735, 739, and 741 H Street,
Fresno, California
Analysis of Brownfield Cleanup
Alternatives
March 23, 2023
Prepared for:
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3076
Fresno, California 93721
Prepared by:
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
3875 Atherton Road
Rocklin, CA 95765
Project No.: 185755542
USEPA Brownfields Revolving Loan
Fund Grant Cooperative Agreement No.
BF98T08001
ACRES No. 253445
Sign-off Sheet
This document entitled 735 , 739, and 741 H Street, F resno, 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, Principal Scientist
Quality Reviewer:
Jacqueline Brenner, Associate Scientist
Independent Reviewer:
Neil Doran, P.G., Principal
ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES
735, 739, AND 741 H STREET, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA
i
Table of Contents
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ...................................................................................... III EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... IV
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ........................................................................ 1
1.1 GENERAL SITE INFORMATION .................................................................................... 1
1.2 SITE HISTORY AND PREVIOUS USE ........................................................................... 1
1.3 HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING ....................................................................................... 3
1.4 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES AND REMEDIAL ACTIVITIES ..................... 4
1.5 SUMMARY OF KEY ENVIRONMENTAL, SAFETY, AND OTHER CONCERNS RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT OF CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES ................................. 12
2.0 REDEVELOPMENT PLAN ........................................................................................... 14
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 .............................................................................. 19
4.2.2 Alternative 2 – Partial Abatement and Demolition ......................................... 19
4.2.3 Alternative 3 – Full Abatement and Demolition ............................................. 19
4.3 EVALUATION OF CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES .............................................................20
4.3.1 Effectiveness ................................................................................................ 20
4.3.2 Implementability ........................................................................................... 21
4.3.3 Costs ............................................................................................................ 22
4.3.4 Consideration of Climate Change Impacts ................................................... 24
4.3.5 Consideration of Equity and Environmental Justice Concerns ...................... 25
4.3.6 Consideration of Green and Sustainable Remediation Guidance ................. 25
4.4 RECOMMENDED REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE .............................................................25
5.0 DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATIONS ............................................................................... 27
6.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 28
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 PROPERTY LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 2 PROPERTY VICINTY MAP
ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES
735, 739, AND 741 H STREET, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA
ii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 CHRONOLOGY OF PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND LAND USES (1885-2022)
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A ASBESTOS SURVEY AND LEAD BASED PAINT INSPECTION REPORT (2014) APPENDIX B ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT (2022)
APPENDIX C PRELIMINARY STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
APPENDIX D FEMA FLOOD HAZARD AREAS MAP
ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES
735, 739, AND 741 H STREET, 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
AME Alan Mok Engineering
APN assessor parcel number
BER business environmental risk
CAL/OSHA California Division of Occupational Safety and Health C&D construction & demolition
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DWR Department of Water Resources
ESA environmental site assessment
FACS Forensic Analytical Consulting Services
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
HAZWOPER Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response HUD Housing and Urban Development
LBP lead-based paint
Mg/cm2 Milligrams per cubic centimeter
NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PCBs Polychlorinated biphenyls
PHSE Parrish Hansen Structural Engineers
PPCG Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group
RBMs regulated building materials
REC recognized environmental condition
RLF revolving loan fund
RRP Renovation, Repair, and Painting
SF square foot or feet
Stantec Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
TAMA Temple Anderson Moore Architects
TBAI T. Brooks & Associates, Inc.
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USGS United States Geological Survey
VFT Vinyl floor tile
ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES
735, 739, AND 741 H STREET, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA
iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (Stantec) prepared this Analysis of Brownfield Cleanup Alternatives (ABCA) for a parcel of land nearly fully occupied by a vacant warehouse building located at 735, 739, and 741 H Street, Fresno, California (the “Property”), on behalf of City of Fresno (City or the “Client”). The 0.54- acre parcel is located at the west corner of the intersection of H Street and Mono Street in the downtown area of the City.
The 0.54-acre parcel has dimensions of 59 feet by 400 feet and is nearly fully occupied by a 50-foot by 400- foot one- story vacant warehouse building formerly used for commercial purposes. The building was historically divided into four areas (referenced within this report as Areas A-D), each of which has separate assigned addresses, historical uses, and former occupants. The surrounding areas are comprised of vacant commercial structures, parking lots, retail businesses, the Chukchansi Park baseball stadium, and a railroad right-of-way.
The Property is currently owned by the City. Until recently, it was anticipated that the building might be renovated for adapt ive reuse as a retail marketplace, but a building inspection/study completed by a structural engineer in 2022 documented significant structural problems with the walls and foundation of the building and concluded that the cost to renovate the building would significantly exceed the cost of demolishing the building and constructing a new building of similar architectural design. The building has been subject to break -ins and illegal occupancy by homeless residents and is considered to represent a public safety hazard in its current condition. The City wishes to demolish the building and use the Property for future development of affordable housing. The ABCA was prepared in order to meet the requirements for funding the abatement and demolition through a loan from funding available through a United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) Grant awarded to the City in 2020.
A Phase I ESA completed by Stantec in 2022 identified one recognized environmental condition (REC) associated with the former use of Area C by the California Spray Chemical Company from 1931 through 1946 for storage and distribution of a wide range of pesticides, poisons, and other hazardous materials.
Due to the toxicity of these materials, there is potential for even minor releases (such as through cracks in the floor) to have res ulted in significant releases to the environment. In addition, surveys for regulated building materials (RBM) performed on the building in 2014 and 2022 identified significant quantities of asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and lead-based paint (LBP) within the building. The surveys did not include assessment of other types of hazardous building materials and equipment that Stantec believes may be present within the building, including but not limited to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in caulk, fluorescent light ballasts, elevators and other hydraulic equipment, fire alarms, and mercury thermostat switches.
Therefore, this ABCA is focused on evaluating three remedial alternatives to address the current status of the building as a threat to public health and safety, and to support the desired redevelopment of the Property for affordable housing: Alternative 1 – No Action; Alternative 2 – Partial Abatement and Demolition; and Alternative 3 – Full Abatement and Demolition. The three alternatives are evaluated based on their effectiveness, implementability, and cost. Consideration is also given to climate change impacts, equity and environmental justice concerns, and green and sustainable remediation guidance. No Action
ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES
735, 739, AND 741 H STREET, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA
v
(Alternative 1) was considered but is not feasible as it would not allow the primary project goal of assessing the underlying soil to be achieved. Alternatives 2 and 3 include common elements, but the primary difference is that for Alternative 2, the roof and roof support structure would be demolished without first abating roofing materials presumed to contain asbestos , whereas for Alternative 3, all ACMs and other RBMs would be fully removed or otherwise abated prior to demolition of the roof support structure, walls , and other components of the building.
Alternative 3 is the recommended remedial alternative and includes the following sequence of activities:
1. Development of bid specifications, solicitation of bids , execution of a contract for abatement/removal of hazardous building materials (including roofing materials presumed to contain asbestos), and subsequent demolition of the building and disposal of building debris.
2. Abatement of asbestos, lead based paint, and other hazardous building materials as necessary to minimize overall costs for abatement, demolition, and disposal of materials.
3. Demolition of the walls and floors of the building, and disposal/recycling of the materials.
4. Drilling and collection of soil samples through the floor slab of the building, and screening and analysis of the soil samples for potential contaminants of concern.
5. Removal of concrete floor and basement slabs/walls and either on-site crushing and stockpiling of materials for future use, or off-site disposal at a concrete recycling facility.
6. Removal and off-site disposal of the brick foundations.
7. Excavation and disposal of contaminated soil, if present.
8. Backfilling of former basement or excavation areas with clean compacted fill to match surrounding grade.
Although assessment activities and soil remediation are anticipated to be part of the sequence of activities, the cost for these is not included as part of the scope of work to be funded by the RLF.
The estimated cost for Alternative 3 is $753,430. Alternative 1 (no action) is the most easily implementable and has the lowest direct cost but is the least effective and will have the greatest long-term cost (considering “opportunity costs”). Alternatives 2 and 3 are similar in their effectiveness and implementability, but Alternative 3 is likely to be more cost effective as well as greener and more sustainable. .
735, 739, AND 741 H STREET, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP
ALTERNATIVES
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
March 23, 2023
1 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (Stantec) prepared this Analysis of Brownfield Cleanup Alternatives (ABCA) for a vacant warehouse building located at 735 H Street , Fresno, California (the “Property”), on behalf of City of Fresno (City or the “Client”). The ABCA was prepared by Stantec in accordance with the Consultant Services Agreement between Stantec and the City dated December 14, 2018, as amended on June 10, 2021, and is being funded through a Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) Grant awarded to the City by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in 2020 (Grant No. BF98T08001).
1.1 GENERAL SITE INFORMATION
The Property is a 0.54-acre single parcel located at the west corner of the intersection of H Street and Mono Street, with current associated addresses of 735, 739, and 741 H Street in the downtown area of the City of Fresno, California. The parcel is identified by the Fresno County Assessor’s Office as Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 467-040-23, with reported dimensions of 59 feet by 400 feet. The Property is nearly fully occupied by a single-story elongated warehouse building with reported dimensions of 50 feet by 40 5 feet.
The reported dimensions suggest that the building may encroach upon neighboring properties at its southeast or northwest ends. A 9-foot-wide concrete loading dock is present on the southwest side of the building and extends to the property boundary. This dock apparently served a railroad spur line that formerly extended along this side of the building. A 14- foot concrete loading dock is present on the northeast side of the building and appears to be within the right-of-way for H Street. Since its construction sometime between 1906 and 1918, the building has been divided into four areas, each with separate assigned addresses, historical uses, and occupants, as summarized below.
Area General Location
Approximate
Dimensions
Basement
Area Present? Historical Addresses
A
Southeast end of the
building (at the corner of H
Street and Mono Street)
50 feet by 50 feet Yes
701, 705, and 707 H
Street, and 1745
Mono Street
B Northwest of Area A 50 feet by 150 feet No 719, 733, and 735 H Street
C Northwest of Area B 50 feet by 100 feet No 737, 739 and 741 H Street
D Northwest end of the
Property 50 feet by 100 feet Yes 741 and 755 H Street
The Property and adjacent properties to the northeast are vacant commercial structures. A general site location map is provided as Figure 1, and a site vicinity map is provided as Figure 2.
1.2 SITE HISTORY AND PREVIOUS USE
The Property is currently owned by the City of Fresno. Historical uses of the Property were investigated by Stantec as part of a Phase I environmental site assessment (ESA) completed in 2022 (Stantec, 2022a ). 735, 739, AND 741 H STREET, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP
ALTERNATIVES
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
March 23, 2023
2 Based on research completed for the Phase I E SA, the Site appears to have been vacant land prior to 1898, with the first documented use being a lumber yard shown on a Sanborn fire insurance map dated 1906. Records suggest that the current building was constructed circa 1910-1912. As shown on Table 1, the earliest records for businesses at the primary addresses associated with the existing building date from 1910, 1912, 1913, and 1918. By 1918, the existing building was present and divided into four main areas with separate street addresses, ownership, and/or uses. Sometime during 1950- 1970, the walls of the building were extended in height by 6- 8 feet (resulting in the current uniform wall height of approximately 22 feet) and a new roof constructed. This renovation is suspected to have been partly in response to a major fire that destroyed a large portion of the original roof . The last documented occupant of an area within the building was Falcon Enterprises of Fresno, and Fresno Tire Disposal listed at addresses of 733- 735 H Street in the 1999 city directory. The City of Fresno reportedly owns the Subject Property, but records documenting the date it was acquired were not obtained as part of the Phase I ESA. The building as a whole has been vacant since approximately 2000, although Area A appears to have been vacant since at least 1975.
