Fresno City Council
February 17, 2022

2316 South Elm Avenue, Fresno,
California

Analysis of Brownfield Cleanup
Alternatives

December 21, 2021

Prepared for:

City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3076
Fresno, California 99201

Prepared by:

Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
3875 Atherton Road
Rocklin, CA 95765

Project No.: 185704673
USEPA Brownfields Coalition
Assessment Grant Cooperative
Agreement No. BF00E02372
ACRES Nos. 229501

Sign-off Sheet

This document entitled 2316 South Elm Avenue, Fresno, California – Analysis of Brownfield Cleanup Alternatives was prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (“Stantec”) for the account of City of Fresno (the “Client”). Any reliance on this document by any third party is strictly prohibited without the written consent of Stantec, which may be granted at Stantec’s sole discretion. The material in it reflects Stantec’s professional judgment in light of the scope, schedule and other limitations stated in the document and in the contract between Stantec and the Client. The opinions in the document are based on conditions and information existing at the time the document was published and do not take into account any subsequent changes. In preparing the document, Stantec did not verify information supplied to it by others. Any third party use of this document is wholly the responsibility of such third party. Any reliance granted to a third party will require the use and acceptance of Stantec’s form of reliance letter.

Author:

David B. Holmes

Quality Reviewer:

Neil Doran, P.G.

ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES
2316 South Elm Avenue, Fresno, California

i

Table of Contents
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ...................................................................................... III EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... V

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ........................................................................ 1

1.1 GENERAL SITE INFORMATION .................................................................................... 2

1.2 SITE HISTORY AND PREVIOUS USE ........................................................................... 2

1.3 HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING ....................................................................................... 2

1.4 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES AND REMEDIAL ACTIVITIES ..................... 3

2.0 REDEVELOPMENT PLAN ........................................................................................... 12

3.0 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND CLEANUP STANDARDS .................................. 15

3.1 CLEANUP OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITY ..................................................................15

3.2 APPLICABLE CLEANUP STANDARDS FOR KEY CONTAMINANTS ..........................15

3.3 LAWS AND REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO CLEANUP ...........................................15

3.4 GENERAL BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT BEST PRACTICES
APPLICABLE TO CLEANUP .........................................................................................16

4.0 EVALUATION OF BROWNFIELDS CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES ............................... 18

4.1 CLEANUP ACTION OBJECTIVES ................................................................................18

4.2 CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ................................................................. 18

4.2.1 Alternative 1 – No Action .............................................................................. 18

4.2.2 Alternative 2 – Encasement/Enclosure ......................................................... 18

4.2.3 Alternative 3 – Removal ............................................................................... 19

4.3 EVALUATION OF CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES .............................................................19

4.3.1 Effectiveness ................................................................................................ 19

4.3.2 Implementability ........................................................................................... 20

4.3.3 Costs ............................................................................................................ 21

4.3.4 Consideration of Climate Change Impacts ................................................... 22

4.3.5 Consideration of Equity and Environmental Justice Concerns ...................... 23

4.3.6 Consideration of Green and Sustainable Remediation Guidance ................. 23

4.4 RECOMMENDED REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE .............................................................24

5.0 DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATIONS ............................................................................... 25

6.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 26

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 SITE LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 2 SITE PLAN AND SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
FIGURE 3 SITE PLAN AND SAMPLING LOCATIONS

ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES
2316 South Elm Avenue, Fresno, California

ii

LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A PLOT PLAN DATED 1959

APPENDIX B PREVIOUS RBM SURVEY REPORT

APPENDIX C BUILDING/SITE RENOVATION PLANS

ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES
2316 South Elm Avenue, Fresno, California

iii

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ABCA Analysis of Brownfield Cleanup Alternatives
ACM asbestos-containing material
ACRES Assessment, Cleanup, and Redevelopment Exchange System AHERA Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act
Alta Alta Environmental, Inc.

BER business environmental risk
bgs below ground surface
CA-WETs California Waste Extraction Tests
CBRE CBRE, Inc.

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COC contaminant of concern
CUPA California Certified Unified Program Activity
CY cubic yards
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
DTSC-SL DTSC Screening Level
EDR Environmental Data Resources
EP Environmental Professional
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESA environmental site assessment
ESL environmental screening level
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FUSD Fresno Unified School District
GHG greenhouse gas
GPR ground penetrating radar
HAZWOPER Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response HUD Housing and Urban Development
LBP lead-based paint
Metro Fresno Metropolitan Ministry
mg/kg milligrams per kilogram
NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PAH polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
PCE tetrachloroethylene
PID photoionization detector
RBMs regulated building materials
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
REC recognized environmental condition
RLF revolving loan fund

ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES
2316 South Elm Avenue, Fresno, California

iv

RRP Renovation, Repair, and Painting
SF square foot or feet
SFBRWQCB San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board SGC Strategic Growth Council
SRBC Saint Rest Baptist Church
SRCDC Saint Rest Community Development Corporation
Stantec Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.

STLC Soluble threshold limit concentrations
TBA Targeted Brownfields Assessment
TCC Transformative Climate Communities
TCLP toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
TPH total petroleum hydrocarbon
TPH-d total petroleum hydrocarbon (as diesel fuel)
TPH-g total petroleum hydrocarbon (as gasoline)
TPH-mo total petroleum hydrocarbon (as motor oil)
TPH-o total petroleum hydrocarbon (as oil)
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USGS United States Geological Survey
UST underground storage tank
VOCs volatile organic compounds
µg/kg micrograms per kilogram

ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES
2316 South Elm Avenue, Fresno, California

v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (Stantec) prepared this Analysis of Brownfield Cleanup Alternatives (ABCA) for a parcel of land containing a building located at 2316 South Elm Avenue, Fresno, California (the “Property”), on behalf of City of Fresno (City or the “Client”). The Property, known locally as the former Farmer John Meat Company warehouse, occupies 0.46- acres. The Property was acquired by the current owner, St. Rest Baptist Church (SRBC) in 2014 for the purpose of renovation of the building and adaptive reuse of the Property as a food hub (the “St. Rest + Food to Share Hub”) in partnership with Fresno Metropolitan Ministry. The redevelopment plans include: a) repair and renovation of the existing 5,852 square foot (SF) former Farmer John Meat Company warehouse to serve as a food recovery, storage, and distribution center, b) construction of a new 3,800- SF two-story building that will include office space, a meeting room, and a certified commercial kitchen , and c) “urban heat island” mitigation measures in the form of landscape improvements in outdoor areas.

Phase I and II environmental site assessments (ESAs) completed in 2013, 2014, 2016, and 2021 identified and evaluated potential environmental concerns associated with the past uses of the Property as an orchard, a bakery, and a meat processing company , as well as concerns associated with neighboring properties (several of which were used as gas stations or auto repair facilities) . Results of these studies suggest that the primary environmental concern impacting redevelopment plans is the presence of asbestos containing materials (ACMs) within the building, and in particular , ACMs present in the form of a ceiling skim coat throughout the building. Mold is a secondary concern related to the ceiling areas and interior of the warehouse. Therefore, this ABCA is focused on evaluating three remedial alternatives needed to address ACMs and mold : Alternative 1 - No Action; Alternative 2 – Encasement/Enclosure; and Alternative 3 – Removal. The three alternatives are evaluated based on their effectiveness, implementability, and cost. Consideration is also given to c limate change impacts, equity and environmental justice concerns, and green and sustainable remediation guidance. No Action (Alternative 1) was considered but is not feasible as it would not allow the primary project goals to be achieved – which depend on renovation of the building. Alternatives 2 and 3 include common elements, but the primary difference is that for Alternative 2, the ceiling would remain in place but be enclosed/encapsulated by a new lower ceiling constructed throughout the building, whereas for Alternative 3, the existing ceiling and skim coat would be fully removed and replaced with an ent irely new ceiling. A complicating factor is that the existing ceiling is considered structurally deficient by current California building codes but would be “grandfathered in” if it remains, whereas a new ceiling would require construction of additional structural components.

Alternative 3 is the recommended remedial alternative, and includes the following activities: 1) inspecting and repairing the roof; 2) establishing appropriate containment, barrier, and air -filtration systems as necessary for worker s in appropriate protective clothing to work in areas subject to mold and ACM; 3) removing the ceiling and disposing of appropriately as a regulated ACM; 4) repairing or rerouting any plumbing or water lines located in areas above the ceiling; 5) treating all exposed framing and studs with evidence of mold with a microbial cleaning agent; 6) constructing a new ceiling together with required structural reinforcements; and 7) abating limited ACM in other areas of the building as needed. Activities 1 and 4 are considered to be general building rehabilitation activities and not specifically “cleanup” activities,

ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES
2316 South Elm Avenue, Fresno, California

vi

but are listed as they are necessary prerequisite actions for the cleanup activities. The estimated cost for the five “cleanup activities” associated with Alternative 3 is $165,648.

Alternative 3 is recommended because it is considered to be the most effective alternative, as well as the most implementable alternative (excluding the “no action” alternative). The costs for Alternatives 2 and 3 are similar, but Alternative 3 provides additional advantages that include: 1) greater likelihood of achieving effective abatement of mold, in particular within areas above the ceiling, 2) elimination of on- going future maintenance, monitoring, or notification requirements related to ACM in the ceiling (if enclosed/encapsulated as would occur under Alternative 2), and 3) enhanced long-term structural integrity for the roof.

2316 SOUTH ELM AVENUE, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP

ALTERNATIVES

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
December 21, 2021
1 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Stantec C onsulting Services, Inc. ( Stantec) prepared this Analysis of Brownfield Cleanup Alternatives (ABCA) for a parcel of land containing a building located at 2316 South Elm Avenue, Fresno, California (the “Property”), on behalf of City of Fresno (City or the “Client”). The Property , known locally as the former Farmer John Meat Company warehouse, occupies 0.46-acres and is located on a commercial corridor (South Elm Avenue) located within Southwest Fresno as shown on Figure 1.

The Property was acquired by the current owner, St. Rest Baptist Church ( SRBC) in 2014 for the purpose of renovation of the building and adaptive reuse as a food hub in partnership with Fresno Metropolitan Ministry ( Metro). The redevelopment project is being supported in part through funding provided by a Transformative Climate Communities ( TCC) Grant awarded to the City in 2018, and is identified on the “Transform Fresno” project website (https://www.transformfresno.com/) as:
• Project #16 – St. Rest + Food to Share Hub: Urban Heat Island Mitigation, and • Project #17 – St. Rest + Food to Share Hub: Healthy Food Rescue and Redistribution Hub.

This ABCA is being funded through a United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Brownfield Coalition Assessment Grant awarded to City in 2019. The Property is one of the catalyst sites identified in the grant application for the USEPA Brownfield Coalition Assessment Grant, and the Property is located within the target area identified within the grant (i.e., which was designated as the 4.9- square mile Transform Fresno project area). The Property was also identified as a catalyst site in the City’s application for a USEPA Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund ( RLF) Grant awarded to the City in 2020, through it is anticipated that funding needed for abatement of regulated building materials ( RBMs) will be provided through a subgrant awarded to Metro and/or SRBC . St. Rest Community Development Corporation (SRCDC) which is affiliated with SRBC is one of three coalition members that were identified in the City’s applications for both the USEPA Brownfield Coalition Assessment and Brownfield RLF Grants.

The primary environmental concern associated with the Property, as identified through previous environmental studies, is the presence of RBMs used to construct and/or maintain the building on the Property, which was constructed in the 1950s. Renovation of the building requires that these materials (which include asbestos-containing materials [ACMs], and lead-based paint [LBP]) be appropriately abated and/or managed as part of planed construction activities . The purpose of this ABCA is to evaluate alternatives for addressing RBMs at the Property, including analysis of applicable cleanup standards, laws, and regulations, as well as effectiveness, implementability, and cost. In addition, the analysis is specific to the proposed plans for adaptive reuse as a food hub, and certain key assumptions linked to those plans (in particular, the plan to renovate rather than to demolish the existing building and replace it with a new building; the anticipated maximum depths for excavations for foundations and utility lines; and other factors as detailed in Section 2.0). Finally, the analysis includes evaluation of remedial alternatives that include doing nothing (the “no action” alternative), encapsulating select hazardous building materials (i.e., ACM and LBP) while removing other hazardous materials, and full removal of hazardous materials. It should be noted that although cost estimates are provided, these estimates should be independently verified by the owner and/or development project manager . The actual costs for remedial alternatives may vary 2316 SOUTH ELM AVENUE, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP

ALTERNATIVES

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
December 21, 2021
2 significantly depending on the availability of local contractors and other factors, as well as the willingness of the developer to assume certain risks.

1.1 GENERAL SITE INFORMATION
The Site is located at 2316 South Elm Avenue in Fresno, California, and is composed of a single parcel of land (Fresno County Assessor Parcel Number 478- 183-07) occupying approximately 0.46 acres (Figure 1). The Site is in a mixed residential, commercial, and industrial neighborhood. The geographic coordinates for the approximate center of the Site are 38° 43’ 2” North latitude and 119° 47’ 28” West longitude. The lot is approximately 151 feet wide and 134 feet deep. The Property contains an approximately 5,852 square foot (SF) warehouse with three loading docks and one loading ramp along the south side of the building.

The remaining portions of the Property are asphalt paved. The Property is fenced with gated access from South Elm Avenue. The current site layout is presented on Figure 2.

1.2 SITE HISTORY AND PREVIOUS USE
The Site is currently owned by the SRBC , which acquired the Property on 7/18/2014 from Clougherty Packing Co. According to information in previous Phase I ESA reports ( Alta Environmental, 2013; CBRE, Inc., 2013; and Weston Solutions, Inc., 2016a), the first development on the Property occurred prior to 1937 with the development of an orchard/grove and several structures that appear to be rural residential and ancillary agricultural structures. In the early 1950s, the Property was redeveloped as a bakery and converted to a meat packing facility and warehouse in 1955. The warehouse was expanded in 1959 and construction plans identified a septic system, gasoline underground storage tank (UST), and dispenser that was identified for removal as part of the expansion. The Property was annexed into the City on 10/15/1959.

The meat packing/cold storage facility (Farmer John Meat Company) operated until October 2012.

The adjoining property to the north (which is also owned by SRBC) was first developed prior to 1932 as a small automotive fuel ing station, which was located in the northeast corner of the parcel. This adjoining property was redeveloped in the late 1950s/early 1960s with another automotive fueling and service station, which was demolished in the 1970s.

1.3 HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING
The following summary of hydrogeologic conditions is adapted from Weston (2016a):

Geology: The Site is located in the southeastern area of the San Joaquin Valley, a broad structural trough oriented southeast to northwest within the Great Valley Geomorphic Province. The Great Valley Province is bound to the east by the Sierra Nevada Range, to the west by the Coast Range, to the south by the Sierra Madre and Tehachapi Mountains, and to the north by the Klamath Mountains and the Cascade Range. The subsurface of the San Joaquin Valley is composed of Jurassic to Holocene marine and alluvial sediments formed from periodic inundation by the Pacific Ocean and alluvial deposits originating in the surrounding mountains. The Site is flat and at an elevation of approximately 280 feet above sea level, with regional topography sloping gently to the southwest (USGS, 1972).

Hydrology: The Site is located in the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin, Kings Subbasin in the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region. The Kings Subbasin groundwater aquifer system consists of unconsolidated 2316 SOUTH ELM AVENUE, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP

ALTERNATIVES

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
December 21, 2021
3 continental dep osits. These deposits are an older series of Tertiary and Quaternary age overlain by a younger series of deposits of Quaternary age. The Quaternary-age deposits are divided into older alluvium, lacustrine and marsh deposits, younger alluvium, and flood-basin deposits (DWR, 2006). The groundwater subbasin covers approximately 1,530 square miles. Based on groundwater monitoring conducted in 2011 at the J&C Food and Gas site (Geotracker ID T0601791878), located approximately 1,000 feet south of the Site at 2394 S. Elm Avenue, the depth- to-groundwater is estimated to be approximately 85 f eet below ground surface (bgs) and flows towards the north.

Flood Zones : The Site is located on Flood Insurance Rate Map 06019C2110H and is shown as being located in the 0.2 percent annual chance flood hazard zone (FEMA, 2009).

1.4 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES AND REMEDIAL

ACTIVITIES
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) – 2316 South Elm Avenue, Fresno, California, prepared for Clougherty Packing Company, LLC and Hormel Foods Corporat e Services, Project No. FARM-13-7306 – November 1, 2013, revised December 2, 2013 (Alta Environmental, 2013).

Alta Environmental (Alta) completed a Phase I ESA of the Property in 2013 on behalf of the former owner.

The “subject property” for the Phase I ESA included both the Property and the adjacent vacant lot and former gas station property to the north. The Phase I ESA identified two recognized environmental conditions (RECs):

1. Identified former gasoline underground storage tank (UST ) and dispenser pump, septic tank, and catch basin in the southwest corner of the Site, in historical building permit plot plans dated in 1959. No records regarding the removal of these subsurface structures were found. No evidence of USTs, septic tanks, or catch basins was identified during the Site reconnaissance.

