INITIAL SITE ASSESSMENT

Transcription

1 INITIAL SITE ASSESSMENT 8 JANUARY 2014 EL CAMINO REAL BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT Santa Clara County For: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Santa Clara County, California Hollis Street, Suite D, Emeryville, CA P: (510) F: (510)

2 8 January Christine Fukasawa ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. 75 East Santa Clara Street, Suite #300 San José, CA Subject: Initial Site Assessment for El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Dear Ms. Fukasawa, Please find enclosed our report documenting the activities, findings, conclusions, and recommendations of an Initial Site Assessment (ISA) prepared for the El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project in Santa Clara County, California. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions regarding this report. Sincerely, Yane Nordhav Principal Prof. Geologist No Patrick Sutton Environmental Engineer YN: PS: TT Final 1/9/ Hollis Street, Suite D, Emeryville, CA P: (510) F: (510)

3 INITIAL SITE ASSESSMENT 8 JANUARY 2014 EL CAMINO REAL BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT Santa Clara County For: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority BASELINE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING 5900 Hollis Street, Suite D, Emeryville, CA P: (510) F: (510)

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... VI 1. INTRODUCTION Purpose of the Initial Site Assessment Scope of Services PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Purpose and Need Alternatives Considered Construction Hazardous Materials and Waste Potential Regional Geology and Hydrogeology METHODOLOGY Hazardous Materials Site Identifications Other Environmental Concerns REVIEW OF DATA SOURCES Historical Aerial Photographs Business Directory Listings Environmental Records EVALUATION OF RELEASE SITES Potential Hazardous Materials Release Sites Known Hazardous Materials Release Sites OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS Residual Groundwater Contamination Aerially Deposited Lead Lead Based Paint on Existing Bus Stations Naturally Occurring Asbestos Nonpoint Source Metals Yellow Traffic Stripe and Pavement Markers Asphalt Concrete and Portland Cement DATA GAPS ASTM DEVIATIONS FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Final 1/9/14 iv

5 9.1. Recognized Environmental Conditions Other Environmental Conditions Risk Analysis for Project Alternatives RECOMMENDATIONS Preliminary Site Investigation Hazardous Materials Management and Disposal REFERENCES APPENDICES A: Initial Site Assessment Checklist B: EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package C: EDR DataMap Environmental Atlas FIGURES 1: Regional Location 2: Project Corridor 3: Project Alternatives 4: Physical Setting and Regional Hydrogeology 5: Historical Roadway Development in Commercial and Industrial Areas 6: Historical Roadway Widening in Commercial and Industrial Areas 7: Current and Former Gas Station Sites 8: Current and Former Dry Cleaning Related Facilities 9: Hazardous Materials Use, Storage, and Disposal Sites 10: Recorded Hazardous Materials Release Sites 11: Hazardous Materials Release Sites of Potential Concern TABLES 1: El Camino Real BRT Project Alternatives : BRT Stations : Adjacent and Upgradient Active Hazardous Materials Release Sites Final 1/9/14 v

6 INTIAL SITE ASSESSMENT EL CAMINO REAL BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT SANTA CLARA COUNTY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is proposing to provide bus rapid transit (BRT) improvements along 17.6 miles of El Camino Real (State Route [SR] 82). The El Camino Real BRT Project (Project) corridor passes through the cities of San Jose, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Los Altos, and Palo Alto. The eastern terminus is located at the Arena in San Jose and the western terminus is located at the Palo Alto Transit Center, in Palo Alto. The purpose of this Initial Site Assessment (ISA) is to identify and evaluate the level of risk associated with hazardous materials, hazardous waste, and/or contamination along the Project corridor that could potentially result from the proposed construction activities and/or operations. This ISA has identified a medium risk associated with the following hazardous material concerns: Petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, and/or metals in soil and groundwater from former commercial, industrial, and/or institutional properties on the Project corridor; Petroleum hydrocarbons and chlorinated solvents in groundwater from current and former gas stations, dry cleaners, and other commercial and industrial properties located adjacent to or upgradient of the Project corridor; Hazardous materials in groundwater from active hazardous materials release sites located adjacent or upgradient of the Project corridor; Aerially deposited lead in soil; and, Metals in catch basin sediments. This ISA has also identified a low risk associated with the following hazardous material concerns: Residual groundwater contamination from closed hazardous materials release sites; Lead and hexavalent chromium in yellow traffic stripes and pavement markings; and, Final 1/9/14 vi

7 Metals and petroleum hydrocarbons in asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete grindings. Once a preferred alternative has been chosen and areas of excavation are determined, BASELINE Environmental Consulting recommends performing a Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) prior to Project construction to characterize the quality of soil, groundwater, and construction material in the areas of concern identified in this ISA that would be disturbed by the proposed improvements. Analytical results should be screened against applicable regulatory thresholds to evaluate appropriate actions to determine appropriate disposal and/or reuse options. Groundwater from dewatering of excavations, if any, should be stored in tank(s) during construction activities and the water quality should be characterized prior to disposal or recycling. Asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete grindings should be reused in accordance with San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board guidelines for Department of Transportation (Caltrans) projects or transported off site for recycling or disposal. This and all other environmental investigations for the Project should be provided to the Project contractors, so the findings may be incorporated into their Health and Safety and Hazards Communication Programs Final 1/9/14 vii

8 INITIAL SITE ASSESSMENT EL CAMINO REAL BUS RAPID TRANSIT SANTA CLARA COUNTY 1. INTRODUCTION The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is proposing to provide bus rapid transit (BRT) improvements (Project) along 17.6 miles of El Camino Real. BRT is defined as a highquality, high speed form of bus transit that provides services and amenities similar to light rail but at a much lower cost. The El Camino Real BRT Project (Project) would support the development of a balanced multi modal corridor consistent with local and regional planning. The Project would include mixed flow lanes (lanes for all vehicular travel) and could include BRT dedicated lanes (lanes for exclusive use of BRT and emergency vehicles). The Project would accommodate buses that would allow boarding level with the curb, pedestrian and bicycle enhancements, augmented landscaping, street lighting, and intersection improvements. The Project would also enhance the existing traffic signal system giving buses priority at signals over general vehicular traffic. BASELINE Environmental Consulting (BASELINE) conducted this Initial Site Assessment (ISA) for the Project Purpose of the Initial Site Assessment BASELINE performed this ISA in support of the preliminary engineering and environmental review of the Project. The purpose of this assessment was to identify and evaluate the level of risk associated with hazardous materials, hazardous waste, and/or contamination along the Project corridor that could potentially result from the proposed construction activities and/or operations in accordance with Chapter 10 of the Caltrans Environmental Handbook (Caltrans, 2012a). The Caltrans Environmental Handbook guidance is intended to fulfill both state and federal environmental review requirements. As required by Caltrans, potential sources of contamination along the Project corridor were identified as Recognized Environmental Conditions 1 (RECs) in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Method E , Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Assessment Process. 1 RECs are defined in ASTM E 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 petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, ground water, or surface water of the property. According to ASTM E , the term REC is not intended to include 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 authorities Final 1/9/14 1

9 1.2. Scope of Services The scope of services for this ISA included review of physical setting sources, historical aerial photographs (EDR, 2013a), business directory listings, and regulatory agency environmental records (EDR, 2013b). Based on the review process, this report was prepared to document the findings, conclusions, and recommendations. A completed ISA checklist for the Project is included as Appendix A. 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project is primarily located along El Camino Real, a state owned route (State Route [SR] 82), in Santa Clara County (Project corridor) 2 (Figure 1). In San José, the Project corridor is located on West Santa Clara Street and The Alameda; these facilities are under the jurisdiction of the City of San José. The Project corridor extends 17.6 miles from east to west, and passes through the cities of San José, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Los Altos, and Palo Alto. The eastern terminus is located at the Arena in downtown San José, and the western terminus is located at the Palo Alto Transit Center, in downtown Palo Alto (refer to Figure 2). The Project corridor is a four lane east west facility in San José and a six lane facility between Santa Clara and Palo Alto Project Purpose and Need The purpose of the El Camino Real BRT Project is to: Increase the reliability, frequency, and travel speed of transit along the El Camino Real corridor. Improve transit amenities and facilities to provide greater comfort and safety. Enhance the multi modal character of El Camino Real, with street improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists. Contribute to the implementation of the transit goals and objectives of the Grand Boulevard Initiative (El Camino Real). Contribute to City General and Specific Plans that call for a greater role for transit to complement their growth strategies. Improve efficiency and cost effectiveness of transit services in the corridor. The El Camino Real BRT Project is needed to address substantial population and employment growth over the next 20 years, which will place a heavy demand on existing transportation infrastructure. Within this timeframe, traffic volumes are anticipated to increase and a greater number of intersections along the Project corridor will experience a poor level of service. 2 For the purposes of this document, references to the Project corridor include West Santa Clara Street, The Alameda, and El Camino Real between the cities of San Jose and Palo Alto Final 1/9/14 2