Documented historical uses of the four sections of the building (Areas A to D) are summarized below:
Area A (701-707 H Street; 1745 Mono Street)
• 1910-1959: Valley Lumber Co. office (701, 705, 707)
• 1932-1958: United Warehouse Company (701)
• 1932-1958: Fowler Lumber Co (701, 707)
• 1932: Alta District Lumber Co. (701)
• 1937: Valley Lumber Co. – Johns Manville Inc. division – roofing supply warehouse (701) • 1958: Sequoia Lumber Co, Valco Lumber Distributors, Sequoia Lumber Co. (707) • 1955: The Feed Barn – livestock and poultry feed supplier • 1960: Fresno Chamber of Commerce
• 1962-1970: Avernell & Arioto (A & A) Florists Inc. – wholesale florist supplies (1745) • 1975-2022: Vacant
Area B (719-735 H Street)
• Circa 1911-1912: H. Graff Co. – grocery warehouse
• 1912-1926: Mark Lally Company (later Walworth- Lally Plumbing Supplies) – plumbing supply warehouse (735)
• 1927-1932: Valley Lumber Co. – Johns Manville Inc. division – roofing supply warehouse (735) • 1948-1950: Valley Lumber Co. – hardwood and building material warehouse (719/735) • 1958: Zellerbach Paper Co. – warehouse (735)
• 1963-1970: Butler Johnson Corp. – floor tile warehouse and/or wholesale floor covering business (735)
• 1975-1990: Slater Furniture Co – furniture warehouse (735) • 1999: Falcon Enterprises of Fresno/Fresno Tire Disposal – tire recycling business (735) • 2002-2022: Vacant
Area C (737- 739 H Street) (Area C is labeled on the Sanborn fire insurance map dated 1918 as 741 H Street, but on subsequent maps dated 1948, 1950, and 1970 as 739 H Street. The association of the address of 741 H Street with Area C appears to have ended in the early 1920s.) 735, 739, AND 741 H STREET, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP
ALTERNATIVES
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
March 23, 2023
3 • 1913-1914: Angelo & Son – fruit basket manufacturing and sales (741) • 1918: Wholesale produce business (741)
• 1929-1941: Germain Seed & Plant Co. (737)
• 1931-1946: California Spray Chemical Company (737, 739) – Ads dated 1931- 33 for California Spray Chemical Company at this address identify the storage distribution of pesticides and other hazardous materials, including VAPO -DUST No. 2e (described as an oil -pyrethrum insecticide), CYANOGAS (which utilized calcium cyanide as its active ingredient, a variety of Ortho Sulphurs, dusting lime, caustic soda, and a “complete line of pesticides”). • 1932: Eagle Transfer Co. (737)
• 1947: Mid Valley Distributing Company (739) – beer distributor • 1958: Fresno Macaroni Co. (1937)
• 1965: Zellerbach Paper Co. – warehouse (739)
• 1970: Floor tile warehouse (739)
• 1975-2022: Vacant (737, 739)
Area D (741 H Street)
• 1918: Wholesale produce business (755)
• 1924-1942: Armour & Company – wholesale meat supplier (741) • 1943-1948: United Fairway Produce Company (741)
• 1948-1959: Brentwood Egg Company – egg warehouse (741) • 1970: Formica sink top warehouse (741)
• 1975-2022: Vacant (741)
1.3 HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING
The following summary of hydrogeologic conditions is adapted from the Phase I ESA report by Stantec (2022a).
Topography and Surface Water Flow : The Property is located at an elevation of approximately 292 feet above mean sea level ( amsl). Topography at the Property is generally flat, with a slight gradient down to the northwest. Stormwater runs to the street gutters along H Street and Mono Street along the Property boundary.
Regional Geology : T he Property is located within the Great Valley geomorphic province of California, consisting of an alluvial plain about 50 miles wide and 400 miles long in the central part of California. Its northern port ion consists of the Sacramento Valley, drained by the Sacramento River and its southern portion consists of the San Joaquin Valley drained by the San Joaquin River. The Great Valley is a trough into which sediments have been deposited almost continuously since the Jurassic Period (about 160 million years ago). Large oil fields have been found in southernmost San Joaquin Valley and along anticlinal uplifts on its southwestern margin.
Regional and Site Hydrogeology : T he Property is located within the Kings Sub- basin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin (Department of Water Resources [DWR], 2006). The Kings Sub- basin is bounded to the north by the San Joaquin River, to the west by the Delta-Mendota and Westside Sub-basins, and to the south Empire West Side Irrigation District, the southern fork of the Kings River, and the boundaries of the Laguna, Kings County, Consolidated, Alta, and Stone Corral Irrigation Districts. The 735, 739, AND 741 H STREET, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP
ALTERNATIVES
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
March 23, 2023
4 alluvium-granitic rock interface of the Sierra Nevada foothills comprises the eastern boundary of the Kings Sub-basin. Water-bearing formations in the Kings Sub-basin consist of unconsolidated continental deposits comprised of Tertiary and Quaternary age materials (DWR, 2006).
According to groundwater information available for a nearby site (located at 603 Broadway Street, approximately 541 ft southeast of the Property), the depth to groundwater in the vicinity of the Property was approximately 95 ft below grade during in 2016, and groundwater flow direction was generally toward the northwest. Based on groundwater information available for a nearby site located at 655 G Street (approximately 600 feet south southwest of the Property) the groundwater flow directions observed during the three monitoring events in 2015 and 2016 was variable (south- southwest during two events, and north during one event).
1.4 PR EVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES AND REMEDIAL
ACTIVITIES
Asbestos Survey & Lead-Based Paint Inspection Report (T. Brooks & Associates, Inc. [TBAI], 2014).
In 2014, T. Brooks & Associates, Inc. (TBAI) completed an “Asbestos Survey & Lead- Based Paint Inspection Report” of the Property (TBAI, 2014). ACM and LBP were found throughout the Property structure. Materials documented to contain ACM include dry wall taping mud and surface texture, plastic roof cement, wall paneling, vinyl floor tile and associated mastic, and a vibration damper. For LBP, 47 interior and 4 exterior samples contained lead in excess of 1.0 milligram per square centimeter (mg/cm 2)
and would be classified as “Lead- Based Paint” (LBP) under state and federal regulations. Most of the materials with LBP were doors, windows, and door or window casings. No LBP was detected in 8 of the 13 interior rooms/areas that were tested. Of 21 areas for which the substrate was brick, only two samples contained lead in excess of 1.0 mg/cm
2. Testing was performed using a Niton™ Corporation Model XLp- 300 x-ray fluorescence (XRF) analyzer.
The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) regulates all activities involving the disturbance of paint which contains “any detectable” amount of lead. Any construction related work which will disturb building elements which include paint or surface coatings determined to contain lead must be conducted in accordance with applicable local state and federal regulations governing disturbance of lead.
Lead waste characterization is required under state and federal requirements prior to disposing of lead- containing waste. A detailed summary of regulations, requirements, and recommendations related to the LBP is provided on pages 13-20 of the TBAI report (which is provided as Appendix A of this ABCA).
Warehouse Feasibility Study, 2022 H Street & Inyo Street (Temple Andersen Moore Architects, 2022) A “Feasibility Study” for the Property which was referenced as the “H Street and Inyo Street” warehouse was completed by Temple Anderson Moore Architects (TAMA) in June 2022 (TAMA, 2022a). The feasibility study included: 1) an executive summary, 2) a Phase I ESA report completed by Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group (PPCG) dated December 23, 2021 (PPCG, 2021), 3) a site topographical survey by Alan Mok Engineering (AME) dated January 18, 2022 (AME, 2022), 4) an Asbestos Survey Report completed 735, 739, AND 741 H STREET, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP
ALTERNATIVES
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
March 23, 2023
5 by Forensic Analytical Consulting Services (FACS) dated January 14, 2022 (FACS, 2022), 5) a preliminary structural assessment report by Parrish Hansen Structural Engineers (PHSE) dated February 16, 2022 (PHSE, 2022), and 6) a proposal and cost estimates prepared by TAMA for architectural and engineering services and contractor costs for demolition of the building (TAMA, 2022b, 2022c). The following sub- sections briefly summarize relevant findings from these reports. • Phase I ESA, PPCG, December 2021: No recognized environmental conditions ( RECs) were revealed in connection with the Property, however LBP and ACM were observed on the Property.
Several generations of fluorescent lighting fixtures were also noted to be present. Some ballasts that may contain PCBs were noted as well as the need to further evaluate and dispose of them in accordance with State regulations. An elevator was noted and described as appearing to be in good condition considering the age, with a motor and pump that did not appear to have obvious leaks. The report stated that the base of the elevator was not visible for observations to evaluate if the apparatus including pistons had leaked.
• Topographic Survey Map, AMK, January 2022: The map documents a topographic survey of the Property completed on January 5, 2022. The map documents the location of the building and surrounding areas covered by concrete or pavement. Elevations of the ground surface surrounding the Property range from about 287 to 291 feet ams l. The map identifies six features within the concrete loading dock on the northeast side of the building as “unknown vaults.” The locations of doors on the outside of the building are shown. No detail is shown for the interior of the building. • Asbestos Survey Report, FASC, January 2022: The survey was focused solely on asbestos, and documented the following suspect materials that were sampled and confirmed by laboratory analyses to contain asbestos: 12" vinyl floor tile (VFT) – Marble, 12" VFT – Pink, 3'x3' Floor Tile – Black, 9" VFT – Tan Oatmeal, Aircell Insulation, Drywall – Skip Trowel Texture, Drywall – Smooth Texture, Flooring Material - Black Vinyl, Transite Panels, Vibration Dampener, and 9” VFT – Black.
The report noted that while lab results do not reflect all drywall materials as containing asbestos, it was recommended that all drywall containing a paint or texture finish be handled as asbestos - containing. This was due to the random nature of the drywall systems in the building and determining exactly where one system that contains asbestos may stop or start. The report noted that handling all drywall as asbestos -containing would remove the potential for an improper disturbance of the material during renovation activities. A copy of this report is included as Appendix B of this ABCA.
• Preliminary Structural Assessment Report, PHSE, February 2022: The report provides a preliminary structural assessment of the building for future occupancy options. A copy of this report is included as Appendix C of this ABCA. The report noted the following regarding the building construction:
o The building outer dimensions are approximately 50.5 feet by 405 feet. o The building contains two basement areas, with one at the south end of the building having dimensions of approximately 47 feet by 47 feet, and the other beneath the center of the building having dimensions of 47 feet by 100 feet.
735, 739, AND 741 H STREET, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP
ALTERNATIVES
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
March 23, 2023
6 o The lower (and original) portion of the building’s walls are constructed of brick, approximately 13- inches thick, and 14 to 16 feet tall. On top of the original wall, an extension of what was believed to be unreinforced concrete was added extending 6 to 8 feet above the original wall height, resulting in a current uniform wall height of 22 feet. o The report noted that the wall extension may have been constructed following a major fire that damaged the roof, but that the 38% to 60% increase in the original wall height resulted in a 90 to 150% increase in the stress level of the original wall when subjected to out -of- plane wind or seismic loads, and an “extreme increase in seismic/wind risk from the original intended construction.”
o The two basement areas are constructed with brick walls and concrete floors. The report noted extreme deterioration to the bricks and mortar forming the walls. o The surface of the loading dock on the northeast side of the building is equal in elevation to the floor inside the building.
o The structural engineer’s opinion was that the building could experience significant damage at a Richter level 4 event and catastrophic damage at a Richter level 5 event. o It was the opinion of the engineer that the remediation and upgrades required by the building code due solely to the existing structural deficiencies and deteriorations – without consideration of voluntary upgrades to enhance public safety – would cost considerably more than the replacement of this building with a new, similar type of construction. • Proposal and Cost Estimates for Demolition, TAMA, June 2022: TAMA provided the City with a proposal to prepare detailed drawings and specifications for demolition of the building for a fee of $12,500 (TAMA, 2022b). TAMA also provided a budgetary estimate of $509,000 for demolition of the building, with the assumption that the wood roof frame structure and concrete could be recycled (TAMA, 2022c).
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 735, 739, and 741 H Street, Fresno, California (Stantec, 2022a) Stantec completed a Phase I ESA report for the Property on behalf of the City (Stantec, 2022 a). The findings and opinions summary from the report is reproduced below. 1 Hydrogeologic
Conditions
Finding: The surface soil at the Subject Property reportedly consists of sandy loam soil types derived from either eolian (former dune) deposits or from alluvial fan remnants. Site specific groundwater measurement and quality data are not available, but regional groundwater studies and mapping tools suggest that the depth to groundwater at the Subject Property is approximately 95 feet below ground surface and the predominant flow direction is variable.
Opinion: Based on the significant depth to groundwater, groundwater is unlikely to be encountered during future construction activities. In addition, there is reduced likelihood for future structures to be impacted by vapors emanating from any contaminated plumes of groundwater emanating from potential upgradient off-site contamination sources, wherever they may be located.
735, 739, AND 741 H STREET, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP
ALTERNATIVES
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
March 23, 2023
7 2
Previous
Phase I ESA
for the
Subject
Property
Finding: A previous Phase I ESA for the Subject Property was completed by PPCG in December 2021, on behalf of TAMA which in turn had the report prepared as part of a feasibility study for the Subject Property. The report identified two RECs, as follows:
• “ Based on the age of the building and a previous investigation for Lead Based Paint and Asbestos Containing Materials in 2014, an updated investigation report should be completed.”