2. Historical use of the northern parcel of the Site (23004/2306 South Elm Avenue; APN 478-138-06) as a former gasoline service station as early as 1932 until 1972, when records indicate all structures onsite were demolished. Building permit records and California Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) files indicated that three (3) 10,000-gallon gasoline USTs, and one (1) 550-gallon drain oil UST were removed from the northwest corner of the northern parcel in 1973 under the ownership of Farmer John. However, no UST removal or closure reports were provided in regard to the removal of the USTs.

The first REC listed above (shown in bold font) is associated with the Property, while the second is associated with the adjacent parcel to the north. A copy of the plot plan dated 1959 is provided in Appendix A. In addition to the RECs, the report also identified the following two “potential environmental concerns”:

1. Former Gasoline and Auto Service Stations – During the course of the investigation, two gasoline and auto service station facilities were identified in the vicinity of and u p-gradient to the Site. The 2316 SOUTH ELM AVENUE, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP

ALTERNATIVES

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
December 21, 2021
4 Eckhardt S Mobil Service listing located approximately 400 feet southeast of the Site at 2355 S.

Elm Avenue, and the Elm Auto Repair/A-Must Stop Shop located approximately 400 feet southeast and upgradient of the Site at 2365 S. Elm Avenue. In general, gas and auto service station facilities have been known as potential significant sources of hazardous petroleum hydrocarbon releases to the environment. No definitive indicators of unauthorized hydrocarbon releases were identified during this Phase I ESA. However, if significant hydrocarbon releases have occurred at the identified locations, then there exists a potential for impacted soil, soil-vapor, and/or groundwater to be present in subsurface soils beneath the Site.

2. The former Mel Wagner Wood Yard is identified on the Environmental Data Resources ( EDR) CUPA listing database, located adjacent south and up -gradient of the subject Site at 2328 South Elm Avenue. The CUPA listing indicated USTs had been removed from the Mel Wagner Wood Yard. No additional historical UST removal reports or listings were identified for this address. No definitive indicators of unauthorized hydrocarbon releases were identified during this Phase I ESA.

However, if significant hydrocarbon releases have occurred from the former USTs at the identified locations, them there exists a potential for impacted soil, soil -vapor, and/or groundwater to be present in subsurface soils beneath the Site.

The Phase I ESA report recommended that a site investigation be conducted to further assess the identified RECs.

Phase I ESA Report – Cold Storage Facility, 2316 South Elm Avenue, Fresno, California 93706, prepared for Saint Rest Baptist Church, Project No. 13-460TX-2272 – December 30, 2013 (CBRE, Inc., 2013) CBRE, Inc. (CBRE) completed a Phase I ESA of the Property in 2013 on behalf of the current owner. The subject property for the Phase I ESA included both the Property and the adjacent vacant lot and former gas station property to the north. The Phase I ESA identified the following RECs:

1. Four of the Historical Auto Stations sites identified within the EDR Proprietary Records reviewed were apparently located on the northern portion of the Property from roughly 1932 through 1962 (C&W auto service facility at 2306 South Elm Avenue, Joe S Sunland Service at 2304 South Elm Avenue, Arnold John/Arnold Brothers at 2304 South Elm Avenue, and Ray's Service Station at 2304 South Elm Avenue). The likely presence of ser vice stations on the Property for roughly 30 years is considered a REC for the Property.

2. Two of the Historical Auto Stations identified within the EDR Proprietary Records reviewed appear to be located on the east adjacent property, Sam's S Flying A Service Station at 2305 South Elm Avenue and Mattecce Fred (gas and service station) at 2303 South Elm Avenue. These facilities appear to have been in operation from roughly 1927 through 1965. The use of the upgradient adjacent property as a gasoline or services station for roughly 40 years is considered a REC for the Property.

3. Evidence of a UST system is present at the Property. CBRE observed a vent pipe on the west exterior perimeter of the building extending below ground to above the roof line . 2316 SOUTH ELM AVENUE, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP

ALTERNATIVES

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
December 21, 2021
5 4. Staining was obs erved on the concrete floor in the area of the cooling equipment in the equipment room.

5. CBRE noted two pole -mounted transformers located adjacent to the west perimeter of the Property south of the storage building. Evidence of leakage was noted as staining at the bottom of one transformer canister. The units also displayed rusting typical of older transformers.

The first two RECs listed above are associated with the adjacent parcel to the north, while the last three (shown in bold font) appear to be associated with the Property. The report recommended that a “ limited subsurface investigation be conducted to assess if the property has been impacted by the historical on-site and adjacent service station operations, the on- site operation of cooling equ ipment, and the rusting transformer adjacent to the property perimeter .” The report also recommended that “ the subsurface investigation should also assess the potential for a UST system to be present at the property .” The report also noted the presence o f suspect ACM and LBP in the building and recommended that a survey be conducted for materials within areas planned for disturbance or renovation.

Limited Phase II ESA Report – 2316 South Elm Avenue, Fresno, California, prepared for Clougherty Packing Company, LLC and Hormel Foods Corporate Services, Project No. FARM-14-1705 – June 9, 2014 (Alta Environmental, 2014)
Alta completed a limited Phase II ESA on behalf of the former owner to further assess potential subsurface soil and soil gas impact s identified beneath the subject property in the Phase I ESA report completed by Alta in 2013 (Alta, 2013). The subject property for the Limited Phase II ESA included both the Property and the adjacent vacant lot and former gas station property to the nor th. The scope of work for the Limited Phase II ESA included the following elements:
• Completion of a geophysical survey with ground penetrating radar and a metal detector in select areas to identify the potential presence of buried structures associated w ith historical use of the site. The areas assessed included the locations for the gasoline UST, dispenser pump, septic tank, and catch basin shown on the Property as shown on the historical permit plot plan dated 1959. • Advancement of eight direct-push borings to depths of 15 feet bgs , four of which ( B1 through B4) were located on the Property, with collection and logging of continuous soil core samples, field screening of the samples for the presence of volatile organic compounds ( VOCs) using a photoionization detector (PID), and preservation of samples from pre- determined depths of 5, 10, and 15 feet bgs for possible laboratory analysis. (The field PID data were not included in the report). • Laboratory analysis of select soil samples (one per boring) for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), VOCs, and Title 22 metals. For borings B1 to B4 located on the Property, the soil samples submitted for laboratory analysis were collected from depths of either 5 feet bgs (B1 and B2) or 10 feet bgs (B3 and B4).
• Installation of dual-nested soil vapor probes in each of the eight boreholes, at depths of 5 and 15 feet bgs, and subsequent collection of soil vapor samples, and laboratory analysis for VOCs by 2316 SOUTH ELM AVENUE, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP

ALTERNATIVES

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
December 21, 2021
6 USEPA Method TO-15. Four of the dual nested probes (and eight of the soil vapor samples) were collected from the Property.

Several geophysical anomalies were detected at the Property. In the four soil samples analyzed from the Property, no TPH was detected as either gasoline ( TPH-g) or as diesel ( TPH-d). The only TPH detected was oil ( TPH-o) at a concentration of 12 milligrams per kilogram ( mg/kg) at B1 (5 ft). No VOCs were detected except for 49 micrograms per kilogram ( µg/kg) of acetone at B4 (10 ft). Select metals were detected, but none of the measured concentrations exceeded applicable soil screening levels, and most were likely attributable to natural occurrence.

The data for the soil vapor samples are presented below for the 16 VOC constituents that were detected in one or more samples, together with the Tier 1 commercial and residential environmental screening levels (ESLs) for subslab soil vapor samples as updated by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board ( SFBRWQCB) in 2019. The Phase II ESA report by Alta (2014) stated that all of the detected concentrations were below then-applicable screening levels, but this no longer appears to be true with the concentrations for four of the VOCs in one or more samples exceeding the residential ESLs and the concentrations for three VOCs exceeding the commercial ESLs.

Constituent
Soil Vapor Sample ID and Collection Date Tier 1
Commerci
al ESLs
(µg/L)
Tier 1
Residenti
al ESLs
(µg/L)
SV1-5 SV1-15 SV2-5 SV2-15 SV3-5 SV3-15 SV4-5 SV4-15
4/7/14 4/7/14 4/7/14 4/7/14 4/8/14 4/8/14 4/8/14 4/8/14 Measured Concentrations (µg/L)
Acetone 0.15 0.065 0.17 0.016 0.028 0.042 0.025 0.043 4,500 1,100 Benzene 0.022 0.0097 0.018 ND 0.0040 ND 0.013 0.0053 0.014 0.0032 Bromodichloromethane 0.011 ND ND ND ND 0.0036 ND ND 0.011 0.0025 2-Butanone 0.029 0.0098 0.035 ND 0.0068 0.0056 ND 0.0055 NE NE Chloroform 0.20 ND 0.15 ND 0.016 0.024 0.050 0.017 0.018 0.0041 Chloromethane ND ND ND 0.0020 ND ND ND 0.0017 NE NE
Dichlorodifluoromethane 0.0030 0.0050 ND 0.0029 0.0029 0.0034 0.0030 0.0048 NE NE Ethylbenzene 0.0091 0.0045 0.0085 ND ND 0.0034 0.0038 0.0028 0.16 0.037 4-Ethyltoluene 0.0025 ND ND ND ND 0.0099 ND 0.0033 NE NE 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone 0.016 0.0071 ND ND ND ND ND ND NE NE Tetrachloroethene 0.052 0.011 ND ND 0.0071 0.014 0.0035 0.0085 0.067 0.015 Toluene 0.040 0.014 0.035 ND 0.0038 0.041 0.022 0.011 4.4 1.0 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0.0086 ND ND ND ND 0.042 ND ND NE NE 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 0.0035 ND ND ND ND 0.012 ND ND NE NE o-Xylene 0.011 0.0039 0.0098 ND ND 0.0078 0.0043 0.0043 15 3.5 p/m-Xylene 0.028 0.010 ND ND ND 0.013 0.011 0.033 5 3.5 ESL = environmental screening level; ID = identification; ND = not detected; NE = not established; µg/L = micrograms per liter .

Concentrations in bold font exceed the residential ESLs. Concentrations in shaded cells exceed the commercial ESLs.

There appear to be several potential issues related to the previous soil and soil vapor sampling conducted on the Property. These include:
• The locations sampled generally did not coincide with the items of potential environmental concerns that were identified in the Phase I ESAs completed by either Alta or CBRE (i.e., the ammonia AST, the transformers on power poles west of the building, the suspect vent pipe on the west exterior of the building, the former septic tanks, and the former gas UST and fuel dispenser). Three of the four borings were located in the southwest corner of the Property, around the perimeter of a geophysical anomaly assumed to be the probable former location for the former gasoline UST. 2316 SOUTH ELM AVENUE, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP

ALTERNATIVES

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
December 21, 2021
7 However, the locations as identified on the scaled plot plan dated 1959 would appear to be more reliable. B1 was the only boring located in the general vicinity of the gas UST location as shown on the plot plan.
• The soil samples that were analyzed were all collected at depths of 5 or 10 feet bgs. These depths might be appropriate for assessing potential underground leakage from a UST but would not be optimal depths for assessing potential release of contaminants at the ground surface from sources that could include the transformers, the f ormer fuel dispenser, release of lead paint from former buildings or the exterior of the existing building, or releases from vehicles in parking lot areas . • The concentrations for several of the soil vapor samples exceed current ESLs. The significance of these exceedances is increased as a result of the previous samples apparently not being collected at locations where highest concentrations would likely be present.

Draft Phase I/II Investigation, Targeted Brownfields Assessment Report – 2316 South Elm Avenue, Fresno, Fresno County, California, prepared for USEPA Region 9, USEPA START Contract No. EP -S5-13-02, November 2016 (Weston, 2016a)
Weston Solutions Inc. (Weston) completed a combined Phase I/II Investigation on behalf of USEPA Region 9 and SRBC to further assess environmental impacts and RBMs at the subject property , which included both the Property and the adjacent vacant lot and former gas station property to the north. A copy of the report designated as a “draft” was made available for review by Stantec, on which the following summary is based. The scope of work for the Phase I/II included the following elements:
• Completion of a Phase I ESA.
• Completion of a survey, sampling, and analysis for ACM and LBP w ithin the warehouse building on the Property (a copy of which is provided in Appendix B). The analyses included 36 bulk asbestos samples and 17 paint chip samples. The survey did not assess other types of potential RBMs and also did not include “destructive sampling” to access potential ACM hidden behind walls or beneath multiple layers of roofing.
• Completion of geophysical surveys to confirm the findings of the survey completed by Alta in 2014.

On the Property, the surveys appear to have included electromagnetic surveys of all outdoor areas and use of ground penetrating radar (GPR) in the vicinity of the borings sampled by Alta in 2014. • Investigation of geophysical anomalies by advancing borings using air-vacuum excavation or hand auger techniques.
• Collection of soil samples from seven (7) select air -vacuum or hand auger borings and laboratory analysis for TPH-g, TPH-d, TPH as motor oil (TPH-mo), VOCs, and lead. Only one of the locations sampled (UST-10, 6 ft) is located on the Property.
• Collection of shallow (0 -0.5 foot bgs) soil samples on a grid- pattern throughout the former gas station parcel, with analysis of samples from 20 grid nodes for total lead. None of the locations sampled are located on the Property. The samples were coll ected and analyzed to evaluate potential impacts to surface soil from LBP and former buildings. Eight of the samples were 2316 SOUTH ELM AVENUE, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP

ALTERNATIVES

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
December 21, 2021
8 subsequently subjected to California Waste Extraction Tests ( CA-WETs) to determine the soluble threshold limit concentrations ( STLCs) for lead, and four samples were subject to the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) to determine leachable lead concentrations.

The results associated with investigative activities completed on the Property are summarized below:
• Lead concentrations of 2.2 to 5.2% by weight were measured in 3 of the 17 paint chip samples.

Concentrations in the other samples were 0.30% by weight or less. The materials included yellow metal exterior posts, railings, and doors; red metal exterior posts and awnin g supports; and beige exterior wood awning ceiling.
• ACM was confirmed in four types of building materials: an estimated 5,720 square feet ( SF) of “skim coat over foam insulation,” an estimated 650 SF of cement board, an estimated 1,540 SF of drywall system with joint compound, and an estimated 75 SF of penetration mastic on roofs. • The condition of ACM and LBP was assessed to be non- friable at the time of the inspection and deemed to “not pose an immediate hazard unless disturbed. ” Hazardous materials (compressed gas cylinder and R717 Ammonia stored in a 500-gallon emergency discharge tank) and petroleum (used oil drum and new oil drum) were also found at the Property. • For the soil sample analyzed from UST -10 (6 ft), the only detect ions were 12 mg/kg of TPH -mo,

7.4 mg/kg of lead, and 7.0 µg/kg of octene, all of which were well below applicable California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) soil screening levels.

Draft ABCA – 2316 South Elm Avenue, Fresno, Fresno County, California, prepared for USEPA Region 9, USEPA START Contract No. EP-S5-13-02, January 2016 (Weston, 2016b) An ABCA was completed for the Property by Weston in 2016. A copy of the ABCA marked as a “draft” was made available for review by St antec, as is summarized herein. The ABCA was prepared on behalf of USEPA Region 9 and SRBC to further assess environmental impacts and RBMs present on both the Property and the adjacent vacant lot and former gas station property to the north. The ABCA identified and compared various cleanup scenarios to address contaminants identified during the Phase I/II Investigation completed by Weston (2016a ), and evaluated the cleanup scenarios are based on effectiveness, implementability, and cost . A copy of a table summarizing and comparing the cleanup alternatives is provided below. Alternatives 1 through 3 on the table relate to impacted soil documented on the adjoining parcel to the north, whereas Alternatives A and B relate to RBMs in the building on the Property. 2316 SOUTH ELM AVENUE, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP

ALTERNATIVES

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
December 21, 2021
9 The analysis by Weston did not include potential soil vapor concerns on the Property.

Sampling and Analysis Plan for Supplemental Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, 2316 South Elm Avenue, Fresno, California, prepared for the C ity of Fresno , May 25, 2021 (Stantec, 2021a) and Supplemental Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report, 2316 South Elm Avenue, Fresno, California, prepared for the City of Fresno, August 13, 2021 (Stantec, 2021b) A supplemental Phase II ESA was completed by Stantec in 2021 to address the data gaps (noted earlier in this section) in the previous ESAs completed for the Property. Specific objectives for t he Phase II ESA were to: 1) further evaluate potential on- site sources of impact s to soil vapor; 2) assess the potential presence of vapor-phase VOCs beneath the existing building slab; 3) assess indoor and outdoor air conditions, if warranted; and 4) evaluate the presence of RBMs (i.e., asbestos and lead) and agricultural chemicals in shallow soil. Site investigation activities were funded by the City of Fresno’s Fiscal Year 2019 USEPA Brownfield Coalition Assessment Grant.