10 To encourage a modal shift from automobile travel to transit on the Project corridor, it will be necessary to provide better transit alternatives to ensure the continuation of effective and efficient transit service. This modal shift will be consistent with regional and local transportation planning described in the BRT Strategic Plan, Grand Boulevard Initiative (GBI) Transportation Corridor Plan, and Plan Bay Area, as well as approved plans for the jurisdictions in the Project corridor Alternatives Considered Four Project alternatives are proposed including the No Build Alternative and three Build Alternatives including design options (refer to Figure 3). Table 1 shows the Alternative names and provides a brief description of each alternative. Each of the Build Alternatives includes mixed flow lanes and curbside bulbout stations in the City of San José. The short and long dedicated lane alternatives include a combination of mixed flow and dedicated lanes elsewhere along the Project corridor. Under all Build Alternatives, except Alternative 3a (described below), there would be 14 new branded BRT stations (in addition, three other optional BRT station locations are being considered, of which two may be chosen, for a total of up to 16 new BRT stations). Under Alternative 3a, there would be 6 new branded BRT stations. Where the BRT operates in mixed flow lanes, typically the existing curbside bus stops would be removed and replaced with new BRT stations to be used by both BRT and local buses. Where there are dedicated lanes, the existing bus stops would be maintained for local bus services, and new BRT stations would be constructed in the median. Table 2 lists the locations of the proposed BRT stations. A brief description of the amenities included under the Build Alternatives follows. Mixed Flow Lanes. In mixed flow lane segments between Santa Clara and Palo Alto, the Project would continue to provide six lanes (three lanes in each direction) and BRT stations would be constructed. These stations would include bulbouts and extend the sidewalk into the parking or curb lane to provide BRT buses with better station accessibility. Signal improvements would be installed at signal locations that do not currently have transit signal priority (TSP), but otherwise, there would be no other improvements between the station areas. Dedicated Lanes. A dedicated lane configuration for a portion of the corridor between Santa Clara and Palo Alto would use two of the six lanes (one in each direction) exclusively for BRT transit and emergency vehicles only, leaving four general purpose lanes for other traffic. The dedicated lanes would be center running and would be 11 to 13 feet wide. At median stations, turn lanes would be maintained to the extent possible, with additional width for the stations gained by removing existing curbside parking or reducing the width of the existing median. At intersections where space allows, curb bulbouts would be constructed to shorten crossing distances. Signal improvements would be implemented at signals that do not currently have TSP. Parking. Curbside parking would be maintained to the extent possible, although some loss of street parking would occur under each of the Build Alternatives. Dedicated lane segments would include bicycle lanes in the place of parking Final 1/9/14 3

11 BRT Vehicles. To clearly differentiate BRT service from local or other bus transit services, VTA would use distinctive vehicles and specialized branding to call out the BRT service as unique, innovative, and distinctive. Transit Signals. Additional TSP infrastructure would be provided throughout the Project corridor at signals in segments that do not now have TSP. Stations. New BRT stations would be equipped with enhanced amenities, similar to VTA s light rail stations. Table 1. El Camino Real BRT Project Alternatives Alternative Name Abbreviated Name 1 No Build from San José to Palo Alto 2 All Mixed Flow from San José to Palo Alto Short Dedicated Lane 3a 3b Long Dedicated Lane 4a 4b 4c Lafayette Street to Halford Avenue in Santa Clara Lafayette Street to Halford Avenue plus Mixed Flow West of Halford Avenue Lafayette Street in Santa Clara to SR 85 in Mountain View Lafayette Street in Santa Clara to Showers Drive in Mountain View Lafayette Street in Santa Clara to Embarcadero Road in Palo Alto Alt 1 No Build Alt 2 All Mixed Flow Alt 3a Short Dedicated (No Build West of Halford) Alt 3b Short Dedicated (Mixed Flow West of Halford) Alt 4a Long Dedicated (SR 85) Alt 4b Long Dedicated (Showers Drive) Alt 4c Long Dedicated (Embarcadero Road) Description VTA would not undertake any improvements to El Camino Real. No dedicated bus only lanes; only mixedflow lanes and full curbside bulbout stations. Mixed flow lanes and full bulbout stations between San José and Lafayette Street in Santa Clara, dedicated lanes between Lafayette Street and Halford Avenue, and no improvements between Halford Avenue and Palo Alto. Dedicated lanes between Lafayette Street and Halford Avenue in Santa Clara with mixed flow lanes and full curbside bulbout stations in all other areas. Dedicated lanes between Lafayette Street and SR 85 with mixed flow lanes and full curbside bulbout stations in all other areas. Dedicated lanes between Lafayette Street and Showers Drive with mixed flow lanes and full curbside bulbout stations in all other areas. Dedicated lanes between Lafayette Street and Embarcadero Road with mixed flow lanes and full curbside bulbout stations in all other areas. Source: VTA, Final 1/9/14 4

12 Table 2. BRT Stations City Jurisdiction Proposed Station San José Arena (this station is to be constructed by VTA s Santa Clara Alum Rock [SCAR] BRT Project) Race/Julian Taylor/Naglee Santa Clara Santa Clara Transit Center Scott Kiely Flora Vista Sunnyvale Wolfe Fair Oaks Hollenbeck Bernardo Mountain View Castro Escuela (Optional Station) Los Altos Showers Palo Alto Arastradero California Churchill or Embarcadero (Optional Station) Palo Alto Transit Center (existing) Alternative 1: No Build from San José to Palo Alto Alternative Source: VTA, 2013 Alternative 1, the No Build from San José to Palo Alto Alternative (No Build Alternative), would not include BRT service and assumes that the existing roadway and transit services in the Project corridor would continue. Local bus route 22 (Local 22) would continue to run in the El Camino Real corridor. Rapid 522 buses would be replaced in 2014 by BRT buses that would run at 10 minute headways. The 2014 BRT buses would provide near level boarding, resulting in easier and faster boarding and off boarding. Under Alternative 1, there would be no station improvements and no off board fare collection Alternative 2: All Mixed Flow from San José to Palo Alto Build Alternative 2, the All Mixed Flow from San José to Palo Alto (All Mixed Flow) Alternative, would provide mixed flow lanes along the entire 17.6 mile Project corridor. This would include development of curbside bulbout BRT branded stations along the Project corridor Alternative 3: Short Dedicated Lane Under Build Alternative 3, the Short Dedicated Lane Alternative, a certain portion of the Project corridor would have dedicated lanes. Under Build Alternative 3, there are two options (3a and 3b). Under each of the options, there would be mixed flow lanes from the Arena in San José to Final 1/9/14 5

13 Lafayette Street in Santa Clara and a 3.0 mile dedicated lane from Lafayette Street in Santa Clara to Halford Street in Santa Clara. The two options differ in their configuration west of Halford Street to the Palo Alto Transit Center. Alternative 3a does not include any further BRT infrastructure west of Halford Avenue, and 3b includes a mixed flow configuration with full bulbout stations (similar to Alternative 2) west of Halford Avenue Alternative 4: Long Dedicated Lane Build Alternative 4, the Long Dedicated Lane Alternative, would provide a dedicated lane segment along the Project corridor. There are three options considered under Alternative 4 (4a, 4b, and 4c) which differ based on the extent of the dedicated lane. Under each of the options, there would be mixed flow lanes from the Arena in San José to Lafayette Street in Santa Clara and west of the dedicated lane terminus to the Palo Alto Transit Center. Alternative 4a would have a 7.1 mile dedicated lane segment from Lafayette Street in Santa Clara to SR 85 in Mountain View. Alternative 4b would have a 10.1 mile dedicated lane segment from Lafayette Street in Santa Clara to Showers Drive in Mountain View. Alternative 4c would have the longest dedicated lane segment (13.9 miles) from Lafayette Street in Santa Clara to Embarcadero Road in Palo Alto Construction Construction Scenario Construction of the Project would consist of BRT stations for passenger boarding, curb bulbouts, paving, striping, and associated landscaping and utility improvements. BRT station platforms for mixed flow lane scenarios would be constructed as an extension (i.e., bulbout) of the existing sidewalk. BRT station platforms for dedicated lanes would be constructed in the street median. Should dedicated lanes be constructed as part of the Project, construction staging activities would occur within the two median lanes (in the center of the Project corridor). Should mixed flow lanes be constructed as part of the Project, temporary closure of one existing through lane in each direction (two lanes) may be required in the vicinity of station platform construction. These lanes for curbside stations would be returned to through traffic after the majority of construction at any individual platform is completed. In order to minimize disruption to the traveling public that uses the Project corridor, it is anticipated that the Project would be constructed in stages and existing sidewalks would remain intact to the greatest extent possible. It is anticipated that Project construction would take approximately two (2) years to complete. To the extent feasible, detours/service interruptions would be disclosed to affected parties in advance and occur during non peak periods. The following outlines the anticipated methods of construction staging for the purposes of identifying and evaluating potential construction impacts. Specific construction staging requirements will be defined during the final design process Construction Activities The contractor s work plan would likely maximize productivity of the labor and equipment force employed, minimize mobilizations, and keep subcontractors workloads grouped together, Final 1/9/14 6