• “ Several generations of fluorescent lighting fixtures are present. Some ballasts may contain PCB’s and should be evaluated and disposed in accordance with State regulations.”
The report also identified the following non-scope consideration:
• “The elevator appears to be in good condition considering the age, the motor and pump did not appear to have obvious leaks, but the base of the elevator was not visible for observations to evaluate if the apparatus including pistons had leaked.”
Opinion: Stantec generally concurs with the ACM, LBP, fluorescent light ballasts, and elevator equipment being identified as concerns, but would classify all as business environmental risks (BERs) rather than RECs or unspecified concerns. In addition, Stantec identified additional concerns as detailed in Finding/Opinion 7 related to historical use of Area C as a pesticide storage and distribution warehouse by the California Spray Chemical Corporation between 1931 and 1947. 3 Previous
Hazardous
Building
Materials
Surveys for the
Subject
Property
Building
Finding: An initial ACM and LBP survey for the building was completed in 2014 by TBAI and identified lead concentrations in excess of 1.0 mg/cm2 in 47 of 199 interior samples, and 4 of 14 exterior samples. The survey identified the following estimated quantities of materials containing ACMs:
• Drywall taping mud and texture (5491 ft2); vibration dampeners (16 ft2) • Vinyl floor tiles and mastic (1,740 ft2)
• Wall panels (264 ft2); Plastic roof cement (15 ft2)
The report included an estimate of $26,500 to abate these ACMs.
A survey for ACMs only was completed in 2022 by FACS, and identified the following estimated quantities of materials containing ACMs:
• Friable/ACM: Aircell insulation (240 linear feet); drywall – skip trowel or smooth texture with tape & joint (14,240 ft2); vibration dampeners (4) • Category I Non-Friable: Vinyl floor tile (11,687 ft2); Non-vinyl floor tile (135 ft2); • Category II Non-Friable: Transite panel (120 ft2)
Neither study included assessment or sampling for other types of hazardous building materials and equipment that may be present within the building, including but not limited to PCBs in caulk, fluorescent light ballasts, elevators and other hydraulic equipment, fire alarms, and mercury thermostat switches.
Opinion: There are significant differences in the quantities of ACMs identified in the two reports, with greater quantities identified in 2022. In addition, the study 735, 739, AND 741 H STREET, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP
ALTERNATIVES
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
March 23, 2023
8 completed in 2014 identified significant areas of lead-based paint. These materials should be appropriately managed in conjunction with future building renovation or demolition activities. Additional sampling may be warranted to identify and quantify other types of hazardous materials or equipment that may be present in the building,
including, but not limited to PCBs in caulk, fluorescent light ballasts, elevators and other hydraulic equipment, fire alarms, and mercury thermostat switches. The documented and/or potential presence of ACM, lead based paint, and other hazardous building materials and equipment is considered a BER. 4 Historical Uses
of the Subject
Property as a
Whole
Finding: The Property was shown as being vacant land on Sanborn fire insurance maps dated 1885, 1888, and 1898. On the map dated 1906, the Property was occupied by Madary’s Lumber Yard. An article in the Fresno newspaper dated 11/18/1909 referenced plans by the City to install an 18-inch diameter storm sewer beneath the sidewalk on H Street from Mono Street to Inyo Street to address repeated flooding occurring in this area every winter with heavy rains, flooding two businesses documented on Sanborn maps to have been present on the opposite (northeast) side of H Street. The article does not reference flooding of a building on the Property.
By 1918, the existing building was present, divided into four main areas with separate street addresses, ownership, and/or uses. As shown on Table 1, the earliest records for businesses at the primary addresses associated with the existing building date from 1910, 1912, 1913, and 1918. Sometime during 1950-1970, the walls of the building were extended in height by 6-8 feet (resulting in the current uniform wall height of approximately 22 feet) and a new roof constructed. This renovation is suspected to have been partly in response to a major fire that destroyed a large portion of the original roof.
The last documented occupant of an area within the building was Falcon Enterprises of Fresno, and Fresno Tire Disposal listed at addresses of 733-735 H Street in the 1999 city directory. The building as a whole appears to have been vacant since approximately 2000. The City of Fresno reportedly owns the Subject Property, but records documenting the date or year it was acquired were not obtained as part of the Phase I ESA.
Opinion: The historical records reviewed suggest that the building was likely constructed circa 1910-1912. The only documented uses prior to 1910 appear to be the use as a lumber yard in 1906, and this use likely does not date beyond 1898 when the Property appears to have been vacant land. The use of the Property prior to construction of the existing building is not considered a REC. 5 Historical Uses
of Area A (701-
707 H Street;
1745 Mono
Street)
Finding: As shown on Table 1, documented historical occupants and uses of Area A include (see note 1 below):
• 1910-1959: Valley Lumber Co. office (701, 705, 707) – see note 2 below. • 1932-1958: United Warehouse Company (701)
• 1932-1958: Fowler Lumber Co (701, 707)
• 1932: Alta District Lumber Co. (701)
• 1937: Valley Lumber Co. – Johns Manville Inc. division – roofing supply warehouse (701)
• 1958: Sequoia Lumber Co, Valco Lumber Distributors, Sequoia Lumber Co. (707)
735, 739, AND 741 H STREET, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP
ALTERNATIVES
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
March 23, 2023
9 • 1955: The Feed Barn – livestock and poultry feed supplier • 1960: Fresno Chamber of Commerce
• 1962-1970: Avernell & Arioto (A & A) Florists Inc. – wholesale florist supplies (1745)
• 1975--2022: Vacant
Note 1: See Finding/Opinion 4 for use of the Property as a whole (including Area A) before 1910. For the occupants/uses listed above, the numbers in parentheses are the street numbers identified with this occupant or uses in the historical records reviewed.
Note 2: An ad dated 1910 identified the Valley Lumber Co. office as being located at the corner of H Street and Mono Street, but it is possible that this ad was referencing a former Valley Lumber Co. office shown on historic maps as located on the opposite (south) side of the intersection.
Opinion: Long-term use of Area A has been primarily as a lumber company office and a warehouse for various businesses. One of the documented uses (by Johns Manville) is of potential environmental concern, due to Johns Manville’s historical status as the world’s largest manufacturer of asbestos containing shingles and roofing materials. However, due to the apparent use of the building by Johns Manville and other businesses as an office or warehouse, the presence of a concrete floor, and the absence of any exposed outdoor areas, there is low likelihood of these uses would have resulted in contaminant releases to the environment. Therefore, the documented historical uses of Area A are not considered to be a REC.
6 Historical Uses
of Area B (719-
735 H Street)
Finding: As shown on Table 1, documented historical occupants and uses of Area B include (see note 1 below):
• Circa 1911-1912: H. Graff Co. – grocery warehouse.
• 1912-1926: Mark Lally Company (later Walworth-Lally Plumbing Supplies) – plumbing supply warehouse (735)
• 1927-1932: Valley Lumber Co. – Johns Manville Inc. division – roofing supply warehouse (735)
• 1948-1950: Valley Lumber Co. – hardwood and building material warehouse (719/735)
• 1958: Zellerbach Paper Co. – warehouse (735)
• 1963-1970: Butler Johnson Corp. – floor tile warehouse and/or wholesale floor covering business (735)
• 1975-1990: Slater Furniture Co – furniture warehouse (735) • 1999: Falcon Enterprises of Fresno/Fresno Tire Disposal – tire recycling business (735)
• 2002-2022: Vacant
Note 1: See Finding/Opinion 4 for use of the Property as a whole (including Area B) before 1910. For the occupants/uses listed above, the numbers in parentheses are the street numbers identified with this occupant or uses in the historical records reviewed.
Opinion: Long-term use of Area B has been primarily as a warehouse. Two of the documented uses (as a Johns Manville roofing supply warehouse and by a tire recycling business) are uses of potential environmental concern at certain sites. 735, 739, AND 741 H STREET, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP
ALTERNATIVES
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
March 23, 2023
10 However, due to the apparent use of the building by these businesses as a warehouse, the presence of a concrete floor, and the absence of any exposed outdoor areas, there is low likelihood of these uses would have resulted in contaminant releases to the environment. Therefore, documented historical uses of Area B are not considered to be a REC.
7 Historical Uses
of Area C (737-
739 H Street)
Finding: As shown on Table 1, documented historical occupants and uses of Area C include:
• 1913-1914: Angelo & Son – fruit basket manufacturing and sales (741) – see notes 1 and 2 below
• 1918: Wholesale produce business (741) – see note 2 below • 1929-1941: Germain Seed & Plant Co. (737)
• 1931-1946: California Spray Chemical Company (737, 739) – see note 3 below. • 1932: Eagle Transfer Co.(737)
• 1947: Mid Valley Distributing Company (739) – beer distributor • 1958: Fresno Macaroni Co. (1937)
• 1965: Zellerbach Paper Co. – warehouse (739)
• 1970: Floor tile warehouse (739)
• 1975-2022: Vacant (737, 739)
Note 1: See Finding/Opinion 4 for use of the Property as a whole (including Area C) before 1910. For the occupants/uses listed above, the numbers in parentheses are the street numbers identified with this occupant or uses in the historical records reviewed.
Note 2: Area C is labeled on the Sanborn fire insurance map dated 1918 as 741 H Street, but on subsequent maps dated 1948, 1950, and 1970 as 739 H Street. The association of the address of 741 H Street with Area C appears to have ended in the early 1920s.
Note 3: Ads dated 1931-33 for California Spray Chemical Company at this address identify the storage distribution of pesticides and other hazardous materials, including VAPO-DUST No. 2e (described as an oil-pyrethrum insecticide), CYANOGAS (which utilized calcium cyanide as its active ingredient, a variety of Ortho Sulphurs, dusting lime, caustic soda, and a “complete line of pesticides”).
Opinion: Long-term use of Area C has been primarily as a warehouse, by businesses that are generally not associated with high potential for contaminant releases to the environment. The exception is California Spray Chemical Company, which occupied all or portions of Area C for at least 16 years, and which stored and distributed a wide range of pesticides, poisons, and other hazardous materials. Due to the toxicity of these materials, there is potential for even minor releases (such as through cracks in the floor) to have resulted in significant releases to the environment. Therefore, the historical use of Area C by the California Spray Chemical Corporation is considered to be a REC.
8 Historical Uses
of Area D (741
H Street)
Finding: As shown on Table 1, documented historical occupants and uses of Area D include (see note 1 below):
• 1918: Wholesale produce business (755) – see note 2 below • 1924-1942: Armour & Company – wholesale meat supplier (741) • 1943-1948: United Fairway Produce Company (741)
• 1948-1959: Brentwood Egg Company – egg warehouse (741) • 1970: Formica sink top warehouse (741)
735, 739, AND 741 H STREET, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP
ALTERNATIVES
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
March 23, 2023
11 • 1975-2022: Vacant (741)
Note 1: See Finding/Opinion 4 for use of the Property as a whole (including Area D) before 1910. For the occupants/uses listed above, the numbers in parentheses are the street numbers identified with this occupant or uses in the historical records reviewed.
Note 2: Area D is labeled on the Sanborn fire insurance map dated 1918 as 755 H Street, but on subsequent maps dated 1948, 1950, and 1970 as 741 H Street. The association of the address of 755 H Street with Area D appears to have ended in the early 1920s.
Opinion: Long-term use of Area D has been primarily as a warehouse for wholesale food product businesses, and these documented historic uses are not considered to be a REC.
9 Historical Uses
of Neighboring
Properties
Finding: Long-term commercial and/or industrial uses of note on adjacent or neighboring properties include:
• 755 H Street (adjacent to northwest): This property was occupied until approximately 1997 by a warehouse building of similar design and age as the building on the Subject Property. The portion of the building adjacent to the Subject Property was identified with the address of 771 H Street in 1918 (when it was a produce warehouse) and with the address of 755 H Street beginning in 1924. Documented occupants of this portion of the building include the Los Angeles Soap Company (1924-1932), the American Cyanamid & Chemical Corporation (1936-1942), and the Zellerbach Paper Company (1948-1950).
• 631
-653 H Street/1728-1748 Mono Street (neighboring property to southeast – across Mono Street): Valley Lumber Co (from before 1898, 1918, 1948, 1950) Not shown on 1970 map.
• N eighboring property to southwest: Railroad yard and freight warehouse (1898-1948, 1950, 1970).
• 7 02 -732 H Street (neighboring property to northeast – across H Street):
Valley Foundry & Machine Works (1904-1951).