The scope of work included: 1) collecting and analyzing soil vapor samples from four outdoor locations for VOCs, 2) collecting and analyzing five sub-slab soil vapor samples from locations beneath the existing building for VOCs, 3) collection and analysis of one indoor air sample for VOCs, 4) collection and analysis of shallow soil samples from 11 outdoor locations for arsenic, lead, and asbestos, and 5) analysis of select soil samples for pesticides and herbicides. Sample locations are illustrated on Figure 3.

2316 SOUTH ELM AVENUE, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP

ALTERNATIVES

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
December 21, 2021
10 Based on the soil data, it was concluded that shallow soil does not appear to be impacted by lead, arsenic, asbestos, or pesticides/herbicides at concentrations that would require any specific soil management or mitigation measures. No evidence of VOC impacts to soil vapor was found in the vicinity of a former UST and septic system. One VOC (tetrachloroethene [PCE]) was detected in one sub- slab vapor sample at a concentration slightly exceeding the risk-based screening level. It was also detected at low concentrations in all four of the outdoor soil vapor samples – suggesting that its presence might be due to a local or regional condition and/or unknown sources located off-site. No PCE was detected in the indoor air sample, and it was concluded that vapor mitigation measures are not warranted based on the detected VOC concentrations.

Mold Assessment for Saint Rest Food to Share, 2316 South Elm St., Fresno, CA, prepared for Mark Wilson Construction, November 30, 2021 (All Hazard EHS, 2021)
A mold assessment was completed for the building by All Hazard EHS in 2021. Testing was performed when it became apparent that abatement of mold (if present) would need to be incorporated into planning and performed in conjunction with abatement of ACMs in the ceiling of the building. Six samples were collected from ceiling areas in the two large storage rooms (three samples per room) and submitted to the EMSL Analytical, Inc. laboratory in San Leandro, CA for “Microscopic Examination of Fungal Spores, Fungal Structures, Hyphae, and Other Particulates from Tape Samples (EMSL Method MICRO-SOP-200).” The lab results are summarized on the table below.

Sample # Location Mold Spore Count Predominant Spore Types 001 Room 1 Ceiling High Cladosporium
002 Room 1 Ceiling High Cladosporium
003 Room 1 Ceiling None detected
004 Room 2 Ceiling High Cladosporium, Epicoccum
005 Room 2 Ceiling None detected
006 Room 2 Ceiling Rare Ascospores, Epicoccum,
Myxomycetes, Bispora

The report concluded: “Results for samples collected from the ceiling of room 1 and room 2 both reported high levels of Cladosporium type mold spores present at the time of sampling. Cladosporium type fungi are typically found indoors in high concentrations in water damaged building materials. The presence of Cladosporium and other mold types may lead to poor indoor air quality causing allergy and hay fever like symptoms in exposed individuals. Symptoms may worsen after repeated exposures and in some cases lead to infection and cause other illnesses, especially in those with compromised immune systems. Mold may also cause increased food spoilage in areas where perishable food items are stored. ”

The report included the following recommendations:
• The roof should be inspected by a professional to determine if any water damage to the ceiling has occurred due to roofing failure or leaks.
2316 SOUTH ELM AVENUE, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP

ALTERNATIVES

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
December 21, 2021
11 • Areas above the ceiling should be inspected to ensure there are no plumbing lines present. If lines are present, a plumber should inspect to ensure that the lines are not the cause of water intrusion. • If roofing or any plumbing is found to need repair, repairs should be made prior to the remediation of mold impacted building materials.
• After all repairs have been made, a contractor experienced in mold remediation should perform all remediation work (see Remediation Plan).
• Materials suspect of asbestos should be sampled for asbestos prior to the start of remediation work, if not sampled previously, by a Certified Asbestos Consultant (CAC). • Post remediation air clearances should be performed to determine if remediation efforts were effective after final cleaning of the remediated areas.

2316 SOUTH ELM AVENUE, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP

ALTERNATIVES

REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
December 21, 2021
12 2.0 REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
The Property will be renovated as the “ St. Rest + Food to Share Hub” and i s the focus for two complementary projects being funded through the TCC grant. An artist’s rendering of the planned development is presented below and shows the renovated former Farmer John Meat Company Warehouse building on the right, a new two-story office and training center on the left, and elements of the Urban Heat Island Mitigation project landscape and other elements throughout outdoor areas.

The first floor of the 3,800 square-foot office/training center building will house offices as well as a classroom and meeting center. The second floor will have a certified commercial kitchen where classes can be held for nutrition education as well as teaching space for entrepreneurs. A rooftop garden will overlook Elm Avenue.

Information on the project, as copied from the Transform Fresno website, is summarized on the tables below:

Project No. and Name: Project #16: St. Rest + Food to Share Hub: Urban Heat Island Mitigation Project Summary: The project will plan, permit and improve the immediate site surrounding the old Farmer John Meat Company Warehouse buildin g which will house the St. Rest + Food to Share Hub with related building enhancements to achieve urban greening goals, desirable urban heat island mitigation, and site-building attractiveness, including appropriate landscapes, hardscapes, tree planting, irrigations systems, drainage, site surface and associated required building improvements to function as a Healthy Community Food Hub.

Project Details: The St. Rest + Food to Share Hub project will repair and improve an aged and underutilized 5,852 square foot building on the St. Rest campus, the former Farmer John Meat Company Warehouse facing Elm Avenue, transforming it into a community and metropolitan area serving Food to Share food recovery, storage, office, and distribution center along with construction of a much needed commercial community kitchen area. Project #16 improves the 13,588 square feet of parcel surrounding

2316 SOUTH ELM AVENUE, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP

ALTERNATIVES

REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
December 21, 2021
13 the Food Hub building. Because St. Rest + Food to Share Hub is part of a 3.14 acre campus master plan included in the City of Fresno’s Elm Avenue Revitalization Strategy, A Brownfields Area-Wide Plan, and this project helps implement that City approved strategy as a Catalyst Site 1 fo r the Elm Avenue.

Project Partners: Fresno Metro Ministry, St. Rest Baptist Church Project Committed Funds: TCC Grant = $62,200; Other = $141,859; Total = $204,059 Project Status: In progress with estimated completion in March 2022.

Project Weblink: https://www.transformfresno.com/projects/st-rest-food-to-share-hub-urban-heat- island-mitigation/

Project No. and Title: Project #17: St. Rest + Food to Share Hub: Healthy Food Rescue and Redistribution
Project Summary: Project #17 will plan, permit and improve the existing former Farmer John Meat Company Warehouse building for expanded capacities as Healthy Food Rescue/Redistribution Hub & Commercial Kitchen Operations Center; Coordinate and integrate the St. Rest + Food to Share Hub into the daily metropolitan scale operations of an existing and growing city-wide network of food donor & food recipient organizations; and Operate and expand Healthy Food Rescue/Redistribution, and Cooking Skills & Nutrition Classes using the community commercial kitchen space.

Project Details: The St. Rest + Food to Share Hub project will repair and improve an aged and underutilized 5,852 square foot building on the St. Rest campus, the former Farmer John Meat Company warehouse facing Elm Avenue, transforming it into a metropolitan area serving Food to Share food recovery, storage, office, and distribution center along with construction of a much needed commercial community kitchen area. Because St. Rest + Food to Share Hub is part of a 3.14 acre campus master plan included in the City of Fresno’s Elm Avenue Revitalization Strategy, it will help implement that City approved strategy as a Catalyst Site for the Elm Avenue.

Improving the facility, operating it as a key Food to Share network hub in Southwest Fresno, and connecting it with metropolitan area Food to Share activities, will result in the annual recovery of over 1 million pounds of nutritious food, that would otherwise be wasted, and get that food to families that face daunting food hardship and lack the financial means to purchase healthy food. This food rescue and distribution to underserved and disadvantaged families will reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by

2.2 million pounds annually.

This St. Rest + Food to Share Hub partnership will leverage Food to Share’s relationships with a growing network of food donors (28 F resno Unified School District [ FUSD] schools, 4 retail outlets, farmers, packers, etc.) and 49 community -based food receiver organizations to use this site as a storage and distribution center for the Fresno/Clovis metropolitan area. With the increased storage capacity, Food to Share will be able to take on greater direct food recoveries from farmers, packers, and warehouses.

Having regular access to a food- safe facility with refrigerators, freezers and non- perishable storage will allow Food to Share designate a school recovery route specifically for South west Fresno. This would allow us to increase our number of daily school recoveries on this route, and store food overnight or longer to better meet the delivery and distribution requirements of various Receiver Organizations. The 2316 SOUTH ELM AVENUE, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP

ALTERNATIVES

REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
December 21, 2021
14 day following full routes, designated Food to Share Drivers will start their day at St. Rest and distribute the food to the surrounding West Fresno Receiver Organizations to increase Food Access in 93706.

There are many additional co- benefits of this project. The much needed community kitchen element of the St. Rest + Food to Share Hub will also equip families with the confidence and knowledge to utilize healthy food, while shopping on a budget to t ake charge of their own health. A food hub at this location will also increase St. Rest’s capacity to receive Food to Share rescued food and distribute to disadvantaged community members in the City and County of Fresno through monthly Food Giveaways coordinated by their Food Ministry. Additionally, having access to a commercial kitchen at a location in Southwest Fresno that hosts multiple Food Distributions would increase the effectiveness of Cooking Matters courses in 93706. Another way we at Fresno Metro Ministry and Food to Share engage with the Southwest Community is through participation at the Yo’Ville community garden and urban farm incubator. We will be able to recruit participants through outreach at St. Rest’s Food Distributions at this facility. Overall, this project not only expands capacities to meet significant health and nutrition needs in Southwest Fresno and across the metropolitan area, but also provides the significant GHG emission reductions creating substantive environmental and climat e stability benefits sought by Strategic Growth Council (SGC) Transformative Climate Community funding objectives as well.

Project Partners: Fresno Metro Ministry, St. Rest Baptist Church Project Committed Funds: TCC Grant = $1,488,280; Other = $604,002; Total = $2,092,282 Project Status: In progress with estimated completion in March 2022.

Project Weblink: https://www.transformfresno.com/projects/st-rest-food-to-share-hub-healthy-food- rescue-and-redistribution/
A copy of current design plans for renovation of the building are provided in Appendix C. 2316 SOUTH ELM AVENUE, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP

ALTERNATIVES
Applicable Regulations and Cleanup Standards
December 21, 2021
15 3.0 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND CLEANUP

STANDARDS

3.1 CLEANUP OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITY
Site cleanup and redevelopment should be conducted in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and procedures outlined below.

3.2 APPLICABLE CLEANUP STANDARDS FOR KEY

CONTAMINANTS
Cleanup standards for key contaminants at the Site include the following:

LBP – Building materials containing lead in paint or other surface coating material containing lead are defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and USEPA as greater than or equal to 5,000 parts per million or 0.5% by weight (HUD, 1997). The cleanup standards are assumed to equal this level.

Asbestos – Cleanup standard for asbestos are based on the US EPA Asbestos -Containing Materials in Schools, Final Rule and Notice ( USEPA, 1987). Although this rule is in place primarily to protect child- occupied facilities, following the guidelines within the rule is encouraged for all building renovations for the overall protection of human health.

3.3 LAWS AND REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO CLEANUP
This section is provided for informational purposes only and the property owner (or contractor implementing the cleanup) is responsible for ensuring compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.

Cleanup activities at the Site should be conducted by contractors operating in acc ordance with the U.S.

Department of Labor Occupational Safety & Health Administration ( OSHA) Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) standard codified at 29 Code of Federal Regulations 1910.120.

The HAZWOPER standard applies to cleanup operations required by federal, state, local, or other governmental body involving hazardous substances. Additionally, the California OSHA “Lead in Construction Standard” codified in Title 8 California Code of Regulations Section 1532.1, is applicable to construction work where an employee may be exposed to lead.

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAP) are outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations ( CFR) Title 40 Chapter I Subchapter C Part 61 Subpart M. OSHA regulations regarding asbestos exposure during construction activities (i.e., renovation and demolition) are outlined in CFR Title 29 Subtitle B Chapter XVII Part 1926.1101, whereas OSHA regulations regarding respiratory protection are outlined in CFR Title 29 Subtitle B Chapter XVII Part 1910.134. A NESHAP notification form must be submitted at least 10 working days prior to the beginning of renovation or demolition activities involving ACMs. This notification form must include information regarding the company that performed the ACM survey, the analytical laboratory, the company performing the demolition or renovation activities, the 2316 SOUTH ELM AVENUE, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP

ALTERNATIVES
Applicable Regulations and Cleanup Standards
December 21, 2021
16 company transporting waste that contains asbestos, and the landfill where the waste that contains asbestos will be disposed.

The Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act ( AHERA) was designed to address the presence of asbestos in school buildings. AHERA also tasked the US EPA with developing a plan for accrediting individuals responsible for performing asbestos surveys and remediation. AHERA protocols are considered the best industry practice for asbestos surveys and remediation, and these protocols are typically applied to non-school buildings. Although no school buildings are located at the Property, it is recommended that remediation be performed by a company that utilizes AHERA -certified personnel for asbestos demolition and remediation activities. AHERA is outlined in CFR Title 40 Chapter I Subchapter R Part 763 Subpart E.

Permitting for abatement of asbestos in Fresno County is subject to the requirements of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.

The USEPA has adopted the Renovation, Repair, and Painting ( RRP) Rule (40 CFR 745.80) to minimize exposure from LBP dust by training contractors to make sure they follow lea d-safe work practices during renovation of a structure. Although this rule is in place primarily to protect child-occupied facilities, following the guidelines within the rule is encouraged for all building renovations for the overall protection of human health. In addition to this rule, contractors are required to follow the HUD Lead Safe House Rule and all local and state specific requirements. The RRP Rul e requires that renovators be USEPA-certified, accredited, and follow specific work practices.

The RRP Rule does not apply to the total demolition of structures. It is recommended that a certified lead inspector be on-site to oversee demolition activities and appropriate disposal of materials. Demolition work should be conducted by a lead-certified company trained to handle and dispose of LBP materials.

Federal laws and regulations applicable to this cleanup include the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act and the Davis -Bacon Act. Federal, state, and local laws regarding procurement of contractors to conduct the cleanup are also applicable.

3.4 GENERAL BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT BEST

PRACTICES APPLICABLE TO CLEANUP
There are several general brownfields redevelopment “ best practices ” that can be incorporated into redevelopment plans that help to mitigate risks associated with potential or probable undocumented areas of impacts that may be present. These may or may not be relevant to the Property, depending on the specific redevelopment plans:

1. Designing site grading plans in a manner that minimizes or eliminates the need to remove soil from the Property.

2. Avoiding building designs that include construction of basements or underground parking structures, which, if included in the design, would typically result in: (a) the need to manage much greater quantities of soil, (b) an increase in the potential for needing to take excess soil off-site, (c) an increase in the potential for on- site workers to come into contact with impacted soil at depth, and (d) an increase in the potential for migration of contaminated soil vapors into the building. 2316 SOUTH ELM AVENUE, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP

ALTERNATIVES
Applicable Regulations and Cleanup Standards
December 21, 2021
17 3. Avoiding building designs that will require use of basement sumps (which could unknowingly draw contaminated groundwater towards the building).

4. Designing building and parking/driveway area layouts to maximize the extent to which the pavement for these can serve as a long-term engineered barrier that will prevent direct contact with both documented and undocumented areas of impacted soil.

5. Assuming that any soil in areas or depth intervals that have not specifically been tested may be impacted, and either landfilling this soil, or conducting additional sampling and screening of the soil for contaminants, before disposing of the soil at a site other than a landfill.

6. Avoiding the siting of buildings directly on top of former known or suspected areas impacted by VOCs (to help further reduce potential future concerns with contaminated vapors migrating into enclosed occupied spaces).

7. Siting stormwater ponds in areas least likely to have undocumented soil or groundwater impacts .

8. Planning for the potential presence of: (a) poorly consolidated fill materials within the footprints of former buildings, (b) concrete foundations associated with former buildings, and (c) abandoned sewer lines or other undocumented former underground utility lines.

2316 SOUTH ELM AVENUE, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP

ALTERNATIVES

EVALUATION OF BROWNFIELDS CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES
December 21, 2021
18 4.0 EVALUATION OF BROWNFIELDS CLEANUP

ALTERNATIVES

4.1 CLEANUP ACTION OBJECTIVES
The general cleanup action objective is to mitigate the identified contaminants (i.e., ACM, LBP, mold, refrigerants, and other hazardous materials present within the building) as necessary to be protective of human health in a planned commercial use exposure scenario.

4.2 CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The evaluation of cleanup alternatives in this section is focused solely on ACMs and mold present within the building. LBP as well as some hazardous materials within the building (i.e., refrigerant s, compressed gas cylinders, and several drums containing petroleum products ) were documented as part of previous assessment activities but have either already been removed or are present in such limited quantities as to have negligible impact on site development costs . Based on the Supplemental Phase II ESA c ompleted by Stantec (2021a, 2021b), there appears to be no need for remedial measures to address documented concentrations of select constituents detected in soil and/or soil vapor.

