TextNsnjuser1Typewritten TextPatrick Walz, P.E.snjuser1Typewritten Text10/11/10james_rippleSticky NoteUnmarked set by james_ripplesnjuser1Typewritten TextN/asnjuser1Typewritten TextN/a (except for yellow striping)

Appendix B Regulatory Database Search Report (on CD Rom)

and

Table B-1: Sites with Potential Impacts to the Project Area EDR Environmental Atlas Report Worksheet with supplemental information from online regulatory

databases

saltA latnemnorivnE paMataD RDE

440 Wheelers Farms RoadMilford, CT 06461Toll Free: 800.352.0050www.edrnet.com

SR 85 Express Lanes ProjectSanta Clara, CA Inquiry Number: 2797797.1sJune 28, 2010

Thank you for your business.Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050

with any questions or comments.

Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice

This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental DataResources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist fromother sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTALDATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION,MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALLENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE,ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL,CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLYLIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings,environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, norshould they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase IEnvironmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for anyproperty. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.

Copyright 2006 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in wholeor in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.

EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All othertrademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.

FOCUS MAP SUMMARY

TotalDatabase Plotted

FEDERAL RECORDS

9NPL 0Proposed NPL 0Delisted NPL 0NPL LIENS 16CERCLIS 18CERC-NFRAP 0LIENS 2 10CORRACTS 9RCRA-TSDF 28RCRA-LQG 207RCRA-SQG 0RCRA-CESQG 57RCRA-NonGen 10US ENG CONTROLS 2US INST CONTROL 12ERNS 0HMIRS 1DOT OPS 0US CDL 0US BROWNFIELDS 1DOD 1FUDS 0LUCIS 1CONSENT 10ROD 0UMTRA 0DEBRIS REGION 9 0ODI 0MINES 3TRIS 0TSCA 3FTTS 3HIST FTTS 0SSTS 0ICIS 3PADS 1MLTS 0RADINFO 283FINDS 0RAATS 0FEMA UST 0SCRD DRYCLEANERS 0COAL ASH DOE 0US HIST CDL 0COAL ASH EPA 0PCB TRANSFORMER 0FEDERAL FACILITY

STATE AND LOCAL RECORDS

11HIST Cal-Sites

TC2797797.1s

FOCUS MAP SUMMARY

TotalDatabase Plotted

8CA BOND EXP. PLAN 1SCH 0Toxic Pits 1SWF/LF 20CA WDS 29NPDES 3WMUDS/SWAT 0Cortese 218HIST CORTESE 6SWRCY 253LUST 99CA FID UST 61SLIC 36UST 161HIST UST 0LIENS 140SWEEPS UST 16CHMIRS 0LDS 1MCS 19AST 12Notify 65 1DEED 4VCP 33DRYCLEANERS 0WIP 5CDL 4RESPONSE 518HAZNET 99EMI 0HAULERS 48ENVIROSTOR 3HWT 0PROC 1MWMP 3FINANCIAL ASSURANCE 9HWP

TRIBAL RECORDS

0INDIAN RESERV 0INDIAN ODI 0INDIAN LUST 0INDIAN UST 0INDIAN VCP

EDR PROPRIETARY RECORDS

0Manufactured Gas Plants

NOTES:

Sites may be listed in more than one database

TC2797797.1s

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

TC2797797.1s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

TARGET PROPERTY INFORMATION

ADDRESS

SANTA CLARA, CA DIABLO RANGE, CA 94041

DATABASES WITH NO MAPPED SITES

No mapped sites were found in EDRs search of available ("reasonably ascertainable ") governmentrecords within the requested search area for the following databases:

FEDERAL RECORDS

Proposed NPL Proposed National Priority List SitesDelisted NPL National Priority List DeletionsNPL LIENS Federal Superfund LiensLIENS 2 CERCLA Lien InformationRCRA-CESQG RCRA - Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity GeneratorHMIRS Hazardous Materials Information Reporting SystemUS CDL Clandestine Drug LabsUS BROWNFIELDS A Listing of Brownfields SitesLUCIS Land Use Control Information SystemUMTRA Uranium Mill Tailings SitesDEBRIS REGION 9 Torres Martinez Reservation Illegal Dump Site LocationsODI Open Dump InventoryMINES Mines Master Index FileTSCA Toxic Substances Control ActSSTS Section 7 Tracking SystemsICIS Integrated Compliance Information SystemRADINFO Radiation Information DatabaseRAATS RCRA Administrative Action Tracking SystemFEMA UST Underground Storage Tank ListingSCRD DRYCLEANERS State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners ListingCOAL ASH DOE Sleam-Electric Plan Operation DataUS HIST CDL National Clandestine Laboratory RegisterCOAL ASH EPA Coal Combustion Residues Surface Impoundments ListPCB TRANSFORMER PCB Transformer Registration DatabaseFEDERAL FACILITY Federal Facility Site Information listing

STATE AND LOCAL RECORDS

Toxic Pits Toxic Pits Cleanup Act SitesCortese "Cortese" Hazardous Waste & Substances Sites ListLIENS Environmental Liens ListingLDS Land Disposal Sites ListingWIP Well Investigation Program Case ListHAULERS Registered Waste Tire Haulers ListingPROC Certified Processors Database

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


TRIBAL RECORDS

INDIAN RESERV Indian ReservationsINDIAN ODI Report on the Status of Open Dumps on Indian LandsINDIAN LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian LandINDIAN UST Underground Storage Tanks on Indian LandINDIAN VCP Voluntary Cleanup Priority Listing

EDR PROPRIETARY RECORDS

Manufactured Gas Plants EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plants

SURROUNDING SITES: SEARCH RESULTS

Surrounding sites were identified.

The Map ID column refers to the Map ID-Focus Map(s) of the listed site.