• 754 -764 H Street (neighboring property to northeast – across H Street):
Fresno Steam Laundry Co (1903, 1906), Thomas Parisian Dyeing & Cleaning Works (1909), Kohler’s Steam Laundry (1918, 1927, 1948), Fresno Steam Laundry (1951), Fresno Liberty Laundry (1954), Fresno Linen Service (1963, 1964). Building was demolished in 1964.
Opinion: Due to the presence of a building on the Property since 1910-12, and the lack of outdoor areas, there is significantly reduced potential for air-borne pollutants associated with historical industrial or commercial activities on these neighboring properties to impact the Property. The significant depth to groundwater makes it unlikely that undocumented hazardous substance or petroleum releases on these neighboring properties could impact indoor air at the Property due to off-gassing of contaminants from groundwater. There are no records suggesting that the steam laundry present for >60 years at 754-764 H Street included significant use of dry- cleaning chemicals. Therefore, the historical uses of these neighboring properties are not considered a REC for the Subject Property.
10 Environmental
Listings for
Finding: There are listings for 20 or more sites within a 0.5-mile radius of the Property within one or more of the environmental databases searched. 735, 739, AND 741 H STREET, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP
ALTERNATIVES
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
March 23, 2023
12 Neighboring
Properties
Opinion: Based on the type of listings, the distance, and locations of these sites relative to the Property, and other factors, none of the sites are considered to represent a REC for the Property.
11 Site Visit
Observations
Finding: During the site reconnaissance, Stantec observed a 5-gallon bucket that had been tipped over and was leaking oil on the floor of the building.
Opinion: The spill of a small amount of oil onto a concrete floor on the interior floor of the building does not represent a significant environmental concern to the Property and is considered a de minimis condition.
A copy of Table 1 from the Phase I ESA is included in this ABCA report. 735, 739, and 741 H Street Section 106 Inventory and Evaluation Report (Stantec, 2022b) Stantec completed a cultural resource assessment of the Property on behalf of the City of Fresno in 2022.
The study reaffirmed the findings of previous studies which determined that the Property was ineligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, and an overall finding of No Adverse Effects for the proposed project to abate hazardous building materials and perform demolition of the building.
1.5 SUMMARY OF KEY ENVIRONMENTAL, SAFETY, AND OTHER
CONCERNS RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT OF CLEANUP
ALTERNATIVES
The key environmental concerns identified at the Property include one REC associated with the former use of Area C by the California Spray Chemical Company from 1931 through 1946 for storage and distribution of a wide-range pesticides, poisons, and other hazardous materials. Due to the toxicity of these materials, there is potential for even minor releases (such as through cracks in the floor) to have resulted in significant releases to the environment. In addition, surveys for regulated building materials performed on the building in 2014 and 2022 identified significant quantities of ACMs and LBP within the building. The surveys did not include assessment of other types of hazardous building materials and equipment that Stantec believes may be present within the building, including but not limited to PCBs in caulk, fluorescent light ballasts, elevators and other hydraulic equipment, fire alarms, and mercury thermostat switches.
At the time the Phase I ESA was performed by Stantec, plans for redevelopment of the Property for affordable housing had not been identified by the City. Based on these plans, an additional business environmental risk for the Property should include the p otential for undocumented contamination to be present in the subsurface throughout the Property. Redevelopment of the Property for affordable housing will require removal of the existing building, foundations, and floor slabs, exposing soil throughout the Property. The change from industrial/commercial use to residential use warrants a greater level of environmental testing, beyond just areas where RECs have been identified.
Due to the poor structural condition of the walls and foundations of the Property, the City has concluded that the building in its current condition is a public safety hazard and would cost significantly more to renovate than to demolish and replace with a new fully code compliant structure of similar design. In 735, 739, AND 741 H STREET, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP
ALTERNATIVES
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
March 23, 2023
13 addition to being a general safety hazard, the building represents a potential hazard to workers or the users of heavy equipment inside the building. This is relevant to whether additional assessment activities (such as drilling and sampling soil beneath the floor slab) can be safely performed without the building first being removed.
The poor structural condition of the building could also result in challenges for safely abating hazardous building materials prior to demolition. However, if these materials are not removed or otherwise abated prior to demolition, the demolition debris could potentially become a commingled hazardous waste subject to far greater handling and disposal costs than if these materials are first abated, in which case a significant portion of the structure could potentially be salvaged, recycled, or disposed of as a solid waste.
735, 739, AND 741 H STREET, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP
ALTERNATIVES
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
March 23, 2023
14 2.0 REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
The Property was proposed until recently for rehabilitation and reuse as a retail complex in conjunction with a multi-unit housing development on the adjoining lot to the west. This redevelopment proposal is no longer active. According to City Planning Department representatives, the Site is now planned for redevelopment for affordable housing.
735, 739, AND 741 H STREET, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP
ALTERNATIVES
Applicable Regulations and Cleanup Standards
March 23, 2023
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 the key hazardous materials confirmed to be present at the Property are summarized below.
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 – C leanup standards 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 children in schools, 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 Property should be conducted by contractors operating in accordance 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 735, 739, AND 741 H STREET, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP
ALTERNATIVES
Applicable Regulations and Cleanup Standards
March 23, 2023
16 survey, the analytical laboratory, the company performing the demolition or renovation activities, the company transporting waste that contains asbestos, and the landfill where the waste that contains asbestos will be disposed.
The Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response A ct (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 util izes 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 lead- 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 Rule 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 and individuals trained/licensed to handle and dispose of LBP materials.
The California Green Building Code requires that 65% of construction and demolition (C&D) debris be diverted from landfills on each covered project. Before a building permit can be issued, a Waste Management Plan must be approved that identifies both (1) a waste hauler and (2) a C&D sorting facility.
Before a project can be finalized, a Waste Log documenting the 65% diversion requirement must be approved. Waste Logs should be submitted prior to calling for a final inspection.
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:
735, 739, AND 741 H STREET, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP
ALTERNATIVES
Applicable Regulations and Cleanup Standards
March 23, 2023
17 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.
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 volatile organic compounds (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.
735, 739, AND 741 H STREET, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP
ALTERNATIVES
EVALUATION OF BROWNFIELDS CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES
March 23, 2023
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, and possible other hazardous materials present within the building) to enable the building to be cost effectively demolished as necessary to support redevelopment of the Property, and to provide safe access for environmental testing of the underlying soil.
4.2 CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The evaluation of cleanup alternatives in this section is focused on addressing ACM, LBP, and possible other hazardous building materials or equipment present within the building. This evaluation does not address potential contaminati on beneath the building beyond the need to enable testing to be safely performed prior to redevelopment of the Property.
Lead concentrations in excess of 1.0 mg/cm2 were identified in 47 of 199 interior samples, and 4 of 14 exterior samples, analyzed as part of the LBP survey completed in 2014. The 2014 survey identified the following estimated quantities of materials containing ACMs:
• Drywall taping mud and texture (5,491 ft2);
• Vibration dampeners (16 ft2);
• Vinyl floor tiles and mastic (1,740 ft2); and
• Wall panels (264 ft2); Plastic roof cement (15 ft2).
The more recent ACM survey completed in 2022 by FACS identified the following estimated quantities of materials containing ACMs:
• Friable/ACM: Aircell insulation (240 linear feet); drywall – skip trowel or smooth texture with tape & joint (14,240 ft2); vibration dampeners (4);
• Category I Non-Friable: Vinyl floor tile (11,687 ft2); non-vinyl floor tile (135 ft2); and • Category II Non-Friable: Transite panel (120 ft2).
The cost estimates presented in this document should be independently verified. A description of each alternative and the results of the comparative analysis are presented below. 735, 739, AND 741 H STREET, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP
ALTERNATIVES
EVALUATION OF BROWNFIELDS CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES
March 23, 2023
19 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 : 1) all ACM, LBP, and other hazardous building materials and equipment remain in the building, and 2) the building is not demolished.
4.2.2 Alternative 2 – Partial Abatement and Demolition
Under Alternative 2, it is assumed that the roof materials cannot be safely abated prior to demolishing the roof substructure, and that both the roofing and substructure will need to be demolished for removal, and will result in a commingled asbestos containing waste. It is assumed that other hazardous building materials can be fully and safely abated prior to demolition . Alternative 2 includes the following sequence of activities:
1. Development of bid specifications, solicitation of bids and execution of a contract for demolition of the building and disposal of building debris.
2. Abatement and removal of ACM, LBP, universal wastes, and other hazardous building materials within the interior of the building that do not require removal or significant disturbance of structural components of the building.
3. Demolition of the roof and wooden roof support structure.
4. Disposal of the commingled roofing and roof support structure materials as a commingled California asbestos hazardous waste.
5. Drilling and collection of soil samples through the floor slab of the building, and screening and analysis of the soil samples for potential contaminants of concern.
6. Removal of the concrete floor and basement slabs/walls and either on-site crushing and stockpiling of materials for future use, or off-site disposal at a concrete recycling facility.
7. Removal and off-site disposal of the brick foundations.
8. Excavation and disposal of contaminated soil, if present.
9. Backfilling of former basement or excavation areas with clean compacted fill to match surrounding grade.
Note: Although soil assessment and/or remediation activities are anticipated to be part of the sequence of activities under Alternative 2, the cost for these is not included as part of the scope of work to be funded by the RLF.
4.2.3 Alternative 3 – Full Abatement and Demolition
Alternative 3 differs from Alternative 2 in that all hazardous materials in the will be abated prior to demolition.
Alternative 3 includes the following sequence of activities:
1. Development of bid specifications, solicitation of bids and execution of a contract for abatement/removal of hazardous building materials (including roofing materials presumed to contain asbestos), and subsequent demolition of the building and disposal of building debris. 735, 739, AND 741 H STREET, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP
ALTERNATIVES
EVALUATION OF BROWNFIELDS CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES
March 23, 2023
20 2. Abatement of ACM, LBP, and other hazardous building materials as necessary to minimize overall costs for abatement, demolition, and disposal of materials.
3. Demolition of the walls and floors of the building, and disposal/recycling of the materials.
4. Drilling and collection of soil samples through the floor slab of the building, and screening and analysis of the soil samples for potential contaminants of concern.
5. Removal of concrete floor and basement slabs/walls and either on-site crushing and stockpiling of materials for future use, or off-site disposal at a concrete recycling facility.
6. Removal and off-site disposal of the brick foundations.
7. Excavation and disposal of contaminated soil, if present.
8. Backfilling of former basement or excavation areas with clean compacted fill to match surrounding grade.
Note: The key difference with Alternatives 2 and 3 is that Alternative 3 would assumes that the roofing materials can be safety abated and removed. Alternative 2 could be implemented if the structural condition of the building is such that abatement of the roofing materials cannot be safety performed. Contractors will be responsible for making this determination.
4.3 EVALUATION OF CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES
The following criteria were used to evaluate the three cleanup alternatives:
• Effectiveness;
• Implementability; and
• Cost.
In addition, consideration was 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 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. 735, 739, AND 741 H STREET, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP
ALTERNATIVES
EVALUATION OF BROWNFIELDS CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES
March 23, 2023
21 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 demolish or redevelopment the Property for the desired future use (affordable housing).
4.3.1.2 Effectiveness – Alternative 2 (Partial Abatement and Demolition) Demolition of the roof and roof wooden support structure without prior abatement of roofing materials (presumed to contain asbestos) would be an effective method for : a) removing the building, b) removing hazardous building materials from the Property, and c) providing safe access for testing of underlying soil.
It would reduce the potential physical safety hazards related to abating roofing materials within the structurally unsound building, but would complicate handling and removal of the resulting roofing and roof support structure commingled demolition debris – which would potentially be subject to management and disposal requirements as a commingled California hazardous waste.
4.3.1.3 Effectiveness – Alternative 3 (Full Abatement and Demolition) This alternative assumes that it will be safe to abate ACMs and other hazardous building materials (including roofing materials) within the building in its current condition, and that abatement would therefore be conducted prior to demolition of the roof support structure and walls of the building. This alternative would be effective in a) removing the building, b) removing hazardous building materials from the Property, and c) providing safe access for testing of underlying soil.
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. Examp les 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, materials, contractors, etc.
4.3.2.1 Implementability – Alternative 1 (No Action)
No action is the most easily implementable alternative because it involves no activities.
4.3.2.2 Implementability – Alternative 2 (Partial Abatement and Demolition) Demolition and disposal would also be easy to implement. However, demolition could be complicated by the need for additional measures to control dust. Handling and disposal of materials would also be complicated.