The most significant ACM requiring abatement within the building is a skim- coat over foam insulation containing 1.2% chrysotile which is present on the upper walls and ceiling of the two storage rooms, and covering surfaces with an estimated area of 5,720 square feet. The ceilings (with an area of approximately 4,600 square feet) show signs of water damage and the skim- coat was damaged in many areas. This material was classified as a regulated ACM. Mold was also documented to be present on the ceiling areas.

The cost estimates presented in this document are based on quotes obtained from local vendors but should be independently verified. A description of each alternative and the results of the comparative analysis are presented below.

4.2.1 Alternative 1 – No Action
The No Action Alternative is included as a baseline for comparison to the other proposed alternatives. The No-Action Alternative assumes that all ACM and mold within the building would remain in place.

4.2.2 Alternative 2 – Encasement/Enclosure
This option consists of the following activities:

1. Inspecting and repairing the roof as well as any plumbing lines located above the ceiling to make certain that there are no continuing sources of water leaks above the ceiling.

2. Establishing appropriate containment, barrier, and air -filtration systems as necessary for workers in appropriate protective clothing to work in areas subject to mold and ACM.

3. Treating all accessible areas with mold using a microbial cleaning agent. 2316 SOUTH ELM AVENUE, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP

ALTERNATIVES

EVALUATION OF BROWNFIELDS CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES
December 21, 2021
19 4. Encasing the existing ceiling with a new lower drywall ceiling.

5. Abating limited ACM in other areas of the building as needed.

Note: The first activity is considered a general building rehabilitation activity and not one specific to cleanup but is listed as it is a necessary prerequisite action for the four subsequent listed cleanup activities.

4.2.3 Alternative 3 – Removal
This option consists of the following activities:

1. Inspecting and repairing the roof.

2. Establishing appropriate containment, barrier, and air-filtration systems as necessary for workers in appropriate protective clothing to work in areas subject to mold and ACM.

3. Removing the ceiling and disposing of appropriately as regulated ACMs

4. Repairing or rerouting any plumbing or water lines located in areas above the ceiling.

5. Treating all exposed framing and studs with evidence of mold with a microbial cleaning agent.

6. Constructing a new ceiling with required structural reinforcements.

7. Abating limited ACM in other areas of the building as needed.

Note: The first and fourth activities are considered to be general building rehabilitation activit ies and not cleanup activities but are listed as they are necessary prerequisite actions for the other five listed cleanup activities.

4.3 EVALUATION OF CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES
The following criteria were used to evaluate the three cleanup alternatives:
• Effectiveness
• Implementability
• Cost.

In addition, consideration was also given to climate change impacts, equity and environmental justice concerns, and green and sustainable remediation guidance.

4.3.1 Effectiveness
Effectiveness has both short-term and long-term components. The short-term effectiveness of a remedial alternative is evaluated relative to its effect on human health and the environment during the implementation of the remedial action. Potential risks to the community, potential impacts on workers, the effectiveness and reliability of protective measures, potential environmental impact of the remedial action and the effectiveness/reliability of the mitigation measures during implementation, etc. are some of the factors that are typically considered. Long-term effectiveness and permanence of a remedial alternative are evaluated 2316 SOUTH ELM AVENUE, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP

ALTERNATIVES

EVALUATION OF BROWNFIELDS CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES
December 21, 2021
20 with respect to the following factors: magnitude of residual risk to human health and environment from the untreated or residual w aste at the completion of remedial activities; an assessment of type, degree, and adequacy of long- term management (engineering controls, monitoring, maintenance, etc.) required for untreated or residual waste; an assessment of the long-term reliability of long-term management practices to provide continued protection from the untreated/residual waste; and the potential need for replacement of the remedy and continuing need for repairs to maintain the performance of the remedy.

4.3.1.1 Effectiveness – Alternative 1 (No Action)
No action is considered the least effective option as it would not address the threats to human health posed by the hazardous materials and would not make it possible to renovate the building or achieve any of the reuse objectives.

4.3.1.2 Effectiveness – Alternative 2 (Encasement/Enclosure) Encasement/enclosure is considered to be an effective method in addressing ACMs within the ceiling.

However, it is considered to be less effective in addressing mold – as removal of the ceiling was recommended by the mold abatement contractor in order to fully and effectively access and treat mold in areas above the ceiling that may also have been subject to water infiltration. The long- term effectiveness could also be compromised by problems with a leaking roof that could develop in the future. Another drawback is that the facility would need to “maintain” asbestos in the ceiling in perpetuity and to develop and implement a site- specific asbestos operations and maintenance plan. There would also be an on- going future need to provide annual notifications to employees and occupants.

4.3.1.3 Effectiveness – Alternative 3 (Removal)
Removal is considered the most effective method for addressing both ACMs within the ceiling and mold on or above the ceiling. There would be no need to manage ACMs as part of any future ceiling repairs, as well as no on-going maintenance, monitoring, or notification requirements.

4.3.2 Implementability
Implementability refers to the technical and administrative feasibility of implementing an alternative, and the various materials and services required during its implementation. Examples of such factors for implementation of an alternative include ability to construct, operate and monitor; time required to obtain necessary permits and approval; and availability of equipment, material, contractor, etc.

4.3.2.1 Implementability – Alternative 1 (No Action)
No action is the most easily implementable alternative since it involves no activities .

4.3.2.2 Implementability – Alternative 2 (Encasement/Enclosure) Encasement/enclosure is also considered relatively implementable. Both the ACMs and mold abatement would have similar requirements in terms of establishing appropriate containment, barrier, and air -filtration 2316 SOUTH ELM AVENUE, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP

ALTERNATIVES

EVALUATION OF BROWNFIELDS CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES
December 21, 2021
21 systems – assuming that a single remedial contractor can be used to perform both types of abatement.

However, leaving the ceiling in place would likely complicate efforts to inspect, repair, or treat the roof and areas above the ceiling. In addition, it would result in the on-going future maintenance, monitoring, or notification requirements.

4.3.2.3 Implementability – Alternative 3 (Removal)
Removal is considered relatively easy to implement and would provide advantages (over Alternative 2) as a result of the area above the ceiling up to the roof becoming fully visible and accessible. Some additional construction work would be needed for the structural reinforcements, but this work could likely be performed after ACMs and mold have been abated and thereby not require specialized safety equipment to protect the workers constructing the reinforcements.

4.3.3 Costs
Cost estimates are presented in this section based on estimates obtained from qualified contractors for this type of work.

4.3.3.1 Costs – Alternative 1 (No Action)
There is no direct cost associated with this alternative. However, it carries a significant opportunity cost given that abatement is required to proceed with a >$1 million building renovation project that w hen complete will provide benefits to thousands of area residents.

4.3.3.2 Costs – Alternative 2 (Encasement/Enclosure)
A cost estimate for the encasement/enclosure alternative was provided by Mark Wilson Construction on 11/17/2021 and is summarized below.

Item Description Cost
Asbestos abatement and demo $76,500
Contractor “general conditions and requirements” $11,500 Remove lights @ ceiling $2,900
Install ¼-inch drywall encasement ceiling, tape, and texture $37,180 Re-install lights @ ceiling $3,000
SUBTOTAL $131,080
Contingency (10% of Subtotal) $13,108
General Contractor Insurance, Fees, & Bonding $10,286
Contingency for Mold Abatement $10,000
TOTAL $164,474
2316 SOUTH ELM AVENUE, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP

ALTERNATIVES

EVALUATION OF BROWNFIELDS CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES
December 21, 2021
22 4.3.3.3 Costs – Alternative 3 (Removal)
A cost estimate for the removal alternative was provided by Mark Wilson Construction on 12/17/2021 and is summarized below.

Item Description Cost
Asbestos removal and disposal $44,500
Rough carpentry for new ceiling and structural retrofit $31,547 Replacement ceiling (5/8- inch gypsum board – materials and installation; 4,600 SF @ $5.54/SF)
$25,500
Painting of replacement ceiling (4,600 SF @ $1.50/SF) $6,900 Contractor “general conditions and requirements” $23,000 General Contractor Insurance, Fees, & Bonding $9,201
Architect/Engineering Fee & Development Costs $25,000
TOTAL $165,648

4.3.4 Consideration of Climate Change Impacts
Scientific evidence demonstrates that the climate is changing at an increasingly rapid rate, outside the range to which society has adapted in the past. These changes can pose significant challenges to USEPA’s ability to fulfill its mission. USEPA must ada pt to climate change if it is to continue fulfilling its statutory, regulatory, and programmatic requirements. USEPA is therefore anticipating and planning for future climate changes to ensure it continues to fulfill its mission of protecting human health and the environment even as the climate changes.

In 2014, USEPA released its Climate Change Adaptation Plan to the public (USEPA, 2014a). The plan relies on peer -reviewed scientific information and expert judgment to identify vulnerabilities to US EPA’s mission and goals from climate change. The Region 9 Climate Change Adaption Implementation Plan (USEPA, 2014b) identifies vulnerabilities in three different “regions” within Region 9. Fresno is located within the “Southwest Region” for which identified vulnerabilities included:

1. Warmer temperatures will reduce mountain snowpacks, and peak spring runoff from snow melt will shift to earlier in the season, leading to and increasing the shortage of fresh water during the summer. A longer and hotter warm season will likely result in longer periods of extremely low flow and lower minimum flows in late summer. Water supply systems that have no storage or limited storage (e.g., small municipal reservoirs) may suffer seasonal shortages in summer .

2. The magnitude of projected temperature increases for the Southwest, particularly when combined with urban heat island effects for major cities such as Phoenix, Albuquerque, Las Vegas, and many California cities, represents significant stresses to health, energy, and water supply in a region that already experiences very high summer temperatures.

3. Reduced ground water supply due to a lack of recharge will be of concern. 2316 SOUTH ELM AVENUE, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP

ALTERNATIVES

EVALUATION OF BROWNFIELDS CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES
December 21, 2021
23 4. Warmer ocean temperatures may decrease productivity by stopping entrainment of deep supplies of nutrients. The resulting reductions in commercial species will need to be addressed to support continued production of fisheries and aquatic life.

5. Increased frequency and altered timing of flooding will increase risks to people, ecosystems, and infrastructure. Increased flood risk is likely to result from a combination of decreased snow cover on the lower slopes of high mountains, and an increased percentage of winter precipitation falling as rain and therefore running off more rapidly.

6. Sea levels are ris ing and contributing to the loss of wetlands and infrastructure located along coastal corridors.

7. The magnitude and frequency of wildfires have increased over the last 30 years which severely impacts water quality in streams, creeks, rivers, lakes, and estuaries.

Based on its location and hydrogeologic setting, the vulnerabilities related to temperature increases and urban heat island effects (item #2 above) and Increased frequency and altered timing of flooding (item #5) are potentially relevant to planning for the Property. The Property is within the 0.2% annual probability flood hazard zone and could be at incre ased risk of future flooding in response to increases in extreme rainfall events. Removal of hazardous materials from flood-prone areas (as would occur through Alternative 3) would reduce environmental risks associated with the presence of these materials. The cleanup will help advance the components of the project that are specifically designed to help mitigate urban heat island effects.

4.3.5 Consideration of Equity and Environmental Justice Concerns Alternative 3 (the recommended cleanup option) is considered the most favorable in terms of environmental justice concerns. It will fully remove the environmental hazards from the neighborhood and eliminate potential future exposure to area residents.

4.3.6 Consideration of Green and Sustainable Remediation Guidance When implemented effectively, green, and sustainable remediation practices enhance the environmental benefits offered by federal cleanup and redevelopment programs such as the USEPA Brownfields Program.

The principles governing green and sustainable remediation for USEPA cleanup programs have been outlined in greater detail in USEPA’s Principles for Greener Cleanups (USEPA, 2009), but generally seek to “ evaluate cleanup actions comprehensively to ensure the protection of human health and the environment and to reduce the environmental footprint of cleanup activities, to the maximum extent possible.” The following five general elements were identified by USEPA as principles to be considered in designing the cleanup process:
 Minimize total energy use and maximize use of renewable energy.  Minimize air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions.  Minimize water use and impacts to water resources.
 Reduce, reuse, and recycle material and waste.
2316 SOUTH ELM AVENUE, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP

ALTERNATIVES

EVALUATION OF BROWNFIELDS CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES
December 21, 2021
24  Protect land and ecosystems.

USEPA also references the ASTM International Standard Practice E2893-16 “Standard Guide for Greener Cleanups” as a guide to be considered in designing greener cleanups. Although a total of 155 best management practices are referenced in the guide – none are focused on abatement of ACMs or mold.

For the two primary alternatives considered in this ABCA (encasement/enclosure versus removal of ACMs within the ceiling), encasement/enclosure would potentially be greener in terms of reducing the amount of waste materials generated. However, the negatives associated with encasement/enclosure regarding its effectiveness, as well as environmental justice considerations, offset the “green benefits.” In addition, the waste generation from removal/replacement of the ceiling (which likely forms 5% or less of the building’s total structure), is an activity that will facilitate reuse of the other 95% of the building’s structure.

4.4 RECOMMENDED REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE
The recommended remedial alternative is removal (Alternative 3). This alternative is considered the most effective of the options evaluated and the most implementable (excluding the no action option). The costs for Alternatives 2 and 3 are similar, but Alternative 3 provides significant additional advantages that include:
1) greater likelihood of achieving effective abatement of mold, particularly above the ceiling, 2) elimination of on-going future maintenance, monitoring, or notification requirements relate d to ACM in the ceiling (if enclosed/encapsulated as would occur under Alternative 2), and 3) enhanced long-term structural integrity for the roof.
2316 SOUTH ELM AVENUE, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP

ALTERNATIVES
Disclaimer and Limitations
December 21, 2021
25 5.0 DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATIONS
This ABCA was completed in accordance with generally accepted practices of the profession for performing similar studies at the same time and in the same geographical area. Stantec observed that degree of care and skill generally exercised by the profession under similar circumstances and conditions. No other warranty is expressed or implied.

Stantec observations, findings, and opinions must not be considered as scientific certainties, but only an opinion based on our professional judgment concerning the significance of the data gathered during the investigation. Specifically, Stantec does not and cannot represent that the Site contains no hazardous or toxic materials or other latent condition beyond that observed by Stantec.

Stantec does not warrant that this submitta l represents an exhaustive study of all possible environmental concerns at the project area. The items investigated as part of this study represent likely sources of environmental concerns at the project area and are consequently believed to adequately address the public at risk at the present time. All costs presented as estimated, and actual costs may vary significantly from these estimates based on the availability of local contractors and numerous other factors.

26 6.0 REFERENCES
All Hazard EHS. 2021. Mold Assessment for Saint Rest Food to Share, 2316 South Elm St., Fresno, CA.

November 30.

Alta Environmental (Alta). 2013. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, 2316 South Elm Avenue, Fresno, California, prepared for Clougherty Packing Company, LLC. December.

Alta. 2014. Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report, 2316 South Elm Avenue, Fresno, California, prepared for Clougherty Packing Company, LLC. June.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2006. Bulletin 118, San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin, Kings Subbasin Number: 5-22.08. January.

CBRE, Inc. 2013. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, Cold Storage Facility, 2316 South Elm Avenue, Fresno, California 93706, prepared for St. Rest Baptist Church. December 30.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2009. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Fresno County, California and Incorporated Areas, Panel 2110 of 3525, Map number 06019C2110H. February

18. Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (Stantec). 2021a. Sampling and Analysis Plan for Supplemental Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, 2316 S. Elm Avenue, Fresno, CA. May 25.

Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (Stantec). 2021b. Supplemental Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, 2316 S. Elm Avenue, Fresno, CA. August 13.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1987. 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 763; Asbestos-Containing Materials in Schools; Final Rule. October.

USEPA. 2009. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Principles for Greener Cleanups. August

27. USEPA. 2014a. Climate Change Adaption Plan. Publication No. EPA 100-K-14-001. June.

USEPA. 2014b. EPA Region 9 Climate Change Adaption Implementation Plan. Publication No. EPA 100- K-14-001P. May.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1997. Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing. Chapter 7: Lead-Based Paint Inspection.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1972. Croft, M.G., Subsurface Geology of the Late Tertiary and Quaternary Water-Bearing Deposits of the Southern Part of the San Joaquin Valley, California, Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1999-H.

Weston Solutions, Inc. 2016. Draft Phase I/II Investigation Targeted Brownfield Assessment Report, Fresno – S. Elm Avenue, Fresno, Fresno County, California. November.

FIGURES

V:\1857\Active\185704673_fresno\gis\mxds\ph_ii\2316_s_elm_ave\fig_01_2316_s_elm_ave_ph2esa_locmap_20210811.mxd Revised: 2021-08-11 By: awisher Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data.