14 while progressing through the Project corridor in a linear fashion. While the exact schedule would be prepared by the contractor, a logical approach would involve construction in these steps: Install construction area signage Relocate utilities Construct curb bulbouts and curbside bulbout stations Construct median stations Reconstruct BRT lanes Repair and overlay street Complete striping, signs, and landscaping To minimize construction impacts and shorten the total duration of construction, several noncontiguous areas would be constructed simultaneously. Within each area work would be sequenced such that individual traffic delays are minimized. Closures would require advance approval by the resident engineer and would be allowed mostly during periods of low traffic defined through traffic studies made during the design phase in support of the construction activity. The majority of construction would occur during daylight hours, but some nighttime work may be required to permit temporary closures for tasks that could interfere with daytime traffic or create safety hazards. Examples of these tasks include placing and removing temporary concrete barriers, certain utility relocation activities, canopy installation, or pavement conforms. During excavation, station construction, and pavement rehabilitation operations, the contractor would restrict parking and place long term lane closures where work is active. The contractor would be required to safely protect the excavation each day during hours of non activity. It is anticipated that bicycles would share the road during this stage. The construction work through intersections would likely be performed under a flagging operation and temporary steel plates may be required to maintain traffic during non working hours. A transportation management plan (TMP) would be developed in conjunction with the local municipalities prior to construction. The TMP would provide a plan for the advance notice to residents, businesses, motorists, transit users, and emergency service providers of construction activities and durations, temporary closures, detours, and access issues during each stage of construction. The TMP would identify services to facilitate the safe implementation of the construction project, such as increased California Highway Patrol presence during critical construction operations Final 1/9/14 7

15 2.4. Hazardous Materials and Waste Potential Construction of the Project would require the use of common hazardous materials (e.g., fuels, lubricants, paints, adhesives), which would be transported and used on site. Small quantities of other common hazardous materials (cleaning and maintenance products) would be expected to be used during operation of the Project. Following construction, no hazardous materials would be anticipated to be stored or disposed of, and no hazardous wastes would be generated, at Project improvements Regional Geology and Hydrogeology The elevation profile along the project alignment varies from approximately 37 to 143 feet above mean sea level (amsl), with an average elevation of approximately 88 feet amsl. The Project corridor is generally underlain by Holocene and Pleistocene alluvium (Graymer, R.W, et al., 2006). There are nine waterway crossings in the Project limits (San Tomas Aquino Creek, Saratoga Creek, Calabazas Creek, Sunnyvale East Channel, Stevens Creek, Permanente Creek, Adobe Creek, Barron Creek, and Matadero Creek) that discharge to the San Francisco Bay located north of the Project corridor (Figure 4). Based on review of recent groundwater data collected at 13 Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites located near the Project corridor (State Water Resources Control Board [SWRCB], 2013a), groundwater flow generally follows the local topography to the northwest, north, and northeast. Depth to groundwater below ground surface (bgs) varies between about 6 and 60 feet near the Project corridor (SWRCB, 2013b), with the deepest groundwater levels observed from about SR 85 (Mountain View) to South Wolfe Road (Sunnyvale) where the local surface elevations are highest (Figure 4). Conversely, the shallowest groundwater levels would be expected in the easternmost and westernmost portions of the Project corridor, where the elevation is the lowest. The maximum depths of proposed excavation for potential traffic signals and bus stations are about 10 and 16 feet bgs, respectively. Based on the preliminary locations of potential traffic signals, BRT stations, and associated utility work, Project excavations may encounter groundwater from about the Palo Alto Transit Center (Palo Alto) to East Charleston Road (Palo Alto), and from about Lawrence Expressway (Santa Clara) to the Arena (San José) (Figure 4). 3. METHODOLOGY 3.1. Hazardous Materials Site Identifications Historical aerial photographs, business directory listings, and regulatory agency environmental records were reviewed to identify known or potential sites associated with hazardous materials within a mile of the Project corridor. These sites were then evaluated to identify known or potential releases of hazardous materials that could impact soils and/or groundwater beneath Final 1/9/14 8

16 the Project corridor. The overall data review and site evaluation process is presented in the diagram, below. DIAGRAM: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITE REVIEW PROCESS REVIEW OF DATA SOURCES Historical Aerial Photographs Business Directory Listings Environmental Records EVALUATION OF RELEASE SITES Potential Hazardous Materials Release Sites (e.g., gas stations and dry cleaners) Known Hazardous Materials Release Sites (i.e., Regulated Sites) Following the review of data sources and evaluation of hazardous materials release sites, the level of risk related to each site that could impact the Project, as well as other environmental concerns, was assessed and RECs were identified in accordance with the ASTM standard and Caltrans guidelines Other Environmental Concerns Based on Caltrans guidelines and previous experience working on large highway development projects, BASELINE identified and evaluated other environmental concerns that could pose a risk to Project development. These environmental concerns include residual groundwater contamination, aerially deposited lead (ADL), metals from non point sources, naturallyoccurring asbestos, and hazardous construction materials Final 1/9/14 9

17 4. REVIEW OF DATA SOURCES BASELINE contracted with Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR), an environmental resource service, to compile historical aerial photographs, identify potential locations of former gas stations and dry cleaners from business directory listings, and conduct a preliminary search of federal, state, tribal, and local regulatory agency records pertaining to past and present hazardous materials use, storage, generation, disposal, and releases on properties at or near the Project corridor. Descriptions of the data sources reviewed are documented in the EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package in Appendix B and the EDR DataMap Environmental Atlas in Appendix C Historical Aerial Photographs Historical land uses in the Project vicinity were determined by reviewing historical aerial photographs. The aerial photographs were geocoded and imported into a Geographic Information System (GIS) to spatially analyze land use developments relative to the Project corridor. The aerial photographs reviewed for this ISA are included in Appendix B. The Project corridor forms part of the historic El Camino Real mission trail established by Spanish missionaries circa 1777 (California State Parks, 2013). As early as 1939, most of the Project corridor had been paved for continued use as a major transportation corridor between cities. However, the segment of the Project corridor between the intersections of De La Cruz Boulevard and The Alameda in the City of Santa Clara was not developed for transportation until about the early 1990s (EDR, 2013a). Prior to redevelopment for transportation, this segment of the Project corridor was occupied by either commercial, industrial, and/or institutional structures (Figure 5). As early as 1939, properties surrounding the Project corridor had been developed for a mixture of urban and agricultural land uses. By the 1950s most of the agricultural land had been redeveloped by urban expansion. Between 1968 and 1974, the roadway width was expanded to include more traffic lanes along the Project corridor (EDR, 2013a). Numerous commercial and industrial properties located adjacent to the Project corridor were partially acquired as a result of the roadway expansion (Figure 6) Business Directory Listings Current and former locations of potential gas stations and dry cleaning facilities were assessed using business directory listings compiled by EDR (2013b). The EDR report identified a total of 317 gas station sites and 163 dry cleaner sites in the Project vicinity between 1922 and The business directory listings are included in Appendix C Environmental Records On June 14, 2013, an environmental records search was conducted by EDR that identified 2,041 records of sites that have used, stored, handled, disposed, or released hazardous materials within 1 mile of the Project corridor (EDR, 2013b). The environmental records are Final 1/9/14 10

18 included in Appendix C. The records from the EDR report were imported into a relational database to select only the standard record sources presented in ASTM E The standard records were then imported into GIS to spatially select records within the minimum search distances presented in ASTM E After data processing, there were 243 records of sites that use, store, handle, or dispose of hazardous materials adjacent to the Project corridor (within 500 feet) and 709 records of sites that have released hazardous materials within up to 1 mile of the Project corridor. Many of the sites are represented by more than 1 record under different names and/or addresses, which means that the total number of actual sites is likely less than the total number of records. 5. EVALUATION OF RELEASE SITES 5.1. Potential Hazardous Materials Release Sites Former Commercial/Industrial/Institutional Properties The Project corridor between the De La Cruz Boulevard and The Alameda intersections in the City of Santa Clara was formerly occupied by commercial, industrial, and/or institutional properties (Figure 5). In addition, numerous commercial and industrial properties were partially acquired between 1968 and 1974 to expand the width of the Project corridor (Figure 6). If underground storage tanks (USTs) were used to store fuel on these properties, the tanks may have leaked and/or been abandoned in place beneath the Project corridor. In addition, undocumented spills or disposal of hazardous materials (if any), such as chlorinated solvents, petroleum hydrocarbons, or metals, could have impacted soil and/or groundwater beneath the Project corridor. Therefore, commercial, industrial, and/or institutional properties formerly acquired along the Project corridor could be sources of potential soil and/or groundwater contamination Gas Stations Prior to the early 1990s, most gas stations used USTs that were made of steel without corrosion protection. As a result, many of these tanks corroded over time and leaked petroleum hydrocarbons into the soil and groundwater; releases also commonly occurred at or near the dispensers and during filling of the USTs. The 317 current and/or former gas stations reported by EDR (2013b) in the Project vicinity were imported into GIS to spatially analyze sites that could be a potential source of groundwater contamination. Groundwater contamination from gas stations located adjacent to or upgradient of the Project corridor could pose a risk by migrating beneath the Project corridor. Based on the regional hydrogeology (Figure 4), 234 of the reported gas stations are located adjacent to or upgradient of (within about 2,000 feet) the Project corridor (Figure 7). Many of these sites have known releases of petroleum hydrocarbons and regulatory response actions, such as groundwater monitoring and remediation, have either been completed or are currently being implemented at these sites. However, potentially undocumented releases of petroleum hydrocarbons from current or former gas station sites could also have resulted in groundwater contamination that could have migrated beneath the Project corridor Final 1/9/14 11