4.3.2.3 Implementability – Alternative 3 (Full Abatement and Demolition) Alternative 3 would likely be the most complicated alternative to implement, but this will depend on whether the abatement/demolition contractors conclude that the hazardous building materials (including roofing 735, 739, AND 741 H STREET, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP
ALTERNATIVES
EVALUATION OF BROWNFIELDS CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES
March 23, 2023
22 materials) can safely be abated prior to demolition given the bu ilding’s structural condition . Abating the material prior to demolition would likely simplify the demolition and disposal process, enhancing this alternative’s implementability.
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 it would preclude redevelopment of the Property for affordable housing.
4.3.3.2 Costs – Alternative 2 (Partial Abatement and Demolition) A cost estimate for Alternative 2 is presented below, based primarily on previous cost estimates obtained by the City in 2014 and 2022.
Item Number and Description Cost
1) Engineering Services – Preparation of Demolition Specification/Bid Documents $12,500 2) Asbestos Abatement (building interior, excluding roof) $66,245 3) Demolition, Handling, and Disposal of Roofing and Roof Support Structure $67,600 4) Handling and Disposal of Other Universal Wastes $15,000 5) Building Demolition $484,000
SUBTOTAL $645,345
6) Contingency (25% of Subtotal) $161,335
TOTAL $806,680
Notes/Assumptions:
1) Based on proposal by TAMA dated 6/15/2022 (TAMA, 2022b). 2) Based on a cost estimate of $26, 850 prepared by TBAI in May 2014 (TBAI, 2014) adjusted to include $25,850 in costs for abatement of an additional 5,170 square feet of non-friable flooring material containing 2% asbestos identified by FACS in 2022. The total of $52,700 was then increased by 25.7% to account for inflation between May 2014 and March 2023.
3) The roofing is assumed to have an area of approximately 60 feet by 405 feet (= 24,300 ft 2), a thickness of 1-inch, a volume of 2,205 ft3 (= 75 cubic yards), an average density of 40 pounds/ft 3, and a total weight of 40.5 tons. The roof support structure is assumed to include 10,000 linear feet of 2- inch X 4-inch wood boards, 1,620 linear feet of 4-inch X 14-inch wood beams, and 800 linear feet of 6-inch by 30-inch beams.
These are estimated to have a total volume of 2,230 ft 3 (= 82.5 cubic yards), an average density of 40 pounds/ft3, and a total weight of 44.5 tons. It is assumed that the roof and roof support structure will become commingled asbestos waste when demolished, and that demolition, handling, trucking, and disposal of this material will have a combined unit cost of $800/ton.
735, 739, AND 741 H STREET, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP
ALTERNATIVES
EVALUATION OF BROWNFIELDS CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES
March 23, 2023
23 4) Budgetary estimate by Stantec (2023).
5) Budgetary estimate by TAMA dated 6/15/2022 (TAMA, 2022c). The estimate assumed that the roofing materials are abated and removed prior to demolition of the underlying wood framed roof support structures.
The estimate assumed that the roof structure can be recycled as well as the concrete but t hat the brick cannot be recycled as road base due to changes in Caltrans specifications. The estimate assumed that the basement areas would be backfilled with clean fill . The estimate of $509,000 by TAMA has been reduced by $25,000 to account for the costs for demolition and disposal of the roof support structure being included under Item #3.
6) A contingency of 25% has been added to reflect the significant variability in contractor pricing for this type of work, further exacerbated by on-going high inflation rates and impacts on construction costs.
4.3.3.3 Costs – Alternative 3 (Full Abatement and Demolition) A cost estimate for Alternative 3 is presented below, based primarily on previous cost estimates obtained by the City in 2014 and 2022 (TBAI, 2014; TAMA, 2022b, 2022c).
Item Number and Description Cost
1) Engineering Services – Preparation of Demolition Specification/Bid Documents $12,500 2) Asbestos Abatement (building interior, excluding roof) $66,245 4) Handling and Disposal of Other Universal Wastes $15,000 4 Building Demolition $509,000
SUBTOTAL $602,745
5) Contingency (25% of Subtotal) $150,865
TOTAL $753,430
Notes/Assumptions:
1) Based on proposal by TAMA dated 6/15/2022 (TAMA, 2022b). 2) Based on a cost estimate of $26,580 prepared by TBA I in May 2014 (TBAI, 2014) adjusted to include $25,580 in costs for abatement of an additional 5,170 square feet of non-friable flooring material containing 2% asbestos identified by FACS in 2022. The total of $52,700 was then increased by 25.7% to account for inflation between May 2014 and March 2023.
3) Budgetary estimate by Stantec (2023).
4) Budgetary estimate by TAMA dated 6/15/2022 (TAMA, 2022c). The estimate assumed that the roofing materials are abated and removed prior to demolition of the underlying wood framed roof support structures.
The estimate assumed that the roof structure can be recycled as well as the concrete but that the brick cannot be recycled as road base due to changes in Caltrans specifications. The estimate assumed that the basement areas would be backfilled with clean fill. 5) A contingency of 25% has been added to reflect the significant variability in contractor pricing for this type of work, further exacerbated by on-going high inflation rates and impacts on construction costs.
735, 739, AND 741 H STREET, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP
ALTERNATIVES
EVALUATION OF BROWNFIELDS CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES
March 23, 2023
24 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 USEPA’s mission and goals from climate change. The Region 9 Climate Change Adaption Implementation Plan (USEPA, 2014b) identifies vulnerabilities i n 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 .
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 rising 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 north 60% of the Property is within the 0.2% annual probability flood hazard zone and could be at increased risk of fut ure flooding in response to 735, 739, AND 741 H STREET, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP
ALTERNATIVES
EVALUATION OF BROWNFIELDS CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES
March 23, 2023
25 increases in extreme rainfall events. The building and outdoor paved areas cover an estimated 95% or more of the Property with impermeable surfaces. Redevelopment of the Site for affordable housing (as would be facilitated by both Alternatives 2 and 3) would likely include stormwater management measures, and landscaping that would help to mitigate stormwater runoff and 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 safely and fully remove the hazardous building materials present within the building and facilitate safe and comprehensive testing of soil beneath the concrete slab prior to its removal , which is appropriate and necessary given plans to convert the Site from industrial/commercial to residential use .
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 hav e 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 footpri nt 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.
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.
Alternative 2 would increase the project costs, and also result in the need to dispose of roof wooden support materials as a commingled hazardous waste that might otherwise be recycled and reused. These materials are less likely to be disposable at a Fresno area facility, and potentially would be disposed of out of state, which would result in additional greenhouse gas emissions related to trucking of materials.
4.4 RECOMMENDED REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE
The recommended remedial al ternative is full abatement and demolition disposal (Alternative 3).
Alternative 1 (no action) is the most easily implementable and has the lowest direct cost, but is the least effective and will have the greatest long- term cost (considering “opportunity costs”). Alternatives 2 and 3 735, 739, AND 741 H STREET, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP
ALTERNATIVES
EVALUATION OF BROWNFIELDS CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES
March 23, 2023
26 are similar in their effectiveness and implementability, but Alternative 3 is likely to be more cost effective as well as greener and more sustainable.
735, 739, AND 741 H STREET, FRESNO, CALIFORNIA – ANALYSIS OF BROWNFIELD CLEANUP
ALTERNATIVES
Disclaimer and Limitations
March 23, 2023
27 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 circumstanc es 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 gat hered 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 submittal 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.
28 6.0 REFERENCES
Alan Mok Engineering (AME) 2022. Site Improvements at Farmer’s Market Warehouse. January 18. (Included within TAMA [2022]).
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2006. Bulletin 118, San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin, Kings Subbasin Number: 5-22.08. January.
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. Forensic Analytical Consulting Services (FACS) 2022. Asbestos Survey Report, City of Fresno Warehouse, Asbestos Renovation Survey, 735 H Street, Fresno, CA 93721. January 14. (Included within TAMA [2022a]).
Parrish Hansen Structural Engineers (PHSE) 2022. Preliminary Structural Assessment Report. February
16. (Included within TAMA [2022a]).
Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group (PPCG) 2021. 735 H Street Phase I ESA. December 23. (Included within TAMA [2022a]).
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., 2022a. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 735, 739, and 741 H Street, Fresno, California. August 30.
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., 2022b. 735, 739, and 741 H Street Section 2106 Inventory and Evaluation Report. December 27.
T. Brooks & Associates, Inc. (TBAI) 2014. Asbestos Survey & Lead-Based Paint Inspection Report, Commercial Structure 735, 739, 741 “H” Street, Fresno CA, May 28.
Temple Anderson Moore Architects (TAMA) 2022a. H Street & Inyo Street Warehouse Feasibility Study, June 13.
Temple Anderson Moore Architects (TAMA) 2022b. Letter of Proposal and Agreement, City of Fresno, 735 H Street Farmer’s Market, June 15.
Temple Anderson Moore Architects (TAMA) 2022c. Demolition Estimates for 735 H Street Market, June
15. 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.
FIGURES
CHECKED BY:
CEA
DATE:
June 30, 2022
NOT TO SCALE
FOR:
735 H Street
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA
DRAWN BY:
AMH
APPROVED BY:
NHD
PROJECT NUMBER:
185704673
PROPERTY LOCATION MAP
FIGURE:
1 TABLE
TABLE 1 ‐ CHRONOLOGY OF PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND LAND USES (1885‐2022) Year, Key Historic Reference, and Site/Parcel Information 1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
Sanborn Map Sanborn Map Sanborn Map Sanborn Map Newspaper Article
Newspaper
Article
Newspaper
Article
Newspaper
Article
Newspaper
Article
Newspaper
Article
Newspaper
Article Sanborn Map City Directory Newspaper
Article Newspaper Article
Subject Property: Area A
(701‐705 H Street; 1745
Mono Street)
707 H Street Vacant lot Vacant lot Vacant lot Madary's Lumber Yard
Article noting
flooding
problems on H
Street in this
area
Ad for Valley
Lumber Co ‐
yards corner of
Mono and H
Street
Valley Lumber
Co. office (705)
No listing (701,
705, 707, 1745)
Subject Property: Area B
(719‐735 H Street) 733 H Street Vacant lot Vacant lot Vacant lot Madary's Lumber Yard
Article noting
flooding
problems on H
Street in this
area
5/29/1912
article reg
Mark Lally Co.
remodeling
warehouse on
H St. previously
occupied by H.
Graff Co.
2/10/1917
Article reg
alterations to
Mark Lally
Company
warehouse
(735)
Plumbing
Supplies
Storage
(719/735)
No listing (719,
733, 735)
Article on 2/16/1926
re
g burglary at
Walworth‐Lally
Plumbing Supplies
company store (735)
Subject Property: Area C
(739 H Street) 737 & 741 H Street Vacant lot Vacant lot Vacant lot Madary's Lumber Yard
Article noting
flooding
problems on H
Street in this
area
6/22/1913 Ad
referencing
berry baskets
for sale by
Angelo & Son
(741)
3/31/1914 Ad
for Angelo &
Son for girls to
make fruit
baskets (741)
Wholesale
Produce (741)
No listing (737,
739, 741)
Subject Property: Area D
(741 H Street) 755 H Street Vacant lot Vacant lot Vacant lot Madary's Lumber Yard
Article noting
flooding
problems on H
Street in this
area
Wholesale
Produce (755)
No listing (741,
755)
8/5/1924 Ad
for Armour
and Co. (741)
Adjacent Property to
NW (nearest portion of
building): 755 H St
771 H St. Vacant lot Vacant lot Vacant lot Vacant lot Produce Ware Ho. (771)
No listing (755,
771)
Select Long‐Term Occupants or Tenants
A & A Wholesale Florists
American Cyanamid
Armour and Co
Brentwood Egg Co
Butler Johnson
California Chemical Spray Co
Germain Seed
Johns Manville roofing
Los Angeles Soap Co
Lumber Yards or Companies
Slater Furniture Co
United Fairway Produce Co
Zellerbach Paper Co
5‐year or longer periods
without historic references
Final period of vacancy with
no documented tenants
Vacant lot or parking lot
(previously developed)
Property, Building Area
and Current Address Historic Address
TABLE 1 ‐ CHRONOLOGY OF PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND LAND USES (1885‐2022) Subject Property: Area A
(701‐705 H Street; 1745
Mono Street)
707 H Street
Subject Property: Area B
(719‐735 H Street) 733 H Street
Subject Property: Area C
(739 H Street) 737 & 741 H Street
Subject Property: Area D
(741 H Street) 755 H Street
Adjacent Property to
NW (nearest portion of
building): 755 H St
771 H St.
Sel
ect Long‐Term Occupants or Tenants
A & A Wholesale Florists
American Cyanamid
Armour and Co
Brentwood Egg Co
Butler Johnson
California Chemical Spray Co
Germain Seed
Johns Manville roofing
Los Angeles Soap Co
Lumber Yards or Companies
Slater Furniture Co
United Fairway Produce Co
Zellerbach Paper Co
5‐year or longer periods
without historic references
Final period of vacancy with
no documented tenants
Vacant lot or parking lot
(previously developed)
Property, Building Area
and Current Address Historic Address
Year, Key Historic Reference, and Site/Parcel Information 1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
City Directory Newspaper
Article
Newspaper
Article
Newspaper
Article City Directory Newspaper
Article
Newspaper
Article
City Directory;
Aerial Photo;
Newspaper
Article
Newspaper
Article
Newspaper
Article
City Directory;
Aerial Photo
Newspaper
Article Aerial Photo City Directory;
Newspaper Article Sanborn Map Sanborn Map;
Newspaper City Directory
City Directory;
Newspaper
Article
No listing (701, 705,
707, 1745)
Alta District Lumber
Co (701); United
Warehouse Co (701);
Fowler Lumber Co.