Notes

1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 11N

2. Data Sources: City of Fresno, CA

3. Background: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Approximate Property
Location
1 185704673
City of Fresno California
EPA Brownfield Coalition Assessment Grant
Analysis of Brownfield Cleanup Alternatives
2316 South Elm Avenue
Fresno, California 93706
APN 478-18-307
Site Location Map
Figure No.Title
Project Location
Client/Project
California
Nevada
Fresno
0 500 1,000
Feet
(At original document size of 8.5x11)
1:10,000
V:\1857\Active\185704673_fresno\gis\mxds\ph_ii\2316_s_elm_ave\fig_02_2316_s_elm_ave_ph2esa_vicmap_20210811.mxd Revised: 2021-08-11 By: awisher Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stantec assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic format, and the recipient accepts full responsibility for verifying the accuracy and completeness of the data.

Notes

1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 11N

2. Data Sources: City of Fresno, CA

3. Background: Esri, Garmin, GEBCO, NOAA NGDC, and other contributors © 2021 Microsoft Corporation © 2021 Maxar ©CNES (2021) Distribution Airbus DS © 2021 TomTom
Approximate Property
Location
2 185704673
City of Fresno California
EPA Brownfield Coalition Assessment Grant
Analysis of Brownfield Cleanup Alternatives
Site Plan and Surrounding
Properties
Figure No.Title
Project Location
Client/Project
California
Nevada
Fresno
0 80 160
Feet
(At original document size of 8.5x11)
1:1,500
2316 South Elm Avenue
Fresno, California 93706
APN 478-18-307
(At original document size of 11x17)
1:300
Disclaimer: This document has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited in the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result. Stan tee assumes no responsibility for data supplied in electronic fonnat, and the recipie nt accepts full res onsibilit forver i in the accurac and com leteness of the data. �Stantec
•
Shallow Soil Sample Location (2021)
Soil Vapor Sample Location (2021)
Sub-Slab Vapor Sample Location (2021)
Indoor Air Sample Location (2021)
Outdoor Air Sample Location (2021)
Previous Borehole Location (Alta, 2014)
Previous Borehole Location (Weston,
2016)
D
Locations (approximate) of Site Structures
in 1937 (Weston, 2016)
�-_-_-_: Approximate Property Boundary
Proposed Building Footprint
Notes

1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 11N

2. Data Sources: City of Fresno, California

3. Background: Esri. Garmin. GEBCO. NOAA NGOC, and other contributors © 2021 Microsoft Corporation© 2021 Maxar ©CNES (2021) Distribution Airbus Project Location
2316 South Elm Avenue
Fresno, California 93706
APN 4 78-18-307
Client/Project 185704673
City of Fresno California
EPA Brownfield Coalition Assessment Grant
Analysis of Brownfield Cleanup Alternatives
Title
Site Plan and Sampling
Locations
Figure No.
3 APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
PLOT PLAN DATED 1959

APPENDIX B

PREVIOUS RBM SURVEY REPORT

APPENDIX H

LIMITED ASBESTOS-CONTAINING MATERIALS AND

LEAD-BASED PAINT SURVEY REPORT

PO Box 4299, Chatsworth, CA 91313 * TEL 818-727-2553 * FAX 818-727-2556 [email protected] - www.csceng.com275 Rose Avenue, Suite 206, Pleasanton, CA 94566 * TEL 925-931-0100 * FAX 925-931-0108 [email protected] - www.csceng.com

Project Number: 2002804

Re: Limited Asbestos Containing Materials and
Lead-Based Paint Survey Report
Farmer Johns Meatpacking
2316 S. Elm Avenue
Fresno, CA 93706

CSC Local Office: Clark Seif Clark, Inc.
275 Rose Avenue, Suite 206
Pleasanton, CA 94566
Office: 925-931-0100
Fax: 925-931-0108

Client: Weston Solutions, Inc.

Mr. Thomas Fortner
1340 Treat Boulevard Suite 210
Walnut Creek, CA 94597

Date Report Issued: July 13, 2016

Project Name: Farmer Johns Meatpacking
Project Location: 2316 S. Elm Avenue, Fresno CA
CSC Project No.: 2002804
275 Rose Avenue, Suite 206, Pleasanton, CA 94566 * TEL 925-931-0100 * FAX 925-931-0108 [email protected] - www.csceng.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................... 3

PURPOSE AND SCOPE ......................................................................................................................................... 3

SITE DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................................................. 3

BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................................................... 3

A. ASBESTOS ................................................................................................................................................ 3 B. LEAD-BASED PAINT .............................................................................................................................. 4

METHODS ............................................................................................................................................................... 5

A. ASBESTOS ................................................................................................................................................. 5 B. LEAD-BASED PAINT ............................................................................................................................... 5

RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................................. 6

A. ASBESTOS ................................................................................................................................................. 6 B. LEAD-BASED PAINT ............................................................................................................................... 7

CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................................................... 7

A. ASBESTOS ................................................................................................................................................. 7 B. LEAD-BASED PAINT ............................................................................................................................... 7

RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 8

A. ASBESTOS ................................................................................................................................................. 8 B. LEAD .......................................................................................................................................................... 8

Appendices
Appendix A ..................................... Asbestos Laboratory Analytical Results and Chain of Custody Appendix B ............ Lead Laboratory Analytical Results, Chain of Custody and CDPH 8552 Form Appendix C ............................................................................................................. Site Photographs Appendix D ...................................................................................................................... Site Sketch Appendix E ................................................................................... Accreditations and Certifications

Project Name: Farmer Johns Meatpacking
Project Location: 2316 S. Elm Avenue, Fresno CA
CSC Project No.: 2002804
275 Rose Avenue, Suite 206, Pleasanton, CA 94566 * TEL 925-931-0100 * FAX 925-931-0108 [email protected] - www.csceng.com

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Thomas Fortner of Weston Solutions, Inc. retained Clark Seif Clark, Inc. (CSC) to perform a limited asbestos-containing material (ACM) and Lead -Based Paint (LBP) survey at the commercial property located at 2316 S. Elm Avenue in Fresno, California. Mr. Ryan Terwilliger, California Certified Asbestos Consultant 11- 4776 and California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Certified Lead Inspector/Assessor - 22479 of CSC conducted the survey on June 09, 2016.

CSC’s report is for the exclusive use of Weston Solutions, Inc. and applies only to the building referenced above or portion thereof. No one other than Weston Solutions, Inc. or those contracted by Weston Solutions, Inc. may utilize, reference, or otherwise rely on this report without prior written consent from CSC.

PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this investigation was to identify accessible ACM and LBP at the site that may be impacted by the proposed renovation activities at the site. CSC’s scope of work included:

 A visual inspection of the readily accessible impacted areas at the site to evaluate the possible presence of ACM and LBP.
 Collection of bulk samples of suspect ACM and submittal of samples to a National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) and California State accredited environmental laboratory for analysis.  Assessment of the condition of suspect ACM.
 Collection of paint chip samples of potential LBP.
 Assessment of the condition of potential LBP.
 Preparation of this report, which presents our data and summarizes the assessed materials

SITE DESCRIPTION

The subject property is an approximately 6,250 square foot, 1-story, commercial building constructed circa 1960.

In general, the construction materials consist of wooden frame construction on a combination concrete slab and raised foundation with wood siding and cinderblock exterior finish and roll on asphalt roof sheeting on a combination sloped and flat roof . The interior finishes consist of a combination of drywall walls and ceilings in the main office and bathroom, stucco and plaster skim coat over foam insulation in the main storage rooms and exposed wood beaming in the food storage room . The floors are covered with vinyl floor tile and exposed concrete.

BACKGROUND

A. ASBESTOS:

Currently, asbestos-containing materials are being removed and/or encapsulated in schools and public buildings because of the cancer risk associated with breathing asbestos.

Much of what is known about asbestos -related diseases come s from studying workers in the various asbestos industries. Ex posure to levels of airborne asbestos has been linked with a debilitating lung disease called asbestosis; a rare cancer of the chest and abdominal lining called mesothelioma; and cancers of the lung, esophagus, stomach, colon, and other organs.

The relati onship between exposure level and health risk is complex. The potential for disease appears to be related to the physical and chemical characteristics of asbestos fibers as well as to the concentration of fibers in the air and each person's genetic suscep tibility. However, the U.S. Government through the U.S. Department of Project Name: Farmer Johns Meatpacking
Project Location: 2316 S. Elm Avenue, Fresno CA
CSC Project No.: 2002804
275 Rose Avenue, Suite 206, Pleasanton, CA 94566 * TEL 925-931-0100 * FAX 925-931-0108 [email protected] - www.csceng.com
Health and Human Services, has stated that, "evaluation of all available human data provides no evi dence for a threshold or for a “safe” level of asbestos exposure.”

Federal, State, and Local laws require that building owner(s) and/or their representatives, prior to any demolition and/or renovation operations that may disturb any asbestos -containing materials in their buildings, must meet the following requirements: Notifications; removal techniques for asbestos-containing materials; clean-up procedures and waste storage and disposal requirements.

The Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) must be notified 24 hours prior to the start of any asbestos-abatement project.

B. LEAD-BASED PAINT:

Lead is a heavy metal, which accumulates in the body when ingested. It interferes with chemical reaction in the body and can result in reduced performance in school, kidney problems, liver damage, high blood pressure, immune system fai lure, coma, convulsions, brain damage, and in severe cases death. In pregnant women, lead poisoning, nerve damage, impaired blood formation, and infant mortality.

An estimated 3 to 4 million American children have damaging levels of lead in their blood. According, to the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 50% (one half) of the adults and 88% of preschool children tested had high blood lead levels. Of those, 9% of the children met the center for Disease Control standards for lead poisoning.

Children usually are exposed through household dust contaminated by peeling, flaking, or chalking paint. Young children also may be poisoned during teething by mouthing on windowsills that contain leaded paint.

Pottery and glassware containing lead i s quite common. Lead paint and glaze were commonly used on items made in the U.S. before 1970 and are still used on imported ceramics. When those pieces are fired at temperatures below 1,200 degrees centigrade, the lead can be released into food. The mo st common sources of contaminated pottery and ceramics are Mexico and Italy. Research performed by the Food and Drug Administration indicated that nearly 10% of imported ceramics might release lead into blood.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommend s that children be screened for lead poisoning at 12 months of age and also that middle age men should have their blood level tested because of their susceptibility to hypertension.

According to public health experts, preventive measures should be taken to avoid lead poisoning. These measures include testing for lead in paint, pottery, ceramic dishes, and drinking water.

California OSHA (CAL/OSHA) requires a lead -work pre -job notification if the quantities of lead -containing materials to be disturbed ex ceeds 100 square feet or 100 linear feet OR if the tasks include torch cutting or welding exceeding 1 hour in any shift OR if the percentage of lead in the material to be disturbed exceeds 0.5% by weight (5,000 ppm), or 1.0 mg/square centimeter. The infor mation and form required for notification can be found in 8CCR1532.1.

Project Name: Farmer Johns Meatpacking
Project Location: 2316 S. Elm Avenue, Fresno CA
CSC Project No.: 2002804
275 Rose Avenue, Suite 206, Pleasanton, CA 94566 * TEL 925-931-0100 * FAX 925-931-0108 [email protected] - www.csceng.com

METHODS

A. ASBESTOS

Suspect asbestos materials are sampled and later identified using the Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM) method in accordance with the EPA Interim method of the D etermination of Asbestos in Bulk Samples (EPA/600/R - 93/116, July 1993). Sampling was performed in accordance with 40 CFR 763.86. Homogeneous areas were based on the total functional space. Number of samples per homogeneous area was taken as recommended u nder said section “Sampling Procedures”.

The PLM Method is the most commonly used method to analyze building materials for the presence of asbestos.

This method utilizes the optical properties of minerals to identify the selected constituent. The use of this method enables identification of the type and the percentage of asbestos in a given sample. The detection limit of the PLM method for asbestos identification is about one (1) percent asbestos. Because the State of California recognizes asbestos-containing building material (ACBM) as any material, which contains greater than or equal to one tenth of one percent (.1) asbestos, materials containing "trace" amounts of asbestos are reported as ACBM in the State of California. CSC recommends Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) analysis for asbestos samples with one percent (l%) or less asbestos content and Point Count Method with results ranging between two percent (2%) and ten percent (10%) when analyzed via PLM.

Documentation of the laboratory resul ts should be retained as a reference for general building safety and maintenance, and for any future renovation/ demolition activities.

INSPECTION PROCEDURE (763.85)

Areas Inspected: In each area of the building, the inspector performed a preliminary walk-through to designate the functional spaces. He also noted which areas had homogeneous materials.

The inspector then visually inspected each accessible room or space in the building. The inspector touched suspect materials to determine if they were friable. For each suspect material, the inspector noted its condition and the potential for disturbance.

Quantities: Suspect asbestos -containing materials identified at the site were quantified. For extensive materials such as the transite siding and ro of panels, general functional space measurements were used. Such measurements provide “approximate square or linear footage” (763.93 (d)(2)(ii)).

Suspect Asbestos-Containing Materials: were sampled for laboratory analysis or were visually identified as ACM.

B. LEAD-BASED PAINT

The objective of this screening was to determine and report the existence and location of lead-based paint. As part of this screening, samples of suspect paint were collected from various surfaces throughout the interior of the spaces and submitted to EMSL Laboratories for total lead analysis utilizing Flame AAS (SW 846 3050B*/7000B).

Sampling locations were chosen by a Department of California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Certified Lead Inspector/Risk Assessor. Testing followed modified HUD/EPA Methodology. The modifications included not testing every wall but to perform a representative survey of the painted components.

Project Name: Farmer Johns Meatpacking
Project Location: 2316 S. Elm Avenue, Fresno CA
CSC Project No.: 2002804
275 Rose Avenue, Suite 206, Pleasanton, CA 94566 * TEL 925-931-0100 * FAX 925-931-0108 [email protected] - www.csceng.com
Currently, the State of California, HUD, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) define lead-based paint as paint or other surface coating with lead content equal to or greater than 1.0 milligram per square centimeter (mg/cm2) of surface area (via XRF instrumentation) or greater than or equal to 0.5% by weight, 5000 ppm, or 5000 mg/kg. The Cal/OSHA “Lead in Construction” standard recognizes any detectable (quantifiable) concentrations of lead as regulated materials.

When performing lead -related construction activities, workers must be protected when exposed to levels above the current permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 50ug/cm2, regardless of the content of lead in paint.

RESULTS

A. ASBESTOS

Thirty six (36) bulk samples were collected and analyzed for a total of seventy two (72) analyses on a layer -by- layer basis using polarized light microscopy (PLM). Three (3) samples were then further analyzed by 1000 -point count plm. The following table summarizes the suspect -asbestos-containing building materials identified at the site and the analytical results of the materials sampled. A complete list of s ample results can be found in the laboratory sheets at the end of this report.

Table 1: Bulk Sampling Results

Suspect Asbestos-Containing
Materials % Asbestos Location of Material (all locations where material is present) Est. Ft2
Drywall system (Drywall, joint
compound, skim coat, paint)
2%
Chrysotile
Food storage room restroom walls and
ceiling 600
4” Black covebase with adhesive NAD Main office lower walls 80 LF 12” Brown vinyl floor tile with clear
mastic NAD Main office floor 400
Drywall system (Drywall, joint
compound, skim coat, paint)
2%
Chrysotile Main office walls and ceiling 940
Cement board 8%
Chrysotile
Exterior east wall of storage room 2 and
walls of storage room 2 office, hallway
ceiling
650
Skim coat over foam insulation 1.2%*
Chrysotile
Storage room 1 upper walls and ceiling,
Storage room 2 ceiling and parts of upper
walls
5,720
Plaster over foam insulation NAD Storage room 1 lower walls, storage room 2 walls 2,720
TSI Pipe wrap NAD Storage room 1 and 2 piping by coolers 65 Roofing material (Multilayer) NAD Food storage roof 1,250 Penetration mastic 10-15%
Chrysotile All roofs 75
Roofing material (Multilayer) NAD Awning room and office 850 Roofing material (Multilayer) NAD Main storage roof 4,500 Project Name: Farmer Johns Meatpacking
Project Location: 2316 S. Elm Avenue, Fresno CA
CSC Project No.: 2002804
275 Rose Avenue, Suite 206, Pleasanton, CA 94566 * TEL 925-931-0100 * FAX 925-931-0108 [email protected] - www.csceng.com
NAD=No Asbestos Detected
*Confirmed by 1000 point count
See the laboratory report and chain custodies for the complete list materials tested and the sampling locations.

Clark Seif Clark, Inc. does not perform destructive sampling. Areas sampled are those accessible to visual inspection and per client's request. Should any future renovation activities reveal additional suspect asbestos - containing materials; work must stop until the suspect materials are tested for asbestos content.

B. LEAD-BASED PAINT

The following are the results of the testing combinations that tested positive for lead-based paint at >0.7 mg/cm2.