19 Dry Cleaners The State Coalition for Remediation of Dry Cleaners (SCRD, 2010) estimates that 75 percent of historical operations at all active dry cleaning facilities in the United States have caused subsurface contamination from releases of dry cleaning solvents. Chlorinated solvents, such as perchloroethylene, are highly toxic and can persist in the environment for many decades. Dry cleaning facilities can be considered potential sources of undocumented releases of chlorinated solvents based on the SCRD report. The 163 current and/or former dry cleaning related facilities reported by EDR (2013b) in the Project vicinity were imported into GIS to spatially analyze sites that could be a potential source of groundwater contamination. Groundwater contamination from dry cleaners located adjacent to or upgradient of the Project corridor could pose a risk by migrating beneath the Project corridor. Based on the regional hydrogeology (Figure 4), 125 of the reported dry cleaning related facilities are located adjacent to or upgradient of (within about 2,000 feet) the Project corridor (Figure 8). Potentially undocumented releases of chlorinated solvents from these dry cleaners could have resulted in groundwater contamination that could have migrated beneath the Project corridor Adjacent Commercial and Industrial Land Uses The EDR report included 243 records of sites that use, store, and/or dispose of hazardous materials adjacent to the Project corridor (EDR, 2013b). Environmental record sources included federally registered hazardous waste generators under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), federally registered dry cleaning related facilities, and state registered underground and aboveground storage tanks. The locations of these recorded sites are generally associated with commercial and industrial properties, which are distributed ubiquitously along the Project corridor (Figure 9). The large quantity and apparent long history (as early as 1939) of commercial and industrial properties that would likely be managing hazardous materials adjacent to the Project corridor has possibly resulted in undocumented releases of hazardous materials. Groundwater plumes of dissolved organic contaminants, such as petroleum hydrocarbons and chlorinated solvents, could have migrated beneath the Project corridor Known Hazardous Materials Release Sites The EDR report included 709 records of sites with reported releases of hazardous materials within one mile of the Project corridor (EDR, 2013b). Groundwater contamination from hazardous materials release sites located on, adjacent to, or upgradient of the Project corridor could pose a risk of impacting groundwater beneath the Project corridor. Based on the regional hydrogeology (Figure 4), 362 of the recorded sites are located on, adjacent to, or upgradient of the Project corridor (Figure 10). Groundwater contamination from the other 347 recorded sites located farther downgradient of the Project corridor (Figure 10) does not likely pose a risk of impacting groundwater beneath the Project corridor. Hazardous materials release sites of concern are further summarized, below Final 1/9/14 12

20 On Site Spills and Leaks The EDR report included 37 records of sites with reported spills or leaks of hazardous materials that could have occurred on the Project corridor. Environmental record sources include the federal Emergency Response Notification System, federal Incident and Accident Data, and California Hazardous Materials Incident Report System. Based on available address information and review of the SWRCB GeoTracker and Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health s Local Oversight Program (LOP) databases, the 37 EDR records relate to 27 actual site locations (i.e., 10 site records had overlapping site information). Regulatory responses to potential hazardous materials spills were reported at 25 of the site locations for the following materials: sewage, grease, oil, petroleum, hydrochloric acid, acetone, anti freeze, gasoline, cupric chloride and paint. Based on available information, there is no indication that additional regulatory response actions are necessary to remove contaminants of concern at the 25 spill sites. Two LUST sites were reported on the Project corridor (Sites 316A and 317 on Figure 11). The current regulatory status of each LUST site is summarized below. Caltrans, 651 Harrison St, Santa Clara A 500 gallon gasoline UST and a 1,000 gallon diesel UST were removed from the Caltrans site in 1988 (Site 316A on Figure 11). As a result of the UST leaking, the soil around the gasoline UST was over excavated to about 19 feet bgs and about 2,250 cubic yards of soil impacted by petroleum hydrocarbons was removed and disposed off site. There was no evidence of leaking from the diesel UST. Additional soil excavation was performed in 1989 to remove soils impacted by the petroleum hydrocarbons to maximum depth of 32 feet bgs (Santa Clara Valley Water District [SCVWD], 2002). Regulatory oversight of the Caltrans site was closed in 2002 by the SCVWD because the residual contamination was not expected to pose a threat to groundwater quality, human health, or the environment (SCVWD, 2002). The depth to groundwater reported near the Caltrans site is estimated to be about 8 feet bgs (Figure 4). Project excavations near the Caltrans site that exceed about 8 feet bgs could encounter groundwater impacted by residual gasoline contamination. The residual groundwater contamination does not pose a likely health risk to construction workers, but management of residual groundwater contamination during potential dewatering activities would need to be performed in accordance with applicable statutes and regulations. City of Santa Clara, 1150 El Camino Real, Santa Clara Five 750 gallon gasoline USTs were removed from the City of Santa Clara site in 1990 (Site 317 on Figure 11). As a result of tanks leaking, the soil around the gasoline USTs was over excavated to about 14 feet bgs and about 990 cubic yards of soil impacted by petroleum hydrocarbons was removed for on site aeration and off site disposal. A groundwater extraction system was operated between 1993 and 1996 (SCVWD, 1997) Final 1/9/14 13

21 Regulatory oversight of the City of Santa Clara site was closed in 1997 by the SCVWD because the residual contamination was not expected to pose a threat to public health, safety, or the environment (SCVWD, 1997). The depth to groundwater reported near the City of Santa Clara site is estimated to be about 10 feet bgs (Figure 4). Project excavations near the City of Santa Clara site that exceed about 10 feet bgs could encounter groundwater impacted by residual gasoline contamination. The residual groundwater contamination does not pose a likely health risk to construction workers, but management of residual groundwater contamination during potential dewatering activities would need to be performed in accordance with applicable statutes and regulations Adjacent Release Sites The EDR report included 218 records of sites with hazardous materials releases that occurred adjacent to the Project corridor (within about 500 feet). Based on review of site information from the SWRCB GeoTracker, Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor, and the Santa Clara County LOP databases, the regulatory oversight statuses of 187 of the recorded release sites adjacent to the Project corridor are closed. A closed site indicates that regulatory requirements for response actions, such as site assessment and remediation, have either been completed or were not necessary and therefore potential migration of residual contaminants in groundwater beneath the Project corridor (if any) does not likely pose a risk to human health and the environment. However, management of residual groundwater contamination (if any) during potential dewatering would need to be performed in accordance with applicable statutes and regulations. The remaining 31 records of adjacent sites with active regulatory oversight are related to 21 actual site locations (i.e., 10 site records had overlapping site information). The potential contaminants of concern, affected media, and environmental record sources associated with the 21 active release sites located adjacent to the Project corridor are summarized in Table 3. Four of the active release sites have no reported impacts to groundwater and therefore do not likely pose a risk of impacting subsurface conditions along the Project corridor (Sites 106, 180, 344, and 357 in Table 3). Hazardous materials released at the remaining 17 active sites located adjacent to the Project have reportedly impacted groundwater and could potentially affect groundwater quality beneath the Project corridor (Table 3 and Figure 11) Upgradient Release Sites The EDR report included 104 records of sites with hazardous materials releases that occurred more than 500 feet upgradient of the Project corridor. Based on review of site information from the SWRCB GeoTracker, DTSC EnviroStor, and Santa Clara County LOP databases, the regulatory oversight statuses of 77 of the recorded release sites upgradient of the Project corridor are closed. Potential migration of residual groundwater contamination from closed sites beneath the Project corridor (if any) does not likely pose a risk to human health and the environment. However, management of residual groundwater contamination (if any) during potential dewatering would need to be performed in accordance with applicable statutes and regulations Final 1/9/14 14

22 The remaining 27 records of upgradient sites with active regulatory oversight statuses relate to 19 actual sites locations (i.e., 8 site records had overlapping site information). The potential contaminants of concern, affected media, and environmental record sources associated with the 19 active release sites located upgradient of the Project corridor are summarized in Table 3. Three of the active release sites have no reported impacts to groundwater and, therefore, do not likely pose a risk of impacting subsurface conditions along the Project corridor (Sites 226, 475, and 479 on Table 3). Hazardous materials released at the remaining 16 active sites located upgradient of the Project have reportedly impacted groundwater and could potentially affect groundwater quality beneath the Project corridor (Table 3 and Figure 11). 6. OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS The following discussions are about sources of potential hazardous materials that could pose an environmental risk to the Project, but are considered outside the standard scope of ASTM E (i.e., do not necessarily meet the definition of an REC) Residual Groundwater Contamination Residual groundwater contamination from closed hazardous materials release sites does likely pose a threat to human health and the environment. However, removal of residual groundwater contamination (if any) during Project excavation activities would need to be performed in accordance with applicable statutes and regulations. The regulatory oversight status of 266 recorded release sites located on, adjacent to, or upgradient of the Project corridor is closed. Based on the large quantity of closed release sites, residual groundwater contamination may likely be present beneath the Project corridor Aerially Deposited Lead Lead alkyl compounds were first added to gasoline in the 1920s. Beginning in 1973, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ordered a gradual phase out of lead from gasoline that significantly reduced the prevalence of leaded gasoline by the mid 1980s. Prior to the 1970s, the EPA estimated that vehicles emitted approximately 75 percent of the lead consumed in leaded gasoline as particulate matter in the exhaust (DTSC, 2004). As a result, shallow soils within approximately 30 feet of the edge of pavement in highway corridors have the potential to be contaminated with ADL from historical car emissions prior to the elimination of lead in gasoline (DTSC, 2009a). Based on a review of historical aerial photographs, the Project corridor was used as a major transportation corridor for automobiles before the full phase out of lead in gasoline. Therefore, exposed shallow soils along the Project corridor (e.g., within the roadway median) could be contaminated with ADL Final 1/9/14 15