(701); Valley
Lumber
Co (701); No listing
705, 707, 1745)
Johns‐Manville
Inc. roofing
mat (701); No
listing (705,
707, 1745)
No listing (701,
705, 707, 1745)
Current
building
present
No listing (701, 705,
707, 1745)
Valley Lumber Co.
office (705/1745); Ad
referencing Fowler
Lumber Co at 1745
Mono (11/
15/48)
Valley Lumber Co.
office (705/1745)
No listing (701,
705, 707, 1745)
No listing (701,
705, 1745);
10/30/1955 Ad
reg The Feed
Barn (livestock
and poultry
feed supplier)
No listing (719); Valley
Lumber Co roof dept
(733); Johns Manville
Inc. roofing supplies
(735)
No listing (719, 733);
Johns Manville Inc.
roofing matls (735)
No listing (719,
733, 735)
No listing (719,
733, 735)
Curre
nt
building
present
No listing (719, 733,
735)
Valley Lumber Co.
hardwood & bldg.
material warehouse
(719/735)
Valley Lumber Co.
hardwood & bldg.
material warehouse
(719/735)
No listing (719,
733, 735)
No listing (719,
733, 735)
No listing (737, 739)
9/24/1929 Ad
for Germain
Seed & Plant
Co (737 )
2/14/
31 Ad for
California
Spray
Chemical Co
(737)
California Spray
Chemical Co (737);
Eagle Transfer Co
whse (737); Germain
Seed & Plant (737); No
listing (739)
Germain Seed
& Plant Co
(737);
California
Spray
Chemical Corp
(739)
2/17/1938 Ad
for Germain
Seed (737)
7/20/1941
article noting
move of
Germain Seed
to a new
location
Vac
ant (737);
Cal Spray
Chemical Corp
(739)
Current
building
present
No listing (737, 739);
Ad dated 2/2/1947
references move of
Cal. Spray Chemical to
new location
Use not labeled
(except for office area)
(739)
Warehouse (739);
4/3/1950 Ad listing
warehouse and office
for lease (w/ 2000 ft2
basement) (739)
No listing
(737); Vac
ant
(739)
No listing
(737); Vacant
(739)
Armour & Co whol
meats (741)
12/31/1928 Ad
for Armour
and Co. (741)
Armour & Co whol
meats (741)
Armour & Co
whol meats
(741)
Armour & Co
whol meats
(741)
1943 Ad
welcoming
United Fairway
Produce Co
(741)
Current
building
present
Un ited Fairway
Produce Co (741)
Produce warehouse
(741). 6/26/48 Ad for
United Fairway
Produce Co (741).
12/26/48 Ad for
Brentwood Egg Co
(741).
Egg warehouse (741);
9/1/1950 Ad for
Brentwood Egg Co
(741)
Brentwood Egg
Co (741)
Brentwood Egg
Co (741)
Los Angeles Soap Co
(755)
Los Angeles Soap Co
(755)
7/5/1936 Ad
for America
n
Cyanamid
(755)
American
Cynanamid
Chemical Corp
(755)
6/8/1941 Ad
for American
Cyanamid &
Chemical Corp
(755)
Vacant (755);
8/23/1942 Ad
for American
Cyanamid
(755)
Warehouse
building
present
No listing (755)
Zellerbach Paper Co.
(area labeled as paper
warehouse) (755)
Zellerbach Paper Co.
(area labeled as paper
warehouse) (755)
No listing (755) No listing (755)
TABLE 1 ‐ CHRONOLOGY OF PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND LAND USES (1885‐2022) Subject Property: Area A
(701‐705 H Street; 1745
Mono Street)
707 H Street
Subject Property: Area B
(719‐735 H Street) 733 H Street
Subject Property: Area C
(739 H Street) 737 & 741 H Street
Subject Property: Area D
(741 H Street) 755 H Street
Adjacent Property to
NW (nearest portion of
building): 755 H St
771 H St.
Sel
ect Long‐Term Occupants or Tenants
A & A Wholesale Florists
American Cyanamid
Armour and Co
Brentwood Egg Co
Butler Johnson
California Chemical Spray Co
Germain Seed
Johns Manville roofing
Los Angeles Soap Co
Lumber Yards or Companies
Slater Furniture Co
United Fairway Produce Co
Zellerbach Paper Co
5‐year or longer periods
without historic references
Final period of vacancy with
no documented tenants
Vacant lot or parking lot
(previously developed)
Property, Building Area
and Current Address Historic Address
Year, Key Historic Reference, and Site/Parcel Information 1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Newspaper
Article Aerial Photo City Directory Newspaper
Article City Directory City Directory;
Aerial Photo
Newspaper
Article City Directory Sanborn Map; City
Directory Aerial Photo City Directory;
Aerial Photo City Directory Aerial Photo
City Directory;
Newspaper
Article
City Directory City Directory City Directory;
Aerial Photo
5/31/1956 ‐ Ad
referencing
office space for
lease (1745)
Current
building
present
No listing (701);
Sequoia Lbr Co whol
ad (707), Premier
Investor
s Inc. ad (707),
United Warehouse Co
(707); Fowler Lumber
Co. whol (707); Valco
Lumber Distrs who lbr
ad (707)
No listing (701,
705, 707);
Fresno
Chamber of
Commerce
(1745)
No listing (701,
705, 707);
Avenell Arioto
whol florists
(1745)
No Listing (701,
705, 707); A &
A Wholesale
Florists Inc.
(1745)
No listing (701, 705,
707); Wholesale florist
supplies (1745); A & A
Wholesale Florists Inc.
(1745)
Curre
nt builing
resent ‐
appears to
have new roof
No listing (701,
705, 707, 1745)
No listing (701,
705, 707);
Vacant (1745)
Current
building
present
No listing (701,
705, 707, 1745)
No listing (701,
705, 707);
Vac
ant (1745)
No listing (701,
705, 707);
Vacant (1745)
No listing (701,
705, 707,
1745); current
building
present
Current
building
present
No listing (719, 733);
Zellerbach Paper Co.
whse (735);
No listing (719,
733, 735)
No listing (719,
733, 735)
7/14/63 Article
referencing
Butler‐Johnson
Corp as a new
business to
Fresno area
(735)
No listing (719,
733); Butl
er
Johnson Corp
Fresno floor
cov (735)
Floor tile warehouse
(719‐735); No listing
(719, 733); Butler
Johnson Corp whol
floor cov (735)
Current builing
resent ‐
appears to
have new roof
No listing (719,
733); Slater
Furniture Co
Whse (735);
Slater Annex
Store (735)
No listing (719,
733); Slater
Furniture Co
Whse (735);
Slater Annex
Stor
e (735)
Current
building
present
No listing (717,
733); Vacant
(735);
11/2/1985 ‐ Ad
for Slater's
Warehouse
(735)
No listing (719,
733); Slater
Furniture Co
Whse (735‐
Polk)
No listing (719,
733); Slater
Furniture Co
Whse (735);
Vacant (735)
No listing (719,
733, 735);
current
building
present
Cu
rrent
building
present
Fresno Macaroni Mfg
Co (737); No listing
(739)
No listing (737,
739)
No listing (737,
739)
No listing
(737);
Zellerbach
Paper Co whse
(739‐Polk)
Floor tile warehouse
(739); No listing (737);
Vacant (739)
Current builing
resent ‐
appears to
have new roof
No listing
(737); Vacant
(739)
No listing
(737); Vacant
(739)
Curre
nt
building
present
No listing
(737); Vacant
(739)
No listing
(737); Vacant
(739)
No listing
(737); Vacant
(739)
No listing (737,
739); current
building
present
Current
building
present
Brentwood Egg Co
whol (741) No listing (741) No listing (741) No listing (741) Formica sink top
warehouse (741); No
listing (741)
Current builing
resent ‐
appears to
have new roof
No listing (741) No listing (741)
Cu
rrent
building
present
Vacant (741) No listing (741) Vacant (741)
No listing
(741); current
building
present
Warehouse
building
present
No listing (755) No listing (755) No listing (755) No listing (755) Product warehouse (755); No listing (755)
Warehouse
building
present
No listing (755) No listing (755)
Warehouse
building
present
No listing (755) No listing (755) Vacant (755)
No listing
(755); building
no longer
present
TABLE 1 ‐ CHRONOLOGY OF PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND LAND USES (1885‐2022) Subject Property: Area A
(701‐705 H Street; 1745
Mono Street)
707 H Street
Subject Property: Area B
(719‐735 H Street) 733 H Street
Subject Property: Area C
(739 H Street) 737 & 741 H Street
Subject Property: Area D
(741 H Street) 755 H Street
Adjacent Property to
NW (nearest portion of
building): 755 H St
771 H St.
Sel
ect Long‐Term Occupants or Tenants
A & A Wholesale Florists
American Cyanamid
Armour and Co
Brentwood Egg Co
Butler Johnson
California Chemical Spray Co
Germain Seed
Johns Manville roofing
Los Angeles Soap Co
Lumber Yards or Companies
Slater Furniture Co
United Fairway Produce Co
Zellerbach Paper Co
5‐year or longer periods
without historic references
Final period of vacancy with
no documented tenants
Vacant lot or parking lot
(previously developed)
Property, Building Area
and Current Address Historic Address
Year, Key Historic Reference, and Site/Parcel Information 1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
City Directory City Directory Aerial Photo City Directory City Directory City Directory City Directory Aerial Photo Aerial Photo City Directory City Directory; Aerial Photo Aerial Photo Aerial Photo City Directory City Directory; Aerial Photo
City Directory;
Aerial Photo City Directory Aerial Photo City Directory; Aerial Photo
No listing (701,
705, 707, 1745)
No listing (701,
705, 707, 1745)
Current
building
present
No listing (701,
705, 707, 1745)
No listing (701,
705, 707, 1745)
No listing (701,
705, 707, 1745)
No listing (701,
705, 707, 1745)
Curre nt
building
present
Current
building
present
No listing (701,
705, 707, 1745)
No listing (701,
705, 707, 1745)
Current
building
present
Current
building
present
No listing (701,
705, 707, 1745)
No listing (701,
705, 707, 1745)
No listing (701,
705, 707, 1745)
No listing (701,
705, 707, 1745)
Curre
nt
building
present
No listing (701,
705, 707, 1745)
No listing (717,
733); Vacant
(735)
No listing (719,
733, 735)
Current
building
present
No listing (719,
733); Falcon
Enterprises of
Fresno; Fresno
Tire Disposal
(735)
No listing (719,
733, 735)
No listing (719,
733, 735)
No listing (719,
733); Occupant
unknown
(735)
Current
building
present
Current
building
present
No listing (719,
733, 735)
No listing (719,
733, 735)
Current
building
present
Current
building
present
No listing (719,
733, 735)
No listing (719,
733, 735)
No listing (719,
733, 735)
No listing (719,
733, 735)
Current
building
present
No listing (719,
733, 735)
No listing
(737); Vac
ant
(739)
No listing (737,
739)
Current
building
present
No listing (737,
739)
No listing (737,
739)
No listing (737,
739)
No listing (737,
739)
Current
building
present
Current
building
present
No listing (737,
739)
No listing (737,
739)
Current
building
present
Current
building
present
No listing (737,
739)
No listing (737,
739)
No listing (737,
739)
No listing (737,
739)
Curre
nt
building
present
No listing (737,
739)
No listing (741) No listing (741)
Current
building
present
No listing (741) No listing (741) No listing (741) No listing (741) Current
building
present
Current
building
present
No listing (741) No listing (741)
Current
building
present
Current
building
present
No listing (741) No listing (741) No listing (741) No listing (741) Current
building
present
No listing (741)
No listing (755) No listing (755) Building
is no
longer present No listing (755) No listing (755) No listing (755) No listing (755) Parking lot visible
Parking lot
visible No listing (755) No listing (755) Parking lot
visible
Parking lot
visible No listing (755) No listing (755) No listing (755) No listing (755) Parking lot visible No listing (755)
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
ASBESTOS SURVEY AND LEAD BASED
PAINT INSPECTION REPORT (2014)
APPENDIX B
ASBESTOS SURVEY REPORT (2022)
Project Title (xx/xx/xx)
www.forensicanalytical.com Forensic Analytical Consulting Services 1 of 29
January 14, 2022
Asbestos Survey Report
City of Fresno Warehouse
Asbestos Renovation Survey
735 H Street
Fresno, CA 93721
Prepared for:
Mr. Rod Andreasen
TAM + CZ Architects, Inc.