TABLE II: LBP Results

Sample # Paint Color Substrate Condition Location Results 804L-01 Red Wood Fair Exterior eaves 0.30% wt.
804L-02 Yellow Metal Fair Exterior posts, railings and doors 3.9% wt. 804L-03 Red Metal Fair Exterior doors and door frames <0.010% wt. 804L-04 Red Metal Fair Exterior posts and awning
support 5.2% wt.
804L-05 Red Wood Intact Exterior office walls 0.27% wt. 804L-06 Gray Metal Fair Interior main storage room doors <0.029% wt. 804L-07 Beige Cinderblock Fair Exterior north wall 0.033% wt. 804L-08 Beige Cinderblock Fair Exterior north wall 0.22% wt. 804L-09 Multicolor Cinderblock Intact Exterior south wall mural 0.047% wt. 804L-10 Beige Cinderblock Intact Exterior south wall 0.052% wt. 804L-11 White Drywall Intact Interior main office walls and ceiling <0.025% wt.
804L-12 Black Cinderblock Intact Storage room 2 office S. wall <0.024% wt. 804L-13 Red Wood Intact Restroom door <0.010% wt.
804L-14 White Drywall Intact Restroom walls and ceiling 0.057% wt. 804L-15 White Cinderblock Intact Interior main office N. wall 0.049% wt. 804L-16 White Metal Intact Interior main office N. door 0.094% wt. 804L-17 Beige Wood Fair Exterior awning ceiling 2.2% wt.

Note: Painted surfaces generally contain lead at various levels, which are lead containing and not considered lead based paint. It is advised that all work where painted surfaces are impacted is conducted in a manner to minimize th e generation of dust.

CONCLUSION

A. ASBESTOS

According to the bulk sample results and visual inspection, asbestos -containing materials were identified during the site survey that will be impacted by the proposed renovation project.

B. LEAD-BASED PAINT

Based on the field assessment and sample analysis, there is lead based paint and/or lead containing components in the impacted areas of the building.

Project Name: Farmer Johns Meatpacking
Project Location: 2316 S. Elm Avenue, Fresno CA
CSC Project No.: 2002804
275 Rose Avenue, Suite 206, Pleasanton, CA 94566 * TEL 925-931-0100 * FAX 925-931-0108 [email protected] - www.csceng.com

RECOMMENDATIONS

A. ASBESTOS

According to bulk sampling and visual inspection, asbestos-containing materials were present in the house that may require abatement or special handling by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor.

To assist in the management, handling, or reporting of ACM identified in this report, a description and quantity of said materials is presented in Table 2 below. Materials are described by type (i.e., Thermal System Insulation or Surfacing Material or Miscellaneous Material) and category (i.e., Regulated Asbestos -Containing Material or Category I Non-friable ACM or Category II Non -friable ACM). The quantities are expressed in terms of square - feet (sf), lineal-feet (lf), or cubic feet (cf).

Table III: Description and Quantity of Asbestos-Containing Materials

Description of Asbestos-Containing
Material
Thermal System
Insulation
Surfacing Material
Miscellaneous
Material
Regulated Asbestos -
Containing Material
Category I
Non-friable ACM*
Category II
Non-friable ACM*
Quantity of ACM**
Drywall system with joint compound X X 600 SF
Drywall system with joint compound X X 940 SF
Cement board X X 650 SF
Skim coat over foam insulation X X 5,720 SF
*Indicates condition of material at the time of sampling. Material may become friable and, thus, a Regulated Asbestos-Containing Material depending on the method of renovation or demolition and/or age. Material should be re-evaluated at the time of the project.
**Quantities are approximate and are not intended for bidding or reporting purposes, and must be field verified.

It will be necessary to comply with federal, state, and local regulations per EPA, OSHA and Fresno APCD prior to and during any removal or repair activities that may disturb the asbestos-containing materials.

B. LEAD

Based on the field assessment and lab analysis, there is lead b ased material in the yellow metal exterior posts, railings and doors; red metal exterior posts and awning supports; and beige exterior wood awning ceiling.

Although there are no present state or federal laws dealing with mandatory abatement following the identification of lead -containing materials prior to disturbance of said materials, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration has promulgated legislation (29 CFR 1926.62 and 8 CCR 1532.1) entitled “Lead Exposure in the Project Name: Farmer Johns Meatpacking
Project Location: 2316 S. Elm Avenue, Fresno CA
CSC Project No.: 2002804
275 Rose Avenue, Suite 206, Pleasanton, CA 94566 * TEL 925-931-0100 * FAX 925-931-0108 [email protected] - www.csceng.com
Construction Industry”, which deals with worker exposure to lead. This legislation requires that any task that may potentially expose workers to any concentration of lead, be monitored to determine workers eight -hour time weighted average (TWA) exposure to lead. Further, prior to in itiation of activities that may generate a lead exposure, such workers must have appropriate medical surveillance, hazard communication training and be property fitted with respiratory protection and protective clothing until TWA results reveal exposures b elow the Action Level.

At this time, there are two forms of controls: 1) One control method is abatement, a “permanent” means of treatment that has an expected life of at least 20 years; 2) the other control method is interim controls, a short - term plan t o control the lead hazards. Abatement measures include building component replacement, enclosure, paint removal (by heat gun, chemical, or contained abrasive), encapsulation (with patch tests and 20 year warranty), permanent soil covering (paving); and soi l replacement. Interim controls measures include, paint film stabilization, friction and impact reduction treatments, dust removal, general cleanup of contaminated areas, and soil covering using non-permanent means (grass, mulch, gravel).

All work involving potential and identified LBP/LCSC surfaces should be conducted in accordance with Title 8, California Code of Regulations, Section 1532.1, 29 CFR 1926.62 and AB 2784.

Any cutting and/or heating of interior metal surfaces, containing toxic lead should b e conducted in accordance with 29 CFR 1926.354. This regulation requires surfaces covered with toxic preservative, and in enclosed areas, be stripped of all toxic coatings for a distance of at least 4 inches, in all directions, from the area of heat application prior to the initiation of such heat application.

Contractor must perform all work in compliance with the most recent edition of all applicable federal, state, and local regulations, standards, and codes governing abatement, transport, and disposal of lead - containing/contaminated materials.

The report is designed to aid the building owner, architect, construction manager, general contractors, and potential asbestos abatement contractors in locating ACM and /or assumed ACM, LBP and/or lead -containing paint, and universal waste. The quantities of materials identified in this report are only estimates and should not be used for bidding or developing costs for abatement. It should be the responsibility of the asbestos abatement contractor to calculate actual quantities and develop removal costs accordingly.

Should materials similar to those identified in this report or, other forms of suspect hazardous materials be discovered during the renovation process, the contractor should be instructed to cease all work activities which may initiate an exposure episode and notify the appropriate management personnel.

Clark Seif Clark, Inc. prepared this asbestos survey under contract with Weston Solutions, Inc. . No warranties expressed or implied, are made by Clark Seif Clark, Inc. or its employees as to the use of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed in this report. Though reasonable efforts have been made to assure correctness, if a Contractor is employed he should bring any discrepancies to the immediate atte ntion of Clark Seif Clark, Inc.

We have employed state-of-the-art practices to perform this analysis of risk and identification, but this evaluation is severely limited in scope to areas accessible to a visual inspection or through reasonable means of the areas evaluated. No demolition or product review was performed in attempts to reveal material compositions. Our services consist of professional opinions and recommendations made in accordance with generally accepted engineering principles and practices and are designed to provide an analytical tool to assist the client. Clark Seif Clark or those representing Clark Seif Clark bear no responsibility for the actual condition of the structure or safety of a site pertaining to asbestos and/or asbestos contamination regardless of the actions taken by the client.

Project Name: Farmer Johns Meatpacking
Project Location: 2316 S. Elm Avenue, Fresno CA
CSC Project No.: 2002804
275 Rose Avenue, Suite 206, Pleasanton, CA 94566 * TEL 925-931-0100 * FAX 925-931-0108 [email protected] - www.csceng.com
Clark Seif Clark appreciated having the opportunity to inspect your property. If you have any questions regarding this survey or other environmental hazards, please don't hesitate to contact us at (818) 727-2553 or (800) 807 - 1118.

Report written and approved by: Report reviewed by:

Ryan Terwilliger – Project Manager Christian Goerrissen - Senior Project Manager CAC No. 11-4776 and CDPH LRCIA No. 22479 CAC No. 00-2804 Clark Seif Clark, Inc. (CSC, Inc.) Clark Seif Clark, Inc. (CSC, Inc.)

Project Name: Farmer Johns Meatpacking
Project Location: 2316 S. Elm Avenue, Fresno CA
CSC Project No.: 2002804
275 Rose Avenue, Suite 206, Pleasanton, CA 94566 * TEL 925-931-0100 * FAX 925-931-0108 [email protected] - www.csceng.com

APPENDIX A

ASBESTOS LABORATORY ANALYTICAL RESULTS AND CHAIN OF CUSTODY

EMSL Analytical, Inc.
464 McCormick Street San Leandro, CA 94577
Tel/Fax: (510) 895-3675 / (510) 895-3680
http://www.EMSL.com / [email protected]
091611239EMSL Order:

Customer ID: CLRK80
Customer PO:

Project ID:

Attention: Phone:Ryan Terwilliger (925) 931-0100
Fax:Clark Seif Clark (925) 931-0108
Received Date:275 Rose Avenue 06/13/2016 9:30 AM
Analysis Date:Suite 206 06/23/2016
Collected Date:Pleasanton, CA 94566
Project: Farmer Johns Meatpacking - 2316 S Elm Ave, Fresno CA 93706 Test Report: Asbestos Analysis of Bulk Materials via EPA 600/R-93/116 Method using Polarized Light Microscopy
Sample Description Appearance % Fibrous % Non-Fibrous
Non-Asbestos Asbestos
% Type
804B-01
091611239-0001
2% ChrysotileCa Carbonate
Non-fibrous (Other)
70%
28%
Tan
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
Joint Compound -
Food Storage Room
Restroom Walls +
Ceiling
804B-02
091611239-0002
2% ChrysotileCa Carbonate
Non-fibrous (Other)
80%
18%
Tan
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
Joint Compound -
Food Storage Room
Restroom Walls +
Ceiling
804B-03
091611239-0003
None DetectedGypsum
Non-fibrous (Other)
80%
15%
Cellulose5%White
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
Drywall - Food
Storage Room
Restroom Walls +
Ceiling
804B-04
091611239-0004
None DetectedGypsum
Non-fibrous (Other)
80%
15%
Cellulose5%White
Fibrous
Homogeneous
Drywall - Food
Storage Room
Restroom Walls +
Ceiling
804B-05-Cove Base
091611239-0005
None DetectedMatrix
Non-fibrous (Other)
90%
10%
Black
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
4" Black Covebase +
Adhesive - Office
Lower Walls
804B-05-Adhesive
091611239-0005A
None DetectedCa Carbonate
Non-fibrous (Other)
50%
50%
Tan
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
4" Black Covebase +
Adhesive - Office
Lower Walls
804B-06-Cove Base
091611239-0006
None DetectedMatrix
Non-fibrous (Other)
90%
10%
Black
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
4" Black Covebase +
Adhesive - Office
Lower Walls
804B-06-Adhesive
091611239-0006A
None DetectedCa Carbonate
Non-fibrous (Other)
50%
50%
Tan
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
4" Black Covebase +
Adhesive - Office
Lower Walls
804B-07-Cove Base
091611239-0007
None DetectedMatrix
Non-fibrous (Other)
80%
20%
Black
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
4" Black Covebase +
Adhesive - Office
Lower Walls
804B-07-Adhesive
091611239-0007A
None DetectedCa Carbonate
Matrix
Non-fibrous (Other)
30%
50%
20%
Tan
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
4" Black Covebase +
Adhesive - Office
Lower Walls
804B-08-Vinyl Floor Tile
091611239-0008
None DetectedCa Carbonate
Non-fibrous (Other)
35%
65%
Brown
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
12" Brown VFT
w/Clear Mastic -
Office Floor
804B-08-Mastic
091611239-0008A
None DetectedMatrix
Non-fibrous (Other)
65%
35%
Clear
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
12" Brown VFT
w/Clear Mastic -
Office Floor
Result includes a small amount of inseparable attached material 804B-09-Vinyl Floor Tile
091611239-0009
None DetectedCa Carbonate
Non-fibrous (Other)
35%
65%
Brown
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
12" Brown VFT
w/Clear Mastic -
Office Floor
804B-09-Mastic
091611239-0009A
None DetectedMatrix
Non-fibrous (Other)
65%
35%
Clear
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
12" Brown VFT
w/Clear Mastic -
Office Floor
Result includes a small amount of inseparable attached material Initial Report From: 06/27/2016 11:33:54

EMSL Analytical, Inc.
464 McCormick Street San Leandro, CA 94577
Tel/Fax: (510) 895-3675 / (510) 895-3680
http://www.EMSL.com / [email protected]
091611239EMSL Order:

Customer ID: CLRK80
Customer PO:

Project ID:

Test Report: Asbestos Analysis of Bulk Materials via EPA 600/R-93/116 Method using Polarized Light Microscopy
Sample Description Appearance % Fibrous % Non-Fibrous
Non-Asbestos Asbestos
% Type
804B-10-Vinyl Floor Tile
091611239-0010
None DetectedCa Carbonate
Non-fibrous (Other)
50%
50%
Brown
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
12" Brown VFT
w/Clear Mastic -
Office Floor
804B-10-Mastic
091611239-0010A
None DetectedMatrix
Non-fibrous (Other)
60%
40%
Clear
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
12" Brown VFT
w/Clear Mastic -
Office Floor
804B-11
091611239-0011
2% ChrysotileCa Carbonate
Non-fibrous (Other)
80%
18%
White
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
Joint Compound -
Office Walls + Ceiling
804B-12
091611239-0012
2% ChrysotileCa Carbonate
Non-fibrous (Other)
80%
18%
White
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
Joint Compound -
Office Walls + Ceiling
804B-13
091611239-0013
None DetectedGypsum
Non-fibrous (Other)
80%
15%
Cellulose5%White
Fibrous
Homogeneous
Drywall - Office Walls
+ Ceiling
804B-14-Texture
091611239-0014
None DetectedCa Carbonate
Non-fibrous (Other)
80%
20%
White
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
Drywall - Office Walls
+ Ceiling
804B-14-Drywall
091611239-0014A
None DetectedCa Carbonate
Gypsum
Non-fibrous (Other)
5%
80%
15%
White
Fibrous
Homogeneous
Drywall - Office Walls
+ Ceiling
804B-15
091611239-0015
8% ChrysotileCa Carbonate
Non-fibrous (Other)
60%
32%
Gray
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
Cement Board -
Exterior E Wall
Storage 2 - Walls
Storage 2 Office
804B-16
091611239-0016
8% ChrysotileCa Carbonate
Non-fibrous (Other)
60%
32%
Gray
Fibrous
Homogeneous
Cement Board -
Exterior E Wall
Storage 2 - Walls
Storage 2 Office
804B-17
091611239-0017
<1% ChrysotileCa Carbonate
Non-fibrous (Other)
65%
35%
White
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
Skim Coat over foam
Insulation - Storage
Room 1+2 Upper
Walls and Ceiling
804B-18
091611239-0018
<1% ChrysotileCa Carbonate
Non-fibrous (Other)
65%
35%
White
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
Skim Coat over foam
Insulation - Storage
Room 1+2 Upper
Walls and Ceiling
804B-19
091611239-0019
<1% ChrysotileQuartz
Ca Carbonate
Non-fibrous (Other)
15%
60%
25%
White
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
Skim Coat over foam
Insulation - Storage
Room 1+2 Upper
Walls and Ceiling
804B-20-Skim Coat
091611239-0020
None DetectedCa Carbonate
Non-fibrous (Other)
30%
70%
White
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
Plaster Over Foam -
Storage Room 1
Lower Walls - Storage
Room 2 Walls
804B-20-Plaster
091611239-0020A
None DetectedQuartz
Non-fibrous (Other)
30%
70%
Gray
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
Plaster Over Foam -
Storage Room 1
Lower Walls - Storage
Room 2 Walls
804B-21
091611239-0021
None DetectedQuartz
Non-fibrous (Other)
30%
70%
Gray
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
Plaster Over Foam -
Storage Room 1
Lower Walls - Storage
Room 2 Walls
804B-22-Skim Coat
091611239-0022
None DetectedCa Carbonate
Non-fibrous (Other)
30%
70%
White
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
Plaster Over Foam -
Storage Room 1
Lower Walls - Storage
Room 2 Walls
Initial Report From: 06/27/2016 11:33:54

EMSL Analytical, Inc.
464 McCormick Street San Leandro, CA 94577
Tel/Fax: (510) 895-3675 / (510) 895-3680
http://www.EMSL.com / [email protected]
091611239EMSL Order:

Customer ID: CLRK80
Customer PO:

Project ID:

Test Report: Asbestos Analysis of Bulk Materials via EPA 600/R-93/116 Method using Polarized Light Microscopy
Sample Description Appearance % Fibrous % Non-Fibrous
Non-Asbestos Asbestos
% Type
804B-22-Plaster
091611239-0022A
None DetectedQuartz
Non-fibrous (Other)
30%
70%
Gray
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
Plaster Over Foam -
Storage Room 1
Lower Walls - Storage
Room 2 Walls
804B-23
091611239-0023
None DetectedNon-fibrous (Other)53%Cellulose
Glass
45%
2%
White/Silver
Fibrous
Homogeneous
TSI Pipe Wrap -
Storage Room 1+2
Piping by Coolers
804B-24
091611239-0024
None DetectedNon-fibrous (Other)67%Cellulose
Glass
30%
3%
White
Fibrous
Homogeneous
TSI Pipe Wrap -
Storage Room 1+2
Piping by Coolers
804B-25-Felt
091611239-0025
None DetectedNon-fibrous (Other)38%Cellulose
Glass
60%
2%
Black
Fibrous
Homogeneous
Roofing
material/multilayer -
Roof - Food Storage
804B-25-Tar
091611239-0025A
None DetectedMatrix
Non-fibrous (Other)
95%
5%
Black
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
Roofing
material/multilayer -
Roof - Food Storage
804B-25-Felt 2
091611239-0025B
None DetectedMatrix
Non-fibrous (Other)
60%
10%
Glass30%White
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
Roofing
material/multilayer -
Roof - Food Storage
804B-25-Insulation
091611239-0025C
None DetectedNon-fibrous (Other)100%White
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
Roofing
material/multilayer -
Roof - Food Storage
804B-26-Felt
091611239-0026
None DetectedNon-fibrous (Other)40%Cellulose60%Black
Fibrous
Homogeneous
Roofing
material/multilayer -
Roof - Food Storage
804B-26-Tar
091611239-0026A
None DetectedMatrix
Non-fibrous (Other)
95%
5%
Black
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
Roofing
material/multilayer -
Roof - Food Storage
804B-26-Felt 2
091611239-0026B
None DetectedMatrix
Non-fibrous (Other)
60%
30%
Glass10%Black
Fibrous
Homogeneous
Roofing
material/multilayer -
Roof - Food Storage
804B-26-Insulation
091611239-0026C
None DetectedNon-fibrous (Other)100%White
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
Roofing
material/multilayer -
Roof - Food Storage
804B-27-Felt
091611239-0027
None DetectedNon-fibrous (Other)40%Cellulose60%Black
Fibrous
Homogeneous
Roofing
material/multilayer -
Roof - Food Storage
804B-27-Tar
091611239-0027A
None DetectedMatrix
Non-fibrous (Other)
90%
10%
Black
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
Roofing
material/multilayer -
Roof - Food Storage
804B-27-Felt 2
091611239-0027B
None DetectedMatrix
Non-fibrous (Other)
65%
25%
Glass10%Black
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
Roofing
material/multilayer -
Roof - Food Storage
804B-27-Insulation
091611239-0027C
None DetectedMatrix
Non-fibrous (Other)
95%
5%
White
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
Roofing
material/multilayer -
Roof - Food Storage
804B-28-Mastic
091611239-0028
15% ChrysotileMatrix
Non-fibrous (Other)
80%
5%
Black
Fibrous
Homogeneous
Penetration Mastic -
Roof - Penetrations
804B-28-Insulation
091611239-0028A
None DetectedNon-fibrous (Other)100%White
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
Penetration Mastic -
Roof - Penetrations
804B-29-Mastic
091611239-0029
10% ChrysotileMatrix
Non-fibrous (Other)
70%
20%
Black
Fibrous
Homogeneous
Penetration Mastic -
Roof - Penetrations
804B-29-Insulation
091611239-0029A
None DetectedNon-fibrous (Other)100%White
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
Penetration Mastic -
Roof - Penetrations
Initial Report From: 06/27/2016 11:33:54

EMSL Analytical, Inc.
464 McCormick Street San Leandro, CA 94577
Tel/Fax: (510) 895-3675 / (510) 895-3680
http://www.EMSL.com / [email protected]
091611239EMSL Order:

Customer ID: CLRK80
Customer PO:

Project ID:

Test Report: Asbestos Analysis of Bulk Materials via EPA 600/R-93/116 Method using Polarized Light Microscopy
Sample Description Appearance % Fibrous % Non-Fibrous
Non-Asbestos Asbestos
% Type
804B-30-Mastic
091611239-0030
10% ChrysotileMatrix
Non-fibrous (Other)
70%
20%
Black
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
Penetration Mastic -
Roof - Penetrations
804B-30-Insulation
091611239-0030A
None DetectedMatrix
Non-fibrous (Other)
95%
5%
Yellow
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
Penetration Mastic -
Roof - Penetrations
804B-31-Felt
091611239-0031
None DetectedMatrix
Non-fibrous (Other)
65%
10%
Glass25%Gray/Black
Fibrous
Homogeneous
Roofing Material
Multilayer - Roof -
Awning + Office
804B-31-Tar
091611239-0031A
None DetectedMatrix
Non-fibrous (Other)
95%
5%
Black
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
Roofing Material
Multilayer - Roof -
Awning + Office
804B-31-Felt 2
091611239-0031B
None DetectedNon-fibrous (Other)35%Cellulose65%Black
Fibrous
Homogeneous
Roofing Material
Multilayer - Roof -
Awning + Office
804B-32-Felt
091611239-0032
None DetectedMatrix
Non-fibrous (Other)
40%
30%
Glass30%Gray/Black
Fibrous
Homogeneous
Roofing Material
Multilayer - Roof -
Awning + Office
804B-32-Tar
091611239-0032A
None DetectedMatrix
Non-fibrous (Other)
95%
5%
Black
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
Roofing Material
Multilayer - Roof -
Awning + Office
804B-32-Felt 2
091611239-0032B
None DetectedNon-fibrous (Other)40%Cellulose60%Black
Fibrous
Homogeneous
Roofing Material
Multilayer - Roof -
Awning + Office
804B-33-Felt
091611239-0033
None DetectedQuartz
Matrix
Non-fibrous (Other)
5%
60%
20%
Glass15%Black
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
Roofing Material
Multilayer - Roof -
Awning + Office
804B-33-Tar
091611239-0033A
None DetectedMatrix
Non-fibrous (Other)
90%
10%
Black
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
Roofing Material
Multilayer - Roof -
Awning + Office
804B-33-Insulation
091611239-0033B
None DetectedMatrix
Non-fibrous (Other)
90%
10%
White
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
Roofing Material
Multilayer - Roof -
Awning + Office
804B-34-Felt
091611239-0034
None DetectedNon-fibrous (Other)35%Cellulose65%Black
Fibrous
Homogeneous
Roofing Material
Multilayer - Roof -
Main Storage
804B-34-Tar
091611239-0034A
None DetectedMatrix
Non-fibrous (Other)
95%
5%
Black
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
Roofing Material
Multilayer - Roof -
Main Storage
804B-34-Felt 2
091611239-0034B
None DetectedMatrix
Non-fibrous (Other)
50%
30%
Glass20%Black
Fibrous
Homogeneous
Roofing Material
Multilayer - Roof -
Main Storage
804B-34-Insulation
091611239-0034C
None DetectedNon-fibrous (Other)100%White
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
Roofing Material
Multilayer - Roof -
Main Storage
804B-35-Felt
091611239-0035
None DetectedNon-fibrous (Other)50%Cellulose50%Black
Fibrous
Homogeneous
Roofing Material
Multilayer - Roof -
Main Storage
804B-35-Tar
091611239-0035A
None DetectedMatrix
Non-fibrous (Other)
95%
5%
Black
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
Roofing Material
Multilayer - Roof -
Main Storage
804B-35-Felt 2
091611239-0035B
None DetectedMatrix
Non-fibrous (Other)
50%
30%
Glass20%Black
Fibrous
Homogeneous
Roofing Material
Multilayer - Roof -
Main Storage
804B-35-Insulation
091611239-0035C
None DetectedNon-fibrous (Other)100%White
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
Roofing Material
Multilayer - Roof -
Main Storage
Initial Report From: 06/27/2016 11:33:54

EMSL Analytical, Inc.
464 McCormick Street San Leandro, CA 94577
Tel/Fax: (510) 895-3675 / (510) 895-3680
http://www.EMSL.com / [email protected]
091611239EMSL Order:

Customer ID: CLRK80
Customer PO:

Project ID:

Test Report: Asbestos Analysis of Bulk Materials via EPA 600/R-93/116 Method using Polarized Light Microscopy
Sample Description Appearance % Fibrous % Non-Fibrous
Non-Asbestos Asbestos
% Type
804B-36-Felt
091611239-0036
None DetectedNon-fibrous (Other)40%Cellulose60%Black
Fibrous
Homogeneous
Roofing Material
Multilayer - Roof -
Main Storage
804B-36-Tar
091611239-0036A
None DetectedMatrix
Non-fibrous (Other)
90%
10%
Black
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
Roofing Material
Multilayer - Roof -
Main Storage
804B-36-Felt 2
091611239-0036B
None DetectedMatrix
Non-fibrous (Other)
65%
15%
Glass20%Black
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
Roofing Material
Multilayer - Roof -
Main Storage
804B-36-Insulation
091611239-0036C
None DetectedMatrix
Non-fibrous (Other)
95%
5%
White
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
Roofing Material
Multilayer - Roof -
Main Storage
Analyst(s)
Christie Villanueva (52)
Cecilia Yu (20)
Chris Dojlidko, Laboratory Manager
or Other Approved Signatory
EMSL maintains liability limited to cost of analysis. This report relates only to the samples reported and may not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval by EMSL. EMSL bears no responsibility for sample collection activities or analytical method limitations. Interpretation and use of test results are the responsibility of the client. This report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by NVLAP, NIST or any agency of the federal government. Non-friable organically bound materials present a problem matrix and therefore EMSL recommends gravimetric reduction prior to analysis. Samples received in good condition unless otherwise noted. Estimated accuracy, precision and uncertainty data available upon request. Unless requested by the client, building materials manufactured with multiple layers (i.e. linoleum, wallboard, etc.) are reported as a single sample. Reporting limit is 1% Samples analyzed by EMSL Analytical, Inc San Leandro, CA NVLAP Lab Code 101048-3, WA C884 Initial Report From: 06/27/2016 11:33:54

EMSL Analytical, Inc
464 McCormick Street, San Leandro, CA 94577
Phone/Fax: (510) 895-3675 / (510) 895-3680
http://www.EMSL.com [email protected]
091611239
CustomerID: CLRK80
CustomerPO:

ProjectID:

EMSL Order:

Attn: Ryan Terwilliger
Clark Seif Clark
275 Rose Avenue
Suite 206
Pleasanton, CA 94566
Received: 06/13/16 9:30 AM
Farmer Johns Meatpacking - 2316 S Elm Ave, Fresno CA 93706 Fax: (925) 931-0108
Phone: (925) 931-0100
Project:
7/7/2016Analysis Date:

Collected:

Sample Description Appearance % Type
AsbestosNon-Asbestos
% Fibrous % Non-Fibrous
Test Report: Asbestos Analysis of Bulk Material via EPA 600/R-93/116. Quantitation using the 1,000 Point Count Procedure
804B-17
091611239-0017
Skim Coat over foam
Insulation - Storage
Room 1+2 Upper
Walls and Ceiling
White
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
Chrysotile1.20%Non-fibrous (other)98.80%
804B-18
091611239-0018
Skim Coat over foam
Insulation - Storage
Room 1+2 Upper
Walls and Ceiling
White
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
Chrysotile0.90%Non-fibrous (other)99.10%
804B-19
091611239-0019
Skim Coat over foam
Insulation - Storage
Room 1+2 Upper
Walls and Ceiling
White
Non-Fibrous
Homogeneous
Chrysotile0.80%Non-fibrous (other)99.20%
Chris Dojlidko, Laboratory Manager
or other approved signatory
Test Report PLMPTC-7.25.0 Printed: 7/7/2016 12:41:05 PM 1 Analyst(s)
THIS IS THE LAST PAGE OF THE REPORT.

Some samples may contain asbestos fibers present in dimensions below PLM resolution limits.The limit of detection as stated in the method is 0.1%. EMSL Analytical Inc suggests that samples reported as <0.1% or none detected undergo additional analysis via TEM. The above test report relates only to the items tested. This report may not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval EMSL Analytical Inc. This test report must not be used by the client to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any agency of the United States Government. EMSL Analytical Inc. bears no responsibility for sample collection activities, analytical method limitations, or the accuracy of results when requested to separate layered samples. EMSL Analytical Inc liability is limited to the cost of sample analysis.The test results contained within this report meet the requirements of NELAC unless otherwise noted. Samples received in good condition unless otherwise noted. Unless requested by the client, building materials manufactured with multiple layers (i.e. linoleum, wallboard, etc.) are reported as a single sample.

Samples analyzed by EMSL Analytical, Inc San Leandro, CA NVLAP Lab Code 101048-3, WA C884 Matthew Batongbacal (3)
Initial report from 07/07/2016 12:41:05
OrderID: 091611239

2 OrderID: 091611239

2 Project Name: Farmer Johns Meatpacking
Project Location: 2316 S. Elm Avenue, Fresno CA
CSC Project No.: 2002804
275 Rose Avenue, Suite 206, Pleasanton, CA 94566 * TEL 925-931-0100 * FAX 925-931-0108 [email protected] - www.csceng.com

APPENDIX B

LEAD LABORATORY ANALYTICAL RESULTS AND CHAIN OF CUSTODY

ConcentrationAnalyzed RDL LeadClient SampleDescription Collected Test Report: Lead in Paint Chips by Flame AAS (SW 846 3050B/7000B)* EMSL Analytical, Inc
464 McCormick Street, San Leandro, CA 94577
Phone/Fax: (510) 895-3675 / (510) 895-3680
http://www.EMSL.com [email protected]
Attn: Ryan Terwilliger
Clark Seif Clark
275 Rose Avenue
Suite 206
Pleasanton, CA 94566
Received: 06/13/16 9:15 AM
FARMER JOHNS/2002804
Fax: (925) 931-0108
Phone: (925) 931-0100
Project:
6/9/2016Collected:
091610807
CustomerID: CLRK80
CustomerPO: 2002804
ProjectID:

EMSL Order:

Site: EXTERIOR EAVES RED PAINT

0.30% wt6/22/2016
091610807-0001

0.0106/9/2016804L-01 % wt
Site: EXTERIOR POSTS RAILING, DOOR

3.9% wt6/22/2016
091610807-0002

0.306/9/2016804L-02 % wt
Site: EXTERIOR DOORS + DOOR FRAMES
<0.010% wt6/22/2016
091610807-0003

0.0106/9/2016804L-03 % wt
Site: EXTERIOR POSTS + AWNING SUPPORT

5.2% wt6/22/2016
091610807-0004

0.426/9/2016804L-04 % wt
Site: EXTERIOR WALLS - OFFICE

0.27% wt6/22/2016
091610807-0005

0.0106/9/2016804L-05 % wt
Site: INTERIOR STORAGE RM DOORS
<0.029% wt6/22/2016
091610807-0006

0.0296/9/2016804L-06 % wt
Site: EXT N WALL BEIGE CINDER BLOCK

0.033% wt6/22/2016
091610807-0007

0.0106/9/2016804L-07 % wt
Site: EXT N WALL BEIGE CINDER BLOCK

0.22% wt6/22/2016
091610807-0008

0.0106/9/2016804L-08 % wt
Site: EXTERIOR S WALL MULTICOLOR

0.047% wt6/22/2016
091610807-0009

0.0136/9/2016804L-09 % wt
Site: EXT S WALL BEIGE

0.052% wt6/22/2016
091610807-0010

0.0116/9/2016804L-10 % wt
Site: INTERIOR DRYWALL OFFICE
<0.025% wt6/22/2016
091610807-0011

0.0256/9/2016804L-11 % wt

Chris Dojlidko, Laboratory Manager
or other approved signatory
*Analysis following Lead in Paint by EMSL SOP/Determination of Environmental Lead by FLAA. Reporting limit is 0.010 % wt based on the minimum sample weight per our SOP. Unless noted, results in this report are not blank corrected. This report relates only to the samples reported above and may not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval by EMSL. EMSL bears no responsibility for sample collection activities. Samples received in good condition unless otherwise noted. "<" (less than) result signifies that the analyte was not detected at or above the reporting limit. Measurement of uncertainty is available upon request. The QC data associated with the sample results included in this report meet the recovery and precision requirements unless specifically indicated otherwise.