23 Table 3. Adjacent and Upgradient Active Hazardous Materials Release Sites SITE INFORMATION POTENTIAL MEDIA AFFECTED POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN REGULATORY DATABASE REGULATORY AGENCY ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS Groundwater Soil Site ID Site Name Address City Environmental Records Search Distance (Miles): Adjacent Active Sites (< 500 feet away) 56 Shell 2200 El Camino Real Palo Alto X X X X X 66 Stanford Cleaners 2875 El Camino Real Palo Alto X X X X X X 84A Shell 3601 El Camino Real Palo Alto X X X X X 84B Combes Auto Repair 3585 El Camino Real Palo Alto X X X X X 180 Fluff Dry Laundry Cleaning 803 West El Camino Real Mountain View X X X X X 229 Exxon # W El Camino Real Sunnyvale X X X X 237 Shell 905 El Camino Real Sunnyvale X X X X 335 Mobil Service Station 04 LJK (Exxonmobil) 3155 El Camino Real Santa Clara X X X X X 342 Exxon RAS # El Camino Real Santa Clara X X X X 344 El Camino Senior Apartments El Camino Real Santa Clara X X X X 346 Car Town El Camino Real Santa Clara X X X X X X 347 Moonlite Cleaners 2640 El Camino Real Santa Clara X X X X X X 357 Santa Clara Police Station 501 El Camino Real Santa Clara X X X X 404 Shell 2090 The Alameda San Jose X X X X 456 San Jose Sports Arena 525 W Santa Clara St San Jose X X X X X X X X X 313 Firestone Store El Camino W Santa Clara X X X X 79 Varian 611 Hansen Way Palo Alto X X X X X X X X 359 Estate Of Carmen Laherran 1499 Lincoln St Santa Clara X X X X 106 Hyatt Rickeys El Camino Real Palo Alto X X X X 316 Griffin Auto Parts 3505 The Alameda Santa Clara X X X X 33 Town & Country Cleaners 855 El Camino Real Palo Alto X X X X X X Soil Vapor Surface Water Not Reported Petroleum Hydrocarbons Chlorinated Hydrocarbons Polychlorinated biphenyls Other VOCs Pesticides Metals GeoTracker 1 EnviroStor 2 SLIC LUST CORTESE Envirostor RCRA Non CORRACTS TSD CERCLIS NFRAP CERCLIS RCRA CORRACTS NPL and State Response Final 1/9/14 16

24 SITE INFORMATION POTENTIAL MEDIA AFFECTED POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN REGULATORY DATABASE REGULATORY AGENCY ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS Site ID Site Name Address City Groundwater Soil Soil Vapor Surface Water Not Reported Petroleum Hydrocarbons Chlorinated Hydrocarbons Polychlorinated biphenyls Other VOCs Pesticides Metals GeoTracker 1 EnviroStor 2 Environmental Records Search Distance (Miles): Upgradient Non Adjacent Active Sites (> 500 feet away) 0 Hewlett Packard ( Page Mill Road) Page Mill Rd. Palo Alto X X X X X X X X X 19 Stanford Univ. Med. Center 211 Quarry Rd. Palo Alto X X X X 71 Varian Associates / Intevac 601 S. California Ave. Palo Alto X X X X X X X X X 82 Eastman Kodak Co 925 Page Mill Rd Palo Alto X X X X X X 89 Varian Medical Systems 3120 Hansen Way Palo Alto X X X X X X X X 104 Aydin Energy 3180 Hanover Palo Alto X X X X X X 105 Hewlett 1501 Page Mill Rd 1501 Page Mill Palo Alto X X X X X X X X 108 Hillview Porter Plume Hillview Avenue and Porter Drive Palo Alto X X X X X 226 Adachi Property 1991 Sun Mor Drive Mountain View X X X X 363 Santa Clara Un. Bioswale 3205 The Alameda Santa Clara X X X X X 387 Unocal SS # The Alameda Santa Clara X X X X 475 Perrucci Properties 53 Montgomery S San Jose X X X X 477 Marian Johnson 59 South Autumn Street San Jose X X X X 478 Flores Property 1490 Park Ave San Jose X X X X X 479 Del Monte Plant Bush San Jose X X X X 482 Diridon Caltrain Station 65 Cahill Street San Jose X X X X 487A Adobe Systems Inc 345 Park Ave San Jose X X X X 487B River Park Development Lincoln Props Provost St & Park Ave San Jose X X X X X 494 River Park Devel Lincoln Properties 333 San Carlos St W San Jose X X X X X Notes: Release site is not a potential concern because groundwater impacts were not reported Site locations are shown on Figure 10. Site ID numbers, names, and environmental records derived from the EDR DataMap Environmental Atlas (2013b) in Appendix C. Active regulatory oversight status, potential media affected, and potential contaminants of concern based on review of regulatory agency databases. SLIC 1 SWRCB, GeoTracker Database. Accessed on 5 June. 2 DTSC, EnviroStor Database. Accessed on 5 June. LUST CORTESE Envirostor RCRA Non CORRACTS TSD CERCLIS NFRAP CERCLIS RCRA CORRACTS NPL and State Response Final 1/9/14 17

25 On July 1, 2009 the DTSC issued a variance to Caltrans (Caltrans/DTSC ADL Variance), allowing the reuse of some lead affected soils for construction projects within the Caltrans rights of way (DTSC, 2009b). The Caltrans/DTSC ADL Variance allows the reuse of soils containing total lead at concentrations up to 3,397 milligrams per kilogram, or soluble lead at concentrations up to 150 milligrams per liter within the Project construction area and the Caltrans right of way, subject to certain restrictions and reporting requirements. Should soils affected by Project construction contain ADL, implementation of the Caltrans/DTSC ADL Variance requirements during construction would allow lead affected soils to be managed safely without requiring offsite disposal of excavated soils at a hazardous waste landfill Lead Based Paint on Existing Bus Stations Lead based paint is often present on structures built prior to the late 1970s and early 1980s, when the manufacture of lead based paint was phased out in the United States. Lead is a staterecognized carcinogen and reproductive toxicant (California Environmental Protection Agency, 2012). However, no lead based paints have been used on bus stations in the Project corridor (Clear Channel, 2013), and therefore lead based paints on existing bus station is not a potential concern for the Project Naturally Occurring Asbestos Geologic mapping from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) does not show any areas of rock likely to contain naturally occurring asbestos (ultramafic rock) along the Project corridor (Van Gosen, B.S., and J.P. Clinkenbeard, 2011). Therefore, naturally occurring asbestos in bedrock along the Project corridor would not be expected to be a potential hazard during development of the Project Nonpoint Source Metals Metals from nonpoint runoff sources, such as urban developments, vehicle tires, and brake pads, can accumulate in catch basins over time. Sediments in catch basins along the Project corridor could contain elevated concentrations of metals and pose a risk to human health and the environment if disturbed Yellow Traffic Stripe and Pavement Markers Lead and hexavalent chromium have been used in yellow thermoplastic and yellow paint for traffic striping and pavement marking for many years and as recently as 2004 (Caltrans, 2006). The residue that may be produced from the yellow thermoplastic and yellow paint during road improvement activities may contain lead and hexavalent chromium concentrations that could produce toxic fumes when heated. The debris produced during the removal of yellow thermoplastic and yellow paint may need to be disposed of as a California and/or federal hazardous waste if the concentrations of lead or hexavalent chromium exceed applicable hazardous waste thresholds for total or soluble concentrations of those metals. If lead and hexavalent chromium concentrations are unknown (i.e., previous residue testing has not been conducted), Caltrans Standard Special Provision requires that yellow stripe and Final 1/9/14 18

26 pavement markings be managed as an assumed hazardous waste by implementing a lead compliance plan and testing the residues for hazardous waste classification prior to off site disposal (Caltrans, 2012b) Asphalt Concrete and Portland Cement Asphalt concrete (AC) grindings and Portland cement concrete (PCC) grindings have a relatively high ph and may contain metals and petroleum hydrocarbons that can impact stormwater runoff and threaten surface water bodies. In accordance with guidance from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board), Caltrans projects may reuse AC and PCC grindings as roadway sub base, backfill material, and compacted surface in a maintenance/work yard (Regional Water Board, 2007). Non road base reuse scenarios must be reviewed by the Regional Water Board on a case by case basis. Surplus AC and PCC grindings not reused along the Project corridor may be transported to an aggregate recycling facility or a construction and demolition waste disposal facility. 7. DATA GAPS The ASTM E requires the identification of data gaps, along with actions taken to address these gaps, and an opinion as to whether these gaps are significant. A data gap may result from a lack of or inability to obtain information during any of the activities required by ASTM E , including, but not limited to the review of historical land use information and regulatory agency records, site reconnaissance, or interviews. In particular, review of reasonably ascertainable historical land use information from the first developed land use to the present that does not provide sufficient detail to assess potential land use changes at five year intervals may be considered a data gap. Data gaps were identified during the review of historical aerial photographs due to the time intervals between photographs exceeding 5 years since the first developed land use (Appendix B). The data gaps are not considered significant because land uses were consistent between each data gap. No other data gaps were identified during this ISA. 8. ASTM DEVIATIONS The purpose of this ISA was not to qualify the VTA for landowner liability protections associated with commercial real estate transactions under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). As a result, the following deviations from ASTM E , which are intended to meet or exceed the federal requirements for landowner liability protections under CERCLA, do not have a significant effect on the findings or conclusions of this ISA: The Project corridor is not a single contiguous commercial parcel, as assumed in ASTM E , and therefore a title search to identify potential environmental liens and activity and use limitations associated with commercial parcels was not conducted Final 1/9/14 19