5650 North Fresno Street, Suite 101
Fresno, CA 93710
(559) 435-4750 |
[email protected]
Prepared By:
Chris Chipponeri, CAC I/A
Forensic Analytical Consulting Services
207 McHenry Avenue
Modesto, CA 95354
209-551-2000 |
[email protected]
FACS Project #PJ65200
Contents
List of Acronyms ....................................................... 1 Executive Summary .................................................. 2 Introduction ................................................................. 3 Scope of Work ............................................................ 3 Site Characterization ................................................ 3 Survey Methods .............................................................. 3 Regulations ................................................................. 5 Findings and Recommendations .......................... 6 Limitations ................................................................... 7 Appendix A: Asbestos
Survey Summary, Sample Chain-
of-Custody, and Laboratory Results Report
Appendix B: Site Photos and Sample Location Drawings
Appendix C: Certifications of Personnel and Laboratory
TAM + CZ Architects, Inc. – City of Fresno Warehouse Site Assessment 01-14-22 Asbestos Survey Report
1 of 8
List of Acronyms
ACCM Asbestos Containing Construction Material
ACM Asbestos Containing Material
AHERA Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act
AIHA American Industrial Hygiene Association
CAC California - Certified Asbestos Consultant
Cal/OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Association CCR Code of California Regulations
CFR Code of Federal Regulation
DOSH Department of Occupational Safety and Health
ELAP Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program
EPA Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
FACS Forensic Analytical Consulting Services, Inc.
FALI Forensic Analytical Laboratories, Inc.
ND None Detected
NESHAP National Emissions Standard Hazardous Air Pollutants NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health NIST National Institute of Science and Technology
NVLAP National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program PLM Polarized Light Microscopy
TEM Transmission Electron Microscopy
TTLC Total Threshold Limit Concentration
TAM + CZ Architects, Inc. – City of Fresno Warehouse Site Assessment 01-14-22 Asbestos Survey Report
2 of 8
Executive Summary
Forensic A
nalytical Consulting Services, Inc. (FACS) was retained by TAM + CZ Architects, Inc. to perform an asbestos inspection of a City of Fresno-owned warehouse, located at 725 H Street in Fresno, California. The survey included any suspect asbestos-containing materials (ACM) which may be disturbed during an upcoming renovation project at the warehouse. A summary list of suspect asbestos- containing materials which were identified and sampled is included in Appendix A of this report. The survey was performed on December 22, 2021.
Asbestos
The followin
g suspect materials were sampled and identified to contain asbestos by laboratory analysis during this survey:
• 12" VFT – Marble
• 12" VFT – Pink
• 3'x3' Floor Tile – Black
• 9" VFT – Tan Oatmeal
• Aircell
• Drywall – Skip Trowel Texture
• Drywall – Smooth Texture
• Flooring Material - Black Vinyl
• Transite Panels
• Vibration Dampener
• 9” VFT – Black
While lab re
sults do not reflect all drywall materials as containing asbestos, it is recommended that all drywall containing a paint or texture finish be handled as asbestos-containing. This is due to the random nature of the drywall systems in the building and determining exactly where one system that contains asbestos may stop or start. Handling all drywall as asbestos-containing would remove the potential for an improper disturbance of the material during renovation activities.
Please see Appendix A for a complete listing of materials sampled at the work areas and results during this survey. Any suspect materials not included must be assumed to be asbestos-containing materials until tested and proven not to contain asbestos. FACS recommends that the results of this report be incorporated into any renovation plans provided for this project for informational purposes.
TAM + CZ Architects, Inc. – City of Fresno Warehouse Site Assessment 01-14-22 Asbestos Survey Report
3 of 8
Introduction
Forensic A
nalytical Consulting Services, Inc. (FACS) was retained by TAM + CZ Architects, Inc. to perform an asbestos inspection of a City of Fresno-owned warehouse, located at 725 H Street in Fresno, California. The survey was conducted prior to potential renovation activities in the near future. The survey was performed on December 22, 2021.
Scope
of Work
The purpose of this s
urvey was to identify asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) which may be disturbed during the upcoming project. The visual inspection, bulk sampling, and survey documentation were performed by Chris Chipponeri. Mr. Chipponeri is a Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) Certified Asbestos Consultant (CAC #10-4633) as required under California regulations. The scope of the survey and the services provided by FACS included:
• Performi
ng a visual inspection of the project areas to identify accessible suspect asbestos- containing materials (ACMs) that will be disturbed during the planned project; • Collecti
on of bulk material samples for asbestos analysis by polarized light microscopy (PLM); • Ensuring th
e technical quality of all work by using Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) accredited Building Inspectors;
• Consolidati
ng data and findings into a report format.
Site Characterization
The warehouse at 735 H
Street in Fresno, California is a multi-level industrial building comprising a main floor, a sub level, and a limited upper level. The main floor includes 3 large warehouse bays, as well as office space and storage. The sub level is comprised of two disconnected basements with street access.
The upper level consists of an office overviewing one warehouse floor, and attic space housing the building’s HVAC system.
Survey Methods
Document Review
FACS has no pr
ior survey or site inspection for this location.
Visual Inspection
Access
ible building materials were visually inspected using the methods presented in the Federal AHERA regulations (40 CFR, Part 763). AHERA inspection methodology is required to be used for inspections of K-12 schools and is generally accepted as the industry standard for all ACM inspections regardless of structure or facility type. Suspect ACMs were also physically assessed for friability, condition and possible disturbance factors.
All areas wer
e accessible during this inspection. This inspection excluded the roof area of the building and additional survey for suspect materials would need to be performed of this area prior to any renovation activities.
TAM + CZ Architects, Inc. – City of Fresno Warehouse Site Assessment 01-14-22 Asbestos Survey Report
4 of 8
Asbestos Inspection
Bulk Sample Collection
Bulk sam
ples of identified homogeneous materials were collected in building areas that may be impacted by the planned renovation/demolition activities. Samples were collected of each separate homogeneous area. A homogeneous area is defined as a surfacing material, thermal system insulation, or miscellaneous material that is uniform in use, color, and texture. Examples of homogeneous areas could include:
Vinyl fl
oor tiles
False ceiling panels
Drywall with joint compound
Vinyl sheet flooring
The specifi
c number of samples collected was determined by using the methods required by the Federal AHERA regulations (40 CFR, Part 763.86) as noted below:
1) For Surfaci
ng Material:
1,000 ft2 or less - collect 3 samples
1,001 to 5,000 ft2 - collect 5 samples
5,001 ft2 or greater - collect 7 samples
2) For Thermal S
ystem Insulation:
“In a randomly distributed manner” - collect 3 samples
6 linear feet of patching or less - collect 1 sample
cementitious pipe fittings - “In a manner sufficient to determine” 3) For all Mi
scellaneous Material:
Collect samples "In a manner sufficient to determine whether material is ACM (asbestos- containing material) or not ACM..."
The suspect A
CMs were sampled using a knife, chisel, scraper, drill or other similar coring device suitable to the type of material sampled to cut through its entire thickness and to ensure that a cross- section of the material was obtained. The material was then placed in an appropriately labeled container that was sealed and submitted to SGS-Forensic Laboratories for analysis. A unique sample number (e.g. PJ65200-01A) was assigned to each sample.
Bulk sam
ples will be retained by the laboratory for one month unless otherwise instructed. After this period, the samples will be disposed of appropriately.
Bulk Sample Analysis
A total of ni
nety-six (96) bulk samples were collected from a total of forty-seven (47) suspect materials.
Bulk samples were analyzed by SGS-Forensic Laboratories (SGS-FL) in Hayward, California. SGS-FL is accredited by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) and the National Institute of Science and Technology's (NIST) National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP). SGS-FL participates in the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Proficiency Analytical Testing Program and has substantial experience in the analysis of asbestos.
All sam
ples were analyzed using Polarized Light Microscopy with Dispersion Staining (PLM/DS) techniques in accordance with the methodology approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The percentage of asbestos present in the samples was determined on the basis of a visual area TAM + CZ Architects, Inc. – City of Fresno Warehouse Site Assessment 01-14-22 Asbestos Survey Report
5 of 8
estimation. The EPA defines asbestos-containing materials (ACM) as any material containing more than one percent (1%) asbestos as determined using the method specified in Appendix A, Subpart F, 40 CFR Part 763, Section 1, Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM). 40 CFR Part 763 identifies the lower limit of reliable quantification for asbestos using the PLM method as approximately one percent (1%) by volume.
Regulations in California (CAL/OSHA Title 8 CCR 1529) define asbestos-containing construction materials (ACCM) as those materials having asbestos content of greater than one tenth of one percent (> 0.1%); therefore, for the purpose of this survey, any amount of asbestos detected will be considered positive. In addition to the percentages, the types of asbestos minerals are also reported. The PLM method is the standard method used to analyze asbestos bulk samples.
When "None Detected"
(ND) appears in the laboratory results, it should be interpreted as meaning asbestos was not observed in the sample material.
Regulations
Background
Asbestos i
s the name of a class of magnesium-silicate minerals that occur in fibrous form. Minerals that are included in this group are chrysotile, crocidolite, amosite, anthophyllite asbestos, tremolite asbestos, and actinolite asbestos. Although the chrysotile minerals are the most common type of asbestos found in the construction industry, all types of asbestos are regulated in the same manner. Asbestos has been used in more than 3,000 different building materials. Asbestos was added to building materials to:
increase fire-resistance, insulate against heat, cold and sound, resist corrosion, and increase tensile strength. Common building materials that may contain asbestos include but are not limited to the following: floor tile, resilient sheet flooring, ceiling tile, mastics, roofing materials, fireproofing, acoustical treatments, wallboard, pipe and boiler insulations. Adverse health effects have been associated with the inhalation of airborne asbestos. However, asbestos fibers that are tightly bound in the building material, may not represent an exposure hazard, unless disturbed in such a way that releases airborne fibers (i.e., cutting, drilling, sanding, and other abrasive methods).
Building Surveys
The followin
g is a summary of some current Federal and California State regulations which contain requirements related to the performance of building surveys for asbestos. These summaries are not intended to be all inclusive and do not contain every aspect of the regulations discussed.
U.S. EPA National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs), 40 CFR Part 61 Under the NES
HAPs regulation, no visible emissions are allowed during building demolition or renovation activities which involve regulated asbestos-containing materials. For this reason, all buildings must be surveyed for asbestos-containing materials prior to demolition or renovation. The EPA, CARB, and/or the local Air Quality Management District which implements EPA actions, must be notified prior to any building demolition even if no asbestos-containing materials are present.
Regulated asbestos-containing material (RACM) is defined as a) any friable material with an asbestos content of greater than one percent, or b) any non-friable material with asbestos content of greater than one percent that will, or could, become friable.
Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA), 40 CFR Part 763, Subpart E AHERA
requires performance of asbestos surveys and the development of Asbestos Management Plans for all primary and secondary schools in the United States. Although this regulation applies to primary and secondary schools only, the procedures mandated under AHERA are considered the industry TAM + CZ Architects, Inc. – City of Fresno Warehouse Site Assessment 01-14-22 Asbestos Survey Report
6 of 8
standard and are applied to all surveys performed by FACS unless otherwise specified by the building owner.
Worker Pro
tection
California Assembly Bill AB3713, Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 10.4, Section 25915- 25924
The state of Cali
fornia has enacted legislation that requires building owners, employers, lessees, etc. to notify tenants, employees and contractors of the presence of asbestos in both friable and non-friable forms. In addition, preventive maintenance activities must be developed and communicated to these parties. Notification is required 15 days after the identification of ACM in the building, and annually thereafter.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 29 CFR 1926.1101 and 8 CCR 1529 The Federal and State Oc
cupational Safety and Health Administrations (OSHA) require employers to implement specific work practices which protect workers from airborne asbestos exposure.