Sites listed in bold italics are in multiple databases.

Unmappable (orphan) sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis.

FEDERAL RECORDS

NPL: Also known as Superfund, the National Priority List database is a subset of CERCLIS andidentifies over 1,200 sites for priority cleanup under the Superfund program. The source of this database isthe U.S. EPA.

A review of the NPL list, as provided by EDR, and dated 03/31/2010 has revealed that there are 9 NPL sites within the searched area.

Map ID Address Site ________ ________ _____

TELCOM SEMICONDUCTORS INC 1300 TERRA BELLA AVE 0-4,4,4 PRINTEX CORPORATION PLYMOUTH & COLONY STS. 0-4 SPECTRA-PHYSICS INC 1250 W MIDDLEFIELD ROAD 0-4,4 JASCO CHEM CORP 1710 VILLA ST 0-4,6,6 MOFFETT NAVAL AIR STATION MOFFETT FIELD NAS 0-5,5,5,5,5,5,7,7 INTEL CORPORATION 365 MIDDLEFIELD RD 0-5,5,5,5,5,7,7,7 FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR CORPOR 101 BERNAL RD 0-21 NATIONAL SEMICONDUCTOR CO 313 FAIRCHILD DR 98-5,7 RAYTHEON COMPANY 350 ELLIS ST REMEDIATIO 116-7

CERCLIS: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information Systemcontains data on potentially hazardous waste sites that have been reported to the USEPA by states,municipalities, private companies and private persons, pursuant to Section 103 of the ComprehensiveEnvironmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). CERCLIS contains sites which are eitherproposed to or on the National Priorities List (NPL) and sites which are in the screening and assessment phasefor possible inclusion on the NPL.

A review of the CERCLIS list, as provided by EDR, and dated 01/29/2010 has revealed that there are 16

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


CERCLIS sites within the searched area.


TELCOM SEMICONDUCTORS INC 1300 TERRA BELLA AVE 0-4,4,4 PRINTEX CORPORATION PLYMOUTH & COLONY STS. 0-4 SPECTRA-PHYSICS INC 1250 W MIDDLEFIELD ROAD 0-4,4 JASCO CHEM CORP 1710 VILLA ST 0-4,6,6 MOFFETT NAVAL AIR STATION MOFFETT FIELD NAS 0-5,5,5,5,5,5,7,7 INTEL CORPORATION 365 MIDDLEFIELD RD 0-5,5,5,5,5,7,7,7 FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR CORPOR 101 BERNAL RD 0-21 SIERRA VISTA PROPERTIES 465 SIERRA VISTA WAY 72-4 NATIONAL SEMICONDUCTOR CO 313 FAIRCHILD DR 98-5,7 M-E-W STUDY AREA SHERLAND AVE & N WHISMA 108-7 RAYTHEON COMPANY 350 ELLIS ST REMEDIATIO 116-7 HIGHWAY 101 AND MOFFETT BLVD HIGHWWAY 101/85/MOFFETT 124-6 SYLVANIA SYSTEMS GROUP GTE PRO 100 FERGUSON DR 128-7 SIEMENS COMPONENT 19000 HOMSTEAD RD 179-9 HITACHI GLOBAL STORAGE TECHNOL 5600 COTTLE ROAD 326-20 UNITED TECHNOLOGIES STN 635 & STN 706 360-21

CERC-NFRAP: Archived sites are sites that have been removed and archived from the inventory of CERCLISsites. Archived status indicates that, to the best of EPAs knowledge, assessment at a site has been completedand that EPA has determined no further steps will be taken to list this site on the National Priorities List(NPL), unless information indicates this decision was not appropriate or other considerations require arecommendation for listing at a later time. This decision does not necessarily mean that there is no hazardassociated with a given site; it only means that, based upon available information, the location is not judgedto be a potential NPL site.

A review of the CERC-NFRAP list, as provided by EDR, and dated 06/23/2009 has revealed that there are 18 CERC-NFRAP sites within the searched area.


PALO ALTO CITY DEPARTMENT OF U 3201 EAST BAYSHORE 12-4 FORD AEROSPACE 1036 EAST MEADOW CIRCLE 21-4 CHARLESTON BUSINESS PARK 2400-2460 CHARLESTON RD 36-4 DAVILA INTERNATIONAL CIRCUITS 2420 CHARLESTON RD. 36-4 FORD AEROSPACE (PCB STORAGE LO 3939 FABIAN WAY 37-4 SAN ANTONIO/ W BAYSHORE AREA CHARLESTON & FABIAN 42-4 ADVALLOY INCORPORATED 844 EAST CHARLESTON ROA 42-4 MONTWOOD 1615 PLYMOUTH ST. 63-4 JASCO CHEMICAL CO 1090 TERRA BELLA 86-4 FAIRCHILD LINEAR PRODS DIV 313 FAIRCHILD DR 98-5,7 AIR PRODS & CHEMS INC 465 N WHISMAN RD 105-7 INNERCONN TECHNOLOGIES 327 MOFFETT BLVD 113-6 ACRIAN INC 10131 BUBB RD 187-9 ZILOG CORP 10440 BUBB RD 194-9 ZILOG INC 10460 BUBB RD 194-9 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 1587 DELL AVENUE 236-17,18 BECTON DICKINSON & CO 14300 WINCHESTER BLVD 251-17 KELLY MOORE PAINT CO INC 469 BLOSSOM HILL RD 291-20

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


CORRACTS: CORRACTS is a list of handlers with RCRA Corrective Action Activity. This report showswhich nationally-defined corrective action core events have occurred for every handler that has had correctiveaction activity.

A review of the CORRACTS list, as provided by EDR, and dated 03/25/2010 has revealed that there are 10 CORRACTS sites within the searched area.