27 Interviews with past, present, and prospective owners or operators who are likely to have material information regarding the potential for contamination along the Project corridor were not conducted, because such persons could not be identified. Interviews with state or local government regulatory agency officials regarding the potential for contamination in the Project vicinity were not conducted, because any information obtained would likely duplicate information already reviewed from federal, state, and local regulatory agency records. A site reconnaissance of the Project corridor to identify potential sources of undocumented hazardous materials releases was not conducted. Due to the Project corridor s length (17.4 miles) combined with heavy traffic conditions in an urban setting, a windshield site reconnaissance was not considered practical or safe. In addition, a site reconnaissance would not likely alter the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of this ISA, because other data sources indicate potential subsurface contamination along the entire Project corridor. 9. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 9.1. Recognized Environmental Conditions We have performed this ISA in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM E for the Project, located between the Arena in downtown San José and the Palo Alto Transit Center in Palo Alto. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 8 of this report. This assessment has revealed no evidence of RECs in connection with the Project corridor except for the following: Potential hazardous materials in soil and groundwater from undocumented releases, if any, associated with former commercial, industrial, and/or institutional properties located within the Project corridor (Figures 5 and 6); Potential petroleum hydrocarbons in groundwater from undocumented leaking USTs, if any, associated with former and current gas stations adjacent to or upgradient of the Project corridor with the potential to migrate and affect the Project corridor (Figure 7); Potential chlorinated solvents in groundwater from undocumented releases, if any, associated with former and current dry cleaners adjacent to or upgradient of the Project corridor with the potential to migrate and affect the Project corridor(figure 8); Potential petroleum hydrocarbons and/or chlorinated solvents in groundwater from undocumented releases, if any, associated with the large number (243) of commercial and industrial properties that have operated adjacent to the Project corridor beginning as early as 1939 (Figure 9); and Final 1/9/14 20

28 Potential groundwater contamination from 33 active release sites located adjacent to or upgradient of the Project corridor that could potentially affect groundwater quality beneath the Project corridor (Table 3 and Figure 11) Other Environmental Conditions This assessment has also identified the following environmental concerns along the Project corridor that are considered outside the standard scope of ASTM E : Residual groundwater contamination from a large number (266) of closed hazardous materials release sites located on, adjacent to, or upgradient of the Project which could have resulted in residual groundwater contamination beneath the Project corridor that may require special management during construction in accordance with applicable statutes and regulations; ADL in exposed shallow soils along the Project corridor from historical vehicle emissions; Elevated concentrations of metals in catch basin sediments from nonpoint sources, which could pose a risk to human health and the environment if disturbed; Lead and hexavalent chromium in existing yellow traffic stripe and pavement marking, that could pose a risk to human health and the environment during Project repaving activities; and High ph, petroleum hydrocarbons, and metals in AC and PCC grindings, that could impact stormwater runoff and threatened surface water quality during Project repaving activities Risk Analysis for Project Alternatives In accordance with the Caltrans Environmental Handbook, this assessment has identified the following risk levels associated with hazardous materials, hazardous waste, and/or contamination along the Project corridor that could potentially affect proposed construction activities and/or operations. Petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, and/or metals in soil and groundwater from former commercial, industrial, and/or institutional properties on the Project corridor (Figures 5 and 6) Medium Risk Petroleum hydrocarbons and chlorinated solvents in groundwater from current and former gas stations (Figure 7), dry cleaners (Figure 8), and other commercial and industrial properties (Figure 9) located adjacent to or upgradient of the Project corridor Medium Risk Hazardous materials in groundwater from active hazardous materials release sites located adjacent or upgradient of the Project corridor (Table 3 and Figure 11) Medium Risk Final 1/9/14 21

29 Residual groundwater contamination along the Project corridor from closed hazardous materials releases sites Low Risk Aerially deposited lead in soil Medium Risk Metals in catch basin sediments Medium Risk Lead and hexavalent chromium in yellow thermoplastic and yellow paint striping and markings on roadways Low Risk Petroleum hydrocarbons, metals, and high ph in asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete grindings Low Risk The risks associated with potential soil contamination and hazardous building materials are ubiquitous along the Project corridor and, therefore, apply to all of the Build Alternatives (Alternatives 2 through 4c). Construction of dedicated lanes would disturb more soil and construction materials potentially associated with hazardous materials than mixed flow BRT lanes. Based primarily on the length of dedicated lanes, the following Build Alternatives are ranked in order from the lowest to highest cumulative risk of being impacted by potential soil contamination and hazardous building materials: Alternative 2, Alternative 3a, Alternative 3b, Alternative 4a, Alternative 4b, and Alternative 4c (Figure 3). Potential groundwater contamination is also ubiquitous along the Project corridor and poses a risk to all of the Build Alternatives. Shallow excavations in the roadway median (about 3 feet bgs) for dedicated lanes would not likely encounter groundwater along the Project corridor. The deepest Project excavations would be for potential traffic signals, BRT stations, and utilities that could range between about 10 and 16 feet bgs. These excavations would be required under all Build Alternatives, though alternatives with longer dedicated lanes could require more signal installations than other alternatives. Deep Project excavations (maximum 16 feet bgs) will not likely encounter groundwater between about Halford Avenue in Santa Clara and Showers Drive in Mountain View (Figure 4). Build Alternative 3a has the lowest cumulative risk of being impacted by potential groundwater contamination for excavations between the Arena in San José and Flora Vista Avenue in Santa Clara. Build Alternatives 2, 3b, 4a, 4b, and 4c generally share the highest cumulative risk of being impacted by potential groundwater contamination for deep excavations between the Arena in San José and Halford Avenue in Santa Clara, and between Showers Drive in Mountain View and the Palo Alto Transit Center. 10. RECOMMENDATIONS Preliminary Site Investigation Once a preferred alternative has been chosen and areas of excavation are determined, a Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) should be performed to investigate hazardous materials concerns related to soil, groundwater, and construction materials on the Project corridor, as identified in this ISA. A workplan for the PSI should be submitted to the Lead Agency for review and approval. Additional investigation may be required to fully evaluate potential hazardous Final 1/9/14 22

30 materials issues if concerns are identified during the PSI. All environmental investigations for the Project should be provided to Project contractors, so the findings may be incorporated into their Health and Safety and Hazard Communication Programs. The general areas and contaminants of concern for investigating soil, groundwater, and construction materials are summarized below Soil Investigation Soil samples should be collected in the areas of concern summarized below if proposed construction activities will disturb the soils in these areas. Soil analytical results should be screened against the Regional Water Board s (2013) Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) to determine appropriate actions to ensure the protection of construction workers and also be screened against hazardous waste thresholds to determine soil management options. Former Commercial/Industrial/Institutional Properties Representative samples of shallow soils should be collected where former commercial, industrial, and institutional buildings were located on the Project corridor and analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, and Title 22 metals (Figures 5 and 6). Alternatively, groundwater samples can be collected and analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons and chlorinated solvents instead of soil samples (see Section ). The location of former properties acquired along the Project corridor relative to a proposed excavation area should be assessed using the historical aerial photographs included in Appendix B. Aerially Deposited Lead Representative samples of exposed shallow soils should be collected along the Project corridor and analyzed for total lead and soluble lead. Sampling of ADL should be performed in accordance with the requirements of the Caltrans/DTSC ADL Variance, if necessary. Catch Basins Representative samples of shallow soils should be collected from catch basins and analyzed for Title 22 metals Groundwater investigation Groundwater samples should be collected in the areas of concern summarized below if proposed construction activities may encounter the groundwater in these areas (Figure 4). Groundwater analytical results should be screened against applicable limits to determine dewatered groundwater management options and potential risks to construction workers who could get into contact with dewatered groundwater. Former Commercial/Industrial/Institutional Properties Representative samples of groundwater should be collected where former commercial, industrial, and/or institutional buildings were located on the Project corridor and analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons and chlorinated solvents (Figures 5 and 6). The Final 1/9/14 23

31 location of former properties acquired along the Project corridor relative to a proposed excavation area should be assessed using the historical aerial photographs included in Appendix B. Adjacent and Upgradient Gas Stations, Dry Cleaners, and Other Commercial and Industrial Properties Representative samples of groundwater should be collected in the vicinity of former and current gas station sites (Figure 7), dry cleaners (Figure 8), and other commercial and industrial properties that manage hazardous materials (Figure 9) when existing groundwater quality data are not available. Groundwater samples should be analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons and/or chlorinated solvents based on the land use. Adjacent and Upgradient Release Sites Representative samples of groundwater should be collected in the vicinity of adjacent or upgradient hazardous materials release sites of concern (Figure 11) when existing groundwater quality data are not available. Groundwater samples should be analyzed for the contaminants of concern corresponding to each release site summarized in Table Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings Survey Representative samples of yellow traffic striping and pavement markings should be collected and analyzed for lead and chromate prior to construction. Alternatively, traffic striping and pavement markings may be managed as an assumed hazardous waste by implementing a lead compliance plan and testing the residues for hazardous waste classification prior to off site disposal in accordance with Caltrans Standard Special Provision Hazardous Materials Management and Disposal Based on the findings and recommendations of the Preliminary Site Investigation, the Project may need to implement special soil, groundwater, and construction materials management and disposal procedures for hazardous materials, as well as construction worker health and safety measures during construction. In addition to the findings and recommendations of the Preliminary Site Investigation, the following measures should be implemented during construction. Groundwater from dewatering of excavations, if any, should be stored in tank(s) during construction activities and the water should be characterized prior to disposal or recycling. This would be in addition to the pre characterization of groundwater quality during the Preliminary Site Investigation. Asphalt concrete and PCC grindings should be reused in accordance with Regional Water Board guidelines for Caltrans projects or transported off site for recycling or disposal Final 1/9/14 24