Building m
aterials which contain even low levels of asbestos (<1%) can potentially generate significant concentrations of airborne asbestos fibers when disturbed. Therefore, control measures should be instituted which adequately address worker health and safety during planned renovation or demolition activities involving these materials. Cal/OSHA defines asbestos-containing construction materials as those materials having greater than one tenth of one percent asbestos (>0.1%). As stated previously, there is currently no viable method to accurately quantify asbestos at this level.
Hazardous Waste
Building m
aterials reported to contain less than one percent (<1%) of asbestos are not considered hazardous by the U.S. EPA, and hence, may not require removal and disposal prior to demolition or renovation. Regulations may vary, however, between regional air quality management districts and/or other state agencies responsible for implementing EPA's rules. Therefore, local agencies should be contacted for specific ACM definitions and handling requirements. Cal/OSHA may also require special packaging and labeling on containers with asbestos-containing construction materials.
Composite s
ampling, which may potentially reduce the total asbestos content of the material, is only permitted when sampling joint compound, tape, and gypsum wallboard according to EPA’s Asbestos NESHAP Clarification Regarding Analysis of Multi-Layered Systems (40 CFR Part 61 FRL-4821-7).
Findings and Recommendations
Forensic A
nalytical Consulting Services, Inc. (FACS) was retained by TAM + CZ Architects, Inc. to perform an asbestos inspection of a City of Fresno-owned warehouse prior to a potential renovation.
The followin
g suspect materials were sampled and identified to contain asbestos by laboratory analysis during this survey:
• 12" VFT – Marble
• 12" VFT – Pink
• 3'x3' Floor Tile – Black
• 9" VFT – Tan Oatmeal
• Aircell
• Drywall – Skip Trowel Texture
• Drywall – Smooth Texture
• Flooring Material - Black Vinyl
• Transite Panels
• Vibration Dampener
• 9” VFT – Black
7 of 8 TAM + CZ Architects, Inc. – City of Fresno Warehouse Site Assessment 01-14-22 Asbestos Survey Report
While lab re
sults do not reflect all drywall materials as containing asbestos, it is recommended that all drywall containing a paint or texture finish be handled as asbestos-containing. This is due to the random nature of the drywall systems in the building and determining exactly where one system that contains asbestos may stop or start. Handling all drywall as asbestos-containing would remove the potential for an improper disturbance of the material during renovation activities.
Please see
Appendix A for a complete listing of materials sampled at the work areas and results during this survey. Any suspect materials not included must be assumed to be asbestos-containing materials until tested and proven not to contain asbestos.
The US EPA
National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) regulation, as enforced by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), requires the abatement of materials that contain more than 1% asbestos if they are friable or are likely to become friable by forces disturbing them. Materials noted as being friable, or would be considered friable when removed, include Aircell insulation, vibration dampened, and drywall materials. While not friable, the removal of asbestos- containing vinyl floor materials should be performed prior to renovation activities to prevent the improper disturbance of materials.
If more than 160 square
or 260 linear feet of regulated asbestos-containing material (RACM) will be abated, or if non-friable materials will be removed using mechanical means exceeding these thresholds, a 10-working day notification will need to be filed with the SJVAPCD, along with the payment of necessary fees that are based on quantities of materials to be removed. If materials identified as non- friable are not to be removed using mechanical means, a 10-working day notification is not required, but a courtesy notification should be filed at least 24 hours prior to abatement commencing with the SJVAPCD.
For friable
materials and non-friable materials that are removed using mechanical means or made friable by removal methods, the materials shall be disposed of as hazardous (regulated) asbestos-containing waste materials. Non-friable materials that remain non-friable during removal can be disposed of as a non-hazardous asbestos-containing waste material.
The contractor performing removal shall follow all Cal/OSHA abatement work practices and engineering controls for the class of work being performed. The contractor will need to submit a notification for the abatement at least 24 hours prior to the start of abatement to the local Cal/OSHA office. If the contractor will be removing more than 100 square feet of material, they must be registered with Cal/OSHA as an asbestos abatement contractor. Workers will also need to have AHERA Worker training with one worker trained to the AHERA Contractor-Supervisor level.
To comply with California State License Board requirements, the contractor performing the abatement will need to hold the C-22 asbestos abatement license or the C-class specialty license for each trade work to be performed with asbestos certification for that specialty class. Since more than two trades of work is involved in abatement, the abatement contractor may also hold the B-class general license with asbestos certification.
FACS recommends that the results of this report be incorporated into any renovation plans provided for this project for informational purposes.
Limita
tions
This inve
stigation is limited to the conditions and practices observed, and information made available to FACS. The methods, conclusions and recommendations provided are based on FACS’ judgment, expertise and the standard of practice for professional service. They are subject to the limitations and variability inherent in the methodology employed. As with all environmental investigations, this 8 of 8 TAM + CZ Architects, Inc. – City of Fresno Warehouse Site Assessment 01-14-22 Asbestos Survey Report
investigation is limited to the defined scope and does not purport to set forth all hazards, nor indicate that other hazards do not exist.
Please do not hes
itate to contact our office at 209-551-2000 with any questions or concerns. Thank you for the opportunity to assist TAM+CZ Architects with promoting worker safety and a healthy environment.
Respectfully, Reviewed by:
FORENSIC ANALYTICAL FORENSIC ANALYTICAL
Tyler Fais
on Chris Chipponeri
Assistant Local Director, Modesto Local Director, Central Valley Offices Cal/OSHA CSST #16-5728 Cal/OSHA CAC #10-4633
CDPH I/A LRC-00002454 CDPH I/A LRC-00000782
TAM + CZ Architects, Inc. – City of Fresno Warehouse Site Assessment 01-14-22 Asbestos Survey Report
www.forensicanalytical.com Forensic Analytical Consulting Services Appendix A
Appendix A
Asbestos Survey Summary, Sample Chain-of-Custody, and Laboratory Results Report
Asbestos Survey Summary (Lab Report # B327113)
TAM + CZ Architects, Inc. – City of Fresno Warehouse
Survey Date: December 22, 2021
Sample
Numbers Material Description Location(s)
of Material
Material
Number Asbestos Content (percent)
Asbestos
NESHAP
Category
Approximate
Quantity
01A 12” ACT – Pinhole w/ Mastic Room 1 01
Layer: Brown Mastic None Detect (ND)
Layer: Tan Fibrous Material ND
Layer: Paint ND
N/A N/A
01B 12” ACT – Pinhole w/ Mastic Room 1 01
Layer: Brown Mastic ND
Layer: Tan Fibrous Material ND
Layer: Paint ND
N/A N/A
02A 12” ACT – Uniform Hole
(Nailed-On Material) Room 9 02 Layer: Tan Fibrous Material ND Layer: Paint ND N/A N/A
02B 12” ACT – Uniform Hole
(Nailed-On Material) Room 9 02 Layer: Tan Fibrous Material ND Layer: Paint ND N/A N/A
03A 12” VFT – Brown Room 16 03 Layer: Brown Tile ND
Layer: Tan Mastic ND N/A N/A
03B 12” VFT – Brown Room 16 03 Layer: Brown Tile ND
Layer: Tan Mastic ND N/A N/A
04A 12” VFT – Green w/ Black Mastic Room 2 04 Layer: Green Tile ND Layer: Black Mastic ND N/A N/A
05A 12” VFT - Marble Room 14 05 Layer: Tan Tile Chrysotile 2% Layer: Yellow Mastic ND
Category I
Non-Friable 16 Sq. Ft.
05B 12” VFT - Marble Room 14 05 Layer: Tan Tile Chrysotile 2% Layer: Yellow Mastic ND
Category I
Non-Friable 16 Sq. Ft.
TAM + CZ Architects, Inc. – City of Fresno Warehouse Site Assessment 01-14-22 Asbestos Survey Report
www.forensicanalytical.com Forensic Analytical Consulting Services Appendix A
06A 12” VFT – Pink w/ Black Mastic Room 2 06 Layer: Brown Tile Chrysotile 5% Layer: Black Mastic ND
Category I
Non-Friable 81 Sq. Ft.
07A 3’x3’ Floor Tile – Black Room 9 07 Layer: Tan Tile Chrysotile 5% Layer: Black Mastic ND
Category I
Non-Friable 135 Sq. Ft.
08A 4” Baseboard – Black w/ Mastic Room 1 08 Layer: Black Non-Fibrous Material ND Layer: Beige Mastic ND N/A N/A
09A 6” Baseboard – Black w/ Mastic Room 2 09 Layer: Black Non-Fibrous Material ND Layer: Beige Mastic ND N/A N/A
10A 9” VFT – Gray Pebble Room1 10 Layer: Beige Tile ND
Layer: Yellow Mastic ND N/A N/A
11A 9” VFT – Tan Oatmeal Room 7 11 Layer: Tan Tile Chrysotile 2% Layer: Black Mastic ND
Category I
Non-Friable 117 Sq. Ft.
11B 9” VFT – Tan Oatmeal Room 7 11 Layer: Tan Tile Chrysotile 2% Layer: Black Mastic ND
Category I
Non-Friable 117 Sq. Ft.
12A Aircell Room 8 12 Layer: Grey Fibrous Material Chrysotile 70% Friable/ RACM
80 Ln. Ft.
(Additional
Amount may
Exist in
Inaccessible
Areas)
12B Aircell Room 8 12 Layer: Grey Fibrous Material Chrysotile 70% Friable/ RACM
80 Ln. Ft.
(Additional
Amount may
Exist in
Inaccessible
Areas)
12C Aircell Room 8 12 Layer: Grey Fibrous Material Chrysotile 70% Friable/ RACM
80 Ln. Ft.
(Additional
Amount may
Exist in
Inaccessible
Areas)
TAM + CZ Architects, Inc. – City of Fresno Warehouse Site Assessment 01-14-22 Asbestos Survey Report
www.forensicanalytical.com Forensic Analytical Consulting Services Appendix A
13A Black Mastic Room 8 13 Layer: Black Felt ND
Layer: Black Mastic ND N/A N/A
14A Blown-In Insulation Room 8 14 Layer: Grey Fibrous Material ND N/A N/A 14B Blown-In Insulation Room 8 14 Layer: Grey Fibrous Material ND N/A N/A 14C Blown-In Insulation Room 8 14 Layer: Grey Fibrous Material ND N/A N/A 15A Brick Mortar Room 4 15 Layer: White Mortar ND N/A N/A 15B Brick Mortar Room 11 15 Layer: White Mortar ND N/A N/A 15C Brick Mortar Room 13 15 Layer: Red Cementitious Material ND Layer: White Mortar ND N/A N/A
15D Brick Mortar Room 13 15 Layer: Red Cementitious Material ND Layer: White Mortar ND N/A N/A
15E Brick Mortar Room 15 15 Layer: White Mortar ND N/A N/A 16A Carpet – Brown Room 1 16
Layer: Brown Carpet ND
Layer: Beige Mastic ND
Layer: Multicolored Foam ND
N/A N/A
17A Carpet – Gray Room 2 17
Layer: Grey Carpet ND
Layer: Beige Mastic ND
Layer: Multicolored Foam ND
N/A N/A
18A Carpet - Multicolored Room 9B 18 Layer: Multicolored Carpet ND N/A N/A 19A Carpet – Tan Room 1 19
Layer: Tan Carpet ND
Layer: Beige Mastic ND
Layer: Multicolored Foam ND
N/A N/A
TAM + CZ Architects, Inc. – City of Fresno Warehouse Site Assessment 01-14-22 Asbestos Survey Report
www.forensicanalytical.com Forensic Analytical Consulting Services Appendix A
20A Concrete
Outside –
Loading
Dock NW
20 Layer: Grey Cementitious Material ND N/A N/A
20C Concrete
Outside –
Loading
Dock NE
20 Layer: Grey Cementitious Material ND N/A N/A
20D Concrete Room 4 20 Layer: Grey Cementitious Material ND N/A N/A 20E Concrete Room 14 20 Layer: Grey Cementitious Material ND N/A N/A 20F Concrete Room 15 20 Layer: Grey Cementitious Material ND N/A N/A 21A Construction Paper Room 18 21 Layer: Tan Fibrous Material ND N/A N/A 22A Drywall – Skip Trowel Texture w/
Tape & Joint Room 1 22
Layer: White Drywall ND