Samples analyzed by EMSL Analytical, Inc San Leandro, CA A2LA Accredited Environmental Testing Cert #2845.09 Initial report from 06/22/2016 15:31:16
ConcentrationAnalyzed RDL LeadClient SampleDescription Collected Test Report: Lead in Paint Chips by Flame AAS (SW 846 3050B/7000B)* EMSL Analytical, Inc
464 McCormick Street, San Leandro, CA 94577
Phone/Fax: (510) 895-3675 / (510) 895-3680
http://www.EMSL.com [email protected]
Attn: Ryan Terwilliger
Clark Seif Clark
275 Rose Avenue
Suite 206
Pleasanton, CA 94566
Received: 06/13/16 9:15 AM
FARMER JOHNS/2002804
Fax: (925) 931-0108
Phone: (925) 931-0100
Project:
6/9/2016Collected:
091610807
CustomerID: CLRK80
CustomerPO: 2002804
ProjectID:

EMSL Order:

Site: INTERIOR STORAGE RM 2 OFFICE S WALL
<0.024% wt6/22/2016
091610807-0012

0.0246/9/2016804L-12 % wt
Site: INTERIOR RESTROOM DOOR
<0.010% wt6/22/2016
091610807-0013

0.0106/9/2016804L-13 % wt
Site: INTERIOR RESTROOM WALLS

0.057% wt6/22/2016
091610807-0014

0.0196/9/2016804L-14 % wt
Site: INTERIOR OFFICE N WALL CINDERBLOCK

0.049% wt6/22/2016
091610807-0015

0.0236/9/2016804L-15 % wt
Site: INTERIOR OFFICE N DOOR

0.094% wt6/22/2016
091610807-0016

0.0116/9/2016804L-16 % wt
Site: EXTERIOR AWNING CEILING

2.2% wt6/22/2016
091610807-0017

0.256/9/2016804L-17 % wt

Chris Dojlidko, Laboratory Manager
or other approved signatory
*Analysis following Lead in Paint by EMSL SOP/Determination of Environmental Lead by FLAA. Reporting limit is 0.010 % wt based on the minimum sample weight per our SOP. Unless noted, results in this report are not blank corrected. This report relates only to the samples reported above and may not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval by EMSL. EMSL bears no responsibility for sample collection activities. Samples received in good condition unless otherwise noted. "<" (less than) result signifies that the analyte was not detected at or above the reporting limit. Measurement of uncertainty is available upon request. The QC data associated with the sample results included in this report meet the recovery and precision requirements unless specifically indicated otherwise.

Samples analyzed by EMSL Analytical, Inc San Leandro, CA A2LA Accredited Environmental Testing Cert #2845.09 Initial report from 06/22/2016 15:31:16
OrderID: 091610807

2 OrderID: 091610807

2 Project Name: Farmer Johns Meatpacking
Project Location: 2316 S. Elm Avenue, Fresno CA
CSC Project No.: 2002804
275 Rose Avenue, Suite 206, Pleasanton, CA 94566 * TEL 925-931-0100 * FAX 925-931-0108 [email protected] - www.csceng.com

APPENDIX C

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

Project Name: Farmer Johns Meatpacking
Project Location: 2316 S. Elm Avenue, Fresno CA
CSC Project No.: 2002804
275 Rose Avenue, Suite 206, Pleasanton, CA 94566 * TEL 925-931-0100 * FAX 925-931-0108 [email protected] - www.csceng.com

Photo 1: View of the building looking north Photo 2: View of the south wall of the building

Photo 3: View of storage room 2 with ACM skimcoat Photo 4: View of the office in storage room 2

Photo 5: View of the hallway between storage room 1 and 2

Photo 6:View of storage room 1with ACM skim coat on the upper walls and ceiling

Project Name: Farmer Johns Meatpacking
Project Location: 2316 S. Elm Avenue, Fresno CA
CSC Project No.: 2002804
275 Rose Avenue, Suite 206, Pleasanton, CA 94566 * TEL 925-931-0100 * FAX 925-931-0108 [email protected] - www.csceng.com

Photo 7: View of the west side of the food storage building Photo 8: View of the restroom inside the food storage building

Photo 9: View of the inside of the food storage building Photo 10: View of the main office

Photo 11: View of the food storage building roof

Photo 12:View of the main roof

Project Name: Farmer Johns Meatpacking
Project Location: 2316 S. Elm Avenue, Fresno CA
CSC Project No.: 2002804
275 Rose Avenue, Suite 206, Pleasanton, CA 94566 * TEL 925-931-0100 * FAX 925-931-0108 [email protected] - www.csceng.com

APPENDIX D

SITE SKETCH

PROJECT TITLE:

WESTON SOLUTIONS
1340 Treat Boulevard
Suite 210
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
***CONTRACTOR MUST VERIFY ALL QUANTITIES BEFORE BIDDING*** TITLE:

FLOOR PLAN
DATE ISSUED: DRAWING SCALE:

A-1
CLIENT:

NOTES
Drawing Number:

Sheet: of
1 A-1

FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: NTS
21732 DEVONSHIRE ST., SUITE B, CHATSWORTH, CA 91311
PO BOX 4299, CHATSWORTH, CA 91313
TEL. 818-727-2553
FAX. 818-727-2556
CSC PROJECT NO.: 2002804
Former Farmer Johns Meatpacking
2316 S. Elm Avenue
Fresno, California 93706
Legend
X = Sample Location
= Non-ACM
= Non Friable ACM
= Friable ACM
5'-6"
Storage 1
Storage 2
Office
OfficeRestroom
Food storage
Awning
804B-01
804B-02
804B-04804B-03
804B-04-06
804B-08-10
804B-11
804B-12
804B-13
804B-14
804B-15
804B-16
804B-17
804B-18
804B-19
804B-20
804B-21
804B-22
804B-24
804B-23
TOTAL INTERIOR FLOOR AREA = 6,250 SQUARE FEET
804B-25
804B-26
804B-27
804B-28
804B-29
804B-30
804B-31
804B-32
804B-33
804B-34 804B-35 804B-36
Project Name: Farmer Johns Meatpacking
Project Location: 2316 S. Elm Avenue, Fresno CA
CSC Project No.: 2002804
275 Rose Avenue, Suite 206, Pleasanton, CA 94566 * TEL 925-931-0100 * FAX 925-931-0108 [email protected] - www.csceng.com

APPENDIX E

ACCREDITATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS

(A2LA Cert. No. 2845.09) 03/31/2016 Page 1 of 1
SCOPE OF ACCREDITATION TO ISO/IEC 17025:2005
EMSL ANALYTICAL, INC.
464 McCormick St.

San Leandro, CA 94577
Andrew Pereze Phone: (510) 895-3675

ENVIRONMENTAL
Valid To: January 31, 2018 Certificate Number: 2845.09 In recognition of the successful completion of the A2LA evaluation process, accreditation is granted to this laboratory to perform recognized EPA methods using the following testing technologies and in the analyte categories identified below; for the test methods applicable to the National Environmental Lead Laboratory Accreditation Program (NLLAP) and tests on children’s products:

ENVIRONMENTAL LEAD
Test Test Method(s)
Total Lead (Pb) in Soil Soil, EPA 7000B – (FLAA), EMSL Analytical, Inc.

LM-007A 3050 (Modified Hotblock Digestion)
Total Lead (Pb) in Paint Chips Chips, EPA7000B – (FLAA), EMSL Analytical, Inc.

LM-007B 3050 (Modified Hotblock Digestion)
Total Lead (Pb) in Dust Wipes Wipes, EPA 7000B – (FLAA), EMSL Analytical, Inc. LM-007C 3050 (Modified Hotblock Digestion)
Total Lead (Pb) in Air Air Cassettes, NIOSH 7082

For the tests to which this accreditation applies, please refer to the laboratory’s Environmental Scope of Accreditation.

Accredited Laboratory
A2LA has accredited
EMSL ANALYTICAL, INC.

San Leandro, CA
for technical competence in the field of
Environmental Testing

This laboratory is accredited in accordance with the recognized International Standard ISO/IEC 17025:2005 General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories. This laboratory also meets the requirements of any additional program requirements in the Environmental field. This accreditation demonstrates technical competence for a defined scope and the operation of a laboratory quality management system (refer to joint ISO-ILAC-IAF Communiqué dated 8 January 2009).

Presented this 31st day of March 2016.

_______________________
Senior Director of Quality and Communications
For the Accreditation Council
Certificate Number 2845.09
Valid to January 31, 2018

United States Department of Commerce
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Certificate of Accreditation to ISO/IEC 17025:2005
NVLAP LAB CODE: 101048-3
EMSL Analytical, Inc.

San Leandro, CA
is accredited by the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program for specific services, listed on the Scope of Accreditation, for:

Asbestos Fiber Analysis
2016-07-01 through 2017-06-30
Effective Dates For the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program This laboratory is accredited in accordance with the recognized International Standard ISO/IEC 17025:2005.

This accreditation demonstrates technical competence for a defined scope and the operation of a laboratory quality management system (refer to joint ISO-ILAC-IAF Communique dated January 2009).

National Voluntary
Laboratory Accreditation Program
SCOPE OF ACCREDITATION TO ISO/IEC 17025:2005

For the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program Effective 2016-07-01 through 2017-06-30
EMSL Analytical, Inc.
464 McCormick St.

San Leandro, CA 94577
Mr. Chris Dojlidko
Phone: 510-895-3675 Fax: (510) 895-3680
Email: [email protected]
http://www.emsl.com
ASBESTOS FIBER ANALYSIS NVLAP LAB CODE 101048-3
Bulk Asbestos Analysis
Code Description
18/A01 EPA 600/M4-82-020: Interim Method for the Determination of Asbestos in Bulk Insulation Samples 18/A03 EPA 600/R-93/116: Method for the Determination of Asbestos in Bulk Building Materials Airborne Asbestos Analysis
Code Description
18/A02 U.S. EPA's "Interim Transmission Electron Microscopy Analytical Methods-Mandatory and Nonmandatory-and Mandatory Section to Determine Completion of Response Actions" as found in 40 CFR, Part 763, Subpart E, Appendix A.

APPENDIX C

BUILDING/SITE RENOVATION PLANS

E
JP
Existing Adjacent
Building (vacant)
S 89° 48' 43" W 134.00'
N 89° 48' 43" E 134.00'
S 0° 0' 12" E 151.80'
N 0° 0' 12" W 151.80'
Easement for water line along the South line
extending from the East to the West recorded
October 16, 1937 in Book 1626 Page 362
O.R.F.C.

Existing Building to be Renovated-
Food Storage / Warehouse
(5,852 sf)
Picnic
Area
Picnic
Area
1 2
3 4
4 ELM AVENUE
5 6
5'-1" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 5'-0" 10'-8"
18'-0"27'-0"18'-0"
22'-0"10'-8"
7 Recycle
Trash
Equip.

Storage
20'-0"
8 9
10 11
1212
13 14
14 6
25'-4" 92'-0"
117'-4"
10'-0" 49'-4"8" 8'-0"
60'-0"
15 6
32'-0"10'-1"4'-0"
33'-11"
(E) Roofed Canopy Area
(over Loading Dock)
3'-2"
16 171717
14 18
19 approx.
(E)3'-8" (E) 27'-11" (approx)
approx.
(E)3'-8"
8 20
26'-11 13/16"
13'-10 1/2"
46'-6 1/2"
21 21
22 3'-4"
4'-0"9'-0" 9'-0" 8'-0"
TYP.
10'-0"
23 24
21 25
26 27
20'-0"
21 21
21 2828
21 29
303031
32 33
34 3535
36 36
15 15
15 3737
37 3838
3838
38 38
39 New Building-
Healthy Community
Kitchen & Classroom
(1,890 sf)
SHEET NUMBER:

PROJECT NUMBER:

DRAWING SET INFORMATION:

PAUL HALAJIAN
REVISIONS:

ARCHITECTS
PAUL HALAJIAN ARCHITECTS expressly reserves its common law copyright and other property rights specifically related to the contents of these plans. This document and the ideas and designs incorporated herein, as an instrument of professional service rendered by PAUL HALAJIAN ARCHITECTS, is not to be used in whole or in part for any other project without prior written authorization from PAUL HALAJIAN ARCHITECTS.
389 Clovis Ave, Suite 100
Clovis, CA 93612-1185
T: 559.297.7900 F: 559.297.7950
www.halajianarch.com
PROJECT:

SHEET:

NOT FOR
CONST

RUCTION
A102
2020-20Saint Rest Food to Share Renovation
2316 South Elm Avenue, Fresno, CA, 93706
Fresno Metro Ministries
Site Plan -Proposed

05.20.2021 Progress Drawings

KEYNOTES
1" = 10'-0"1 SITE PLAN - PROPOSED
APN: 47818307
Address: 2316 S. Elm Ave.

Fresno, CA 93706
Site Area: 0.46 acres (20,341 SF)
Zoning: NMX (Neighborhood Mixed Use)
Lot Dimensions: 151' X 134'
Building Height: 1 story / 21' (existing)
Building Area: 6,259 (existing building)
407 (to be demolished)
5,852 GSF - Building to Remain
1,890 GSF (new building)
Roofed Canopy Area: 720 SF (at exsiting building)
Building Occupancy: Existing Building
S-1 (moderate hazard storage)
New Building
B (Office / Demonstration Kitchen)
Construction Type: Type VB
Fire Sprinklers: Not Existing / Not Required
Fire Alarm: Not Existing / Not Required

PROJECT INFORMATION
Permitted Use: Community and Religious Assembly
-Food Distribution
-Kitchen and Cooking Demonstration
-Office
Setbacks: Front Yard (0' min. / 10' max)
Alley (3' min.)
No other setbacks for NMX
Accessory Structures: Fence
-Located minimum 12" behind Front
Yard Line
-Permitted at 6' Height
-Min. 80% Open
-Proposed wrought iron is a permitted
material
Canopy (Detached)
-Not Located within Setbacks
Canopy (Attached)
-Not Located within Setbacks
Lighting: All exterior doors, during the hours of darkness, shall be illuminated with a minimum of 0.5 foot
candle of light
Maximum 20' Height, Cut-Off type, No Light Trespass

ZONING REQUIREMENTS
1 (E) Concrete drive approach to remain
2 (E) Concrete curb and gutter to remain
3 (E) Fire hydrant to remain
4 (E) Street light to remain
5 (E) Concrete sidewalk/flatwork to remain
6 (N) Street tree and tree well; see Landscape Drawings 7 (N) Trash enclosure per City of Fresno Standards P-33 and P-95 8 Decomposed gravel area, compressed to 95%
9 (N) Concrete wheelstop
10 (N) 36"x36" painted ISA, typ.
11 (N) Parking stall with 4" white stripes, typ.
12 (N) Accessible parking stall with 4" white border and 4" blue diagonal stripes @ 36" o.c.
13 (N) Painted directional arrow
14 (E) 6' CMU wall to remain; paint per schedule
15 6'-0" high wrought iron fence to match existing at adjacent Community Park 16 Dashed line indicates 12" front yard line setback
17 Dashed lines indicate truck turn w/ 44' radius at centerline, typ. 18 (E) Electrical box to remain
19 (E) Water meter in box to remain
20 Trees, typ.; see Landscape Drawings
21 Landscape area, typ.
22 Bicycle rack, typ.
23 (E) Concrete ramp serving loading dock to remain
24 Indicates main public building entry
25 CMU raised planter.; see Landscape Drawings
26 Prefab, wall-mounted aluminum shade/weather canopy above windows; see Exterior Elevations
27 Indicates property line / boundary, typ.
28 Outdoor mechanical unit; see Mechanical Drawings
29 Indicates street centerline
30 Prefab, post mounted cantilever aluminum shade/weather canopy surrounding Loading Dock; see Exterior Elevations
31 Metal pan stairs
32 Outdoor rated, commercial vertical wheelchair lift
33 (N) Path of travel striping with 4" white border and 4" white stripes @ 36" o.c. 34 (E) Gas meter to remain
35 16'-0" wide wrought iron access gate
36 3'-0" wide wrought iron accessible man gate
37 (N) 4" Concrete walk
38 (N) Concrete paving, reinforced for vehicular use; match adjacent property concrete coloring pattern as indicated
39 Accessible route
TRUE
NORTH
Accessible Route: Architect and contractor shall verify that there are no barriers in the accessible path indicated on drawings and shall meet the following:

A. Accessible route as indicated is a common barrier free route without any abrupt vertical changes exceeding 1/2" at 1:2 max slope, except that level changes do not exceed 1/4" vertical.

B. Accessible route is a minimum of 48" wide. The surface shall be firm, stable and slip resistant. Passing space at least 60" x 60" shall be located not more than 200' apart.

C. Accessible route shall not exceed 2% cross slope and 5% running slope in the direction of travel. Slopes greater than 5% to a maximum of 8.33% shall be considered as a ramp.

D. Accessible route with a continuous gradients shall have 60" level areas at intervals of 400' maximum.

E. There shall be no drop off greater than 4" along the edge of walk or landing.

F. Accessible route shall be maintained free of overhang obstructions and objects protruding greater than 4" from a wall, between 27" to 80" above finish grade.

ACCESSIBLE ROUTE