32 11. REFERENCES American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Standard Practice for Environmental Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. Designation: E California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, Chemicals Known to the State to Cause Cancer or Reproductive Toxicity. 2 November. California State Parks, The California Mission Trails. Accessed on 27 June Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2012a. Environmental Handbook, Volume I: General Guidance for Compliance; Chapter 10 Hazardous Materials, Hazardous Waste, and Contamination. Caltrans Standard Environmental Reference. Last updated 24 May. Caltrans, 2012b. Standard Special Provision ; Remove Yellow Traffic Stripe and Pavement Marking with Hazardous Waste Residue. 20 July. Caltrans, Guidelines for Selecting Materials and Standard Special Provisions for Traffic Striping and Pavement Marking. August. Clear Channel, Personal communication with Steve Newgren, VTA. 5 September. Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), 2009a. Fact Sheet, April 2009; Caltrans Statewide Variance for Reuse of Lead Contaminated Soils. April. DTSC, 2009b. DTSC Variance No. V09HQSCD006 issued to Caltrans. DTSC, Draft Lead Report. August. Environmental Data Resources (EDR), 2013a. EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package. 19 June. EDR, 2013b. EDR DataMap Environmental Atlas. 14 June. Graymer, R.W, et al., Geologic Map of the San Francisco Bay Region. USGS, Scientific Investigations Map San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board), Tier 1 ESLs. May. Regional Water Board, California Department of Transportation Asphalt Concrete and Portland Cement Concrete Grindings Reuse Guidance. 8 February. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), 2013a. GeoTracker Database. Accessed on 5 June Final 1/9/14 25

33 SWRCB, 2013b. GeoTracker GAMA Database. Accessed on 8 July Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), Fuel Leak Site Case Closure Caltrans, 651 Harrison Street, Santa Clara, CA 95050; Case No ; SCVWDID No. 07S1W02F01f. 15 May. SCVWD, Fuel Leak Site Case Closure City of Santa Clara, 1150 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, CA; Case No ; Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund No August. State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners (SCRD), Conducting Contamination Assessment Work at Drycleaning Sites. October. Van Gosen, B.S., and J.P. Clinkenbeard, Reported Historic Asbestos Mines, Historic Asbestos Prospects, and Other Natural Occurrences of Asbestos in California: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report Final 1/9/14 26

34 FIGURES

35 Regional Location Figure 1 El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit Santa Clara County, California

36 PROJECT CORRIDOR Figure 2 El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit Project Santa Clara County, California

37 Project Alternatives Figure 3 El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit Santa Clara County, California

38 Creek Creek San El El Camino Camino Real San Tomas Aquino Creek Creek PHYSICAL SETTING AND REGIONAL HYDROGEOLOGY Figure 4 Creek US 101 Palo Alto Transit Center Embarcadero Embarcadero Rd 0 Oregon Expy Palo Alto San Francisquito El El Camino Camino Real Real Rd Rd E Charleston Creek Matadero 200 SR SR US 101 Creek Stevens Permanente Creek Creek 32 Barron 100 Adobe 46 Mountain View Guadalope Sunnyvale US 101 Lawrence Expy Sunnyvale East Channel W WElCamino Real Los Altos Expy SR 87 Tomas River Santa Clara El El Camino Camino Real Real SR San Jose I The 300 Arena Alameda Creek S Wolfe Rd Saratoga Creek I-280 Los Gatos Creek 100 Calabazas 400 I Notes: Proposed bus station excavations 18 feet below ground surface. Proposed traffic signal excavations 10 feet below ground surface. El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit Project Santa Clara County, California Project Corridor Open Creek or Channel Underground Creek or Channel Approximate Surface Elevation (feet above mean sea level) Approximate Depth to Groundwater at LUST Site (feet) Approximate Groundwater Flow Direction from LUST Site LEGEND Base: U.S. Census Bureau, USGS/NASA SRTM Data, and Google Maps. Source: Groundwater Levels (State Water Resources Control Board, 2013). Potential Bus Station Excavation Below Groundwater Table Potential Traffic Signal Excavation Below Groundwater Table Potential Bus Station Excavation Above Groundwater Table Potential Traffic Signal Excavation Above Groundwater Table Leaking Underground Storage Tank ( LUST ) Site N Miles

39 The Alameda HISTORICAL ROADWAY DEVELOPMENT IN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS Figure 5 De De La La Cruz Cruz Blvd Blvd Santa Clara Transit Center Station Benton St El Camino Real Market St 1968 Aerial Photo Notes: El Camino Real between De La Cruz Blvd and The Alameda was developed in the early 1990s. LEGEND Project Corridor Potential Bus Station Source: EDR, 2013a. El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit Project Santa Clara County, California Feet N

40 HISTORICAL ROADWAY WIDENING IN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS Figure 6 Lincoln Lincoln St St El Camino Real Anna Dr Scott Blvd 1968 Aerial Photo Notes: Portions of commercial and industrial properties were redeveloped due to roadway widening along the entire Project Corridor between 1968 and El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit Project Santa Clara County, California LEGEND Project Corridor Source: EDR, 2013a Feet N

41 San CURRENT AND FORMER GAS STATION SITES Figure 7 Palo Alto Transit Center Oregon Expy Embarcadero Embarcadero Rd US 101 Palo Alto Mountain View E Charleston Charleston Rd Rd SR SR 237 US 101 SR 85 Lawrence Expy El Camino Camino Real Real W WElCamino Real Real US 101 Los Altos Sunnyvale Santa Clara Expy Tomas I-280 SR 87 San Jose El El Camino Camino Real Real SR 85 I-880 S Wolfe Rd Arena The Alameda I-280 I-280 El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit Project Santa Clara County, California LEGEND Project Corridor Potential Bus Station Excavation Below Groundwater Table Potential Traffic Signal Excavation Below Groundwater Table Potential Bus Station Excavation Above Groundwater Table Potential Traffic Signal Excavation Above Groundwater Table Current or Former Gas Station Site Located Adjacent or Upgradient of the Project Corridor Base: U.S. Census Bureau and Google Maps. Source: EDR, 2013b. N Miles

42 San Expy CURRENT AND FORMER DRY CLEANING RELATED FACILITIES Figure 8 Palo Alto Transit Center Embarcadero Rd Oregon Oregon Expy US US 101 Palo Alto E Charleston Rd Mountain View SR 85 US 101 SR 237 El Camino Real Los Altos W WElCamino Real Sunnyvale Lawrence Expy Santa Clara US 101 I-280 SR 85 El El Camino Camino Real Real Tomas SR SR San Jose S Wolfe Rd I-880 The Alameda Arena I-280 El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit Project Santa Clara County, California LEGEND Project Corridor Potential Bus Station Excavation Below Groundwater Table Potential Traffic Signal Excavation Below Groundwater Table Potential Bus Station Excavation Above Groundwater Table Potential Traffic Signal Excavation Above Groundwater Table I-280 Current or Former Dry Cleaning Related Facility Located Adjacent or Upgradient of the Project Corridor Base: U.S. Census Bureau and Google Maps. Source: EDR, 2013b. N Miles

43 San HAZARDOUS MATERIALS USE, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL SITES Figure 9 Palo Alto Transit Center Oregon Expy Embarcadero Embarcadero Rd US 101 Palo Alto Mountain View E Charleston Charleston Rd Rd SR SR 237 US 101 SR 85 El Camino Camino Real Real Lawrence Expy US 101 W WElCamino Real Real Los Altos Sunnyvale Santa Clara Expy Tomas I-280 SR 87 San Jose El El Camino Camino Real Real SR 85 I-880 S Wolfe Rd Arena The Alameda I-280 I-280 El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit Project Santa Clara County, California LEGEND Project Corridor Potential Bus Station Excavation Below Groundwater Table Potential Traffic Signal Excavation Below Groundwater Table Potential Bus Station Excavation Above Groundwater Table Potential Traffic Signal Excavation Above Groundwater Table Adjacent Hazardous Materials Use, Storage, and/or Disposal Site. Base: U.S. Census Bureau and Google Maps. Source: EDR, 2013b. N Miles

44 San Expy RECORDED HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RELEASE SITES Figure 10 Palo Alto Transit Center El El Camino Camino Real Real Oregon Oregon Expy US US Palo Alto Mountain View SR 85 US 101 SR 237 Los Altos W WElCamino Real Sunnyvale Lawrence Expy Santa Clara US 101 El El Camino Camino Real Real SR 85 Tomas SR SR S Wolfe Rd The Alameda I-880 San Jose Arena I-280 Notes: The EDR DataMap Environmental Atlas (2013b) is included in Appendix C. El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit Project Santa Clara County, California LEGEND Project Corridor 1-Mile Project Buffer On, Adjacent, or Upgradient Hazardous Materials Release Site Downgradient Hazardous Materials Release Site I-280 Potential Bus Station Excavation Below Groundwater Table Potential Traffic Signal Excavation Below Groundwater Table Potential Bus Station Excavation Above Groundwater Table Potential Traffic Signal Excavation Above Groundwater Table Base: U.S. Census Bureau and Google Maps. Source: EDR, 2013b. N Miles

45 San Expy HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RELEASE SITES OF POTENTIAL CONCERN Figure 11 Palo Alto Transit Center Embarcadero Rd Oregon Oregon Expy US US 101 Palo Alto A B E Charleston Rd Mountain View SR 85 US 101 SR 237 El Camino Real Los Altos W WElCamino Real 229 Sunnyvale Lawrence Expy Santa Clara US 101 SR 85 I-280 El El Camino Camino Real Real S Wolfe Rd Tomas A 316B SR SR I-880 The Alameda San Jose Arena I-280 Notes: The EDR DataMap Environmental Atlas (2013b) is included in Appendix C. El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit Project Santa Clara County, California Project Corridor LEGEND 1-Mile Project Buffer Potential Bus Station Excavation Below Groundwater Table Potential Traffic Signal Excavation Below Groundwater Table Potential Bus Station Excavation Above Groundwater Table Potential Traffic Signal Excavation Above Groundwater Table 313 EDR Site Map ID (see Table 3) On-Site Hazardous Materials Release Site (Potential Soil and Groundwater Impacts) Adjacent/Upgradient Hazardous Materials Release Site (Potential Groundwater Impacts) Base: U.S. Census Bureau and Google Maps. Source: EDR, 2013b. N Miles

46 APPENDICES

47 APPENDIX A INITIAL SITE ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST

48 Caltrans etric Initial Site Assessment (ISA) Checklist Project Information District 04, County SCL, Route SR 82, EA 04-3G980 Post Mile 8.5/25.5 Description: El Camino Bus Rapid Transit. Is the project on the HW Study Minimal-Risk Projects List (HW1)? No Project Manager Christina Jaworksi phone # Project Engineer Carla Vincent phone # Project Screening Attach the project location map to this checklist to show location of all known and/or potential HW sites identified. See Figures 1, 9, and 10 of the ISA report 1. Project Features: New R/W? No Excavation? Yes Railroad Involvement? No Structure demolition/modification? Yes (bus stations) Subsurface utility relocation? Yes 2. Project Setting: Rural or Urban: Urban Current land uses: Transportation Adjacent land uses: Residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional 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. See Table 3, Figure 10, and the discussion in Section 5.2 of the ISA report. 4. Field Inspection Date: Not applicable; See discussion of deviations in Section 8 of the ISA report. STORAGE STRUCTURES / PIPELINES: Underground tanks None Sumps None Drums None Transformers None Other None Surface tanks None Ponds None Basins None Landfill None

49 (continued) Initial Site Assessment (ISA) Checklist CONTAMINATION: (spills, leaks, illegal dumping, etc.) Surface staining NA Odors NA Other NA HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: (asbestos, lead, etc.) Buildings None Pipe wrap None Acoustical plaster None Serpentine None mapped in Project vicinity Paint None Oil sheen NA Vegetation damage NA Spray-on fireproofing None Friable tile None Other Yellow Traffic Striping and Pavement Markings 5. Additional record search, as necessary, of subsequent land uses that could have resulted in a hazardous waste site. Potential contamination may be present on the Project site from aerially-deposited lead, former commercial/industrial/institutional buildings, nearby gas stations, nearby dry cleaners, and non-point sources of heavy metals. See findings reported in section 9 of the ISA report. 6. Other comments and/or observations: Refer to Executive Summary of the ISA report. ISA Determination Does the project have potential hazardous waste involvement? Yes If there is known or potential hazardous waste involvement, is additional ISA work needed before task orders can be prepared for the Investigation? No. A brief memo should be prepared to transmit the ISA conclusions to the Project Manager and Project Engineer. Executive Summary of the ISA report provided to the Project Manager and Project Engineer. ISA Conducted by: Patrick Sutton, BASELINE Environmental Consulting Date: 8 January 2014

50 APPENDIX B EDR AERIAL PHOTO DECADE PACKAGE

51 El Camino BRT Santa Clara County Sunnyvale, CA Inquiry Number: June 19, 2013 The EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package

52 EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) Aerial Photo Decade Package is a screening tool designed to assist environmental professionals in evaluating potential liability on a target property resulting from past activities. EDR s professional researchers provide digitally reproduced historical aerial photographs, and when available, provide one photo per decade. When delivered electronically by EDR, the aerial photo images included with this report are for ONE TIME USE ONLY. Further reproduction of these aerial photo images is prohibited without permission from EDR. For more information contact your EDR Account Executive. Thank you for your business. Please contact EDR at with any questions or comments. Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report AS IS. Any analyses, estimates, ratings, environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice. Copyright 2013 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission. EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.

53 Date EDR Searched Historical Sources: Aerial Photography June 19, 2013 Target Property: Santa Clara County Sunnyvale, CA Year Scale Details Source 1939 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1939 Fairchild Best Copy Available from original source 1939 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1939 Fairchild Best Copy Available from original source 1939 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1939 Fairchild Best Copy Available from original source 1939 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1939 Fairchild Best Copy Available from original source 1939 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1939 Fairchild 1939 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1939 Fairchild Best Copy Available from original source 1939 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1939 Fairchild Best Copy Available from original source 1939 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1939 Fairchild Best Copy Available from original source 1939 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1939 Fairchild Best Copy Available from original source 1939 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1939 Fairchild Best Copy Available from original source 1948 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1948 USGS 1948 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1948 USGS 1948 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1948 USGS 1948 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1948 USGS 1948 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1948 USGS 1948 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1948 USGS

54 Year Scale Details Source 1948 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1948 USGS Best Copy Available from original source 1948 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1948 USGS Best Copy Available from original source 1948 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1948 USGS Best Copy Available from original source 1948 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1948 USGS 1956 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1956 Aero 1956 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1956 Aero Best Copy Available from original source 1956 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1956 Aero 1956 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1956 Aero 1956 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1956 Aero 1956 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1956 Aero 1956 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1956 Aero 1956 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1956 Aero 1956 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1956 Aero 1956 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1956 Aero Best Copy Available from original source 1968 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1968 USGS 1968 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1968 USGS 1968 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1968 USGS Best Copy Available from original source 1968 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1968 USGS 1968 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1968 USGS 1968 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1968 USGS 1968 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1968 USGS

55 Year Scale Details Source 1968 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1968 USGS 1968 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1968 USGS 1968 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1968 USGS 1974 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1974 USGS Best Copy Available from original source 1974 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1974 USGS Best Copy Available from original source 1974 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1974 USGS Best Copy Available from original source 1974 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1974 USGS Best Copy Available from original source 1974 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1974 USGS Best Copy Available from original source 1974 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1974 USGS 1974 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1974 USGS Best Copy Available from original source 1974 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1974 USGS Best Copy Available from original source 1974 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1974 USGS Best Copy Available from original source 1974 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1974 USGS Best Copy Available from original source 1982 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1982 WSA 1982 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1982 WSA 1982 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1982 WSA 1982 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1982 WSA 1982 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1982 WSA 1982 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1982 WSA 1982 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1982 WSA

56 Year Scale Details Source 1982 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1982 WSA 1982 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1982 WSA 1982 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1982 WSA 1993 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1993 USGS 1993 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1993 USGS 1993 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1993 USGS 1993 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1993 USGS 1993 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1993 USGS 1993 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1993 USGS 1993 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1993 USGS 1993 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1993 USGS 1993 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1993 USGS 1993 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1993 USGS 1999 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1999 WAC 1999 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1999 WAC 1999 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1999 WAC 1999 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1999 WAC 1999 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1999 WAC 1999 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1999 WAC 1999 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1999 WAC 1999 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1999 WAC 1999 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1999 WAC 1999 Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000' Flight Year: 1999 WAC

57 INQUIRY #: YEAR: 1939 = 1000'

58 INQUIRY #: YEAR: 1939 = 1000'

59 INQUIRY #: YEAR: 1939 = 1000'

60 INQUIRY #: YEAR: 1939 = 1000'

61 INQUIRY #: YEAR: 1939 = 1000'

62 INQUIRY #: YEAR: 1939 = 1000'

63 INQUIRY #: YEAR: 1939 = 1000'

64 INQUIRY #: YEAR: 1939 = 1000'

65 INQUIRY #: YEAR: 1939 = 1000'

66 INQUIRY #: YEAR: 1939 = 1000'

67 INQUIRY #: YEAR: 1948 = 1000'

68 INQUIRY #: YEAR: 1948 = 1000'

69 INQUIRY #: YEAR: 1948 = 1000'

70 INQUIRY #: YEAR: 1948 = 1000'

71 INQUIRY #: YEAR: 1948 = 1000'

72 INQUIRY #: YEAR: 1948 = 1000'

73 INQUIRY #: YEAR: 1948 = 1000'

74 INQUIRY #: YEAR: 1948 = 1000'

75 INQUIRY #: YEAR: 1948 = 1000'

76 INQUIRY #: YEAR: 1948 = 1000'

77 INQUIRY #: YEAR: 1956 = 1000'

78 INQUIRY #: YEAR: 1956 = 1000'

79 INQUIRY #: YEAR: 1956 = 1000'

80 INQUIRY #: YEAR: 1956 = 1000'

81 INQUIRY #: YEAR: 1956 = 1000'

82 INQUIRY #: YEAR: 1956 = 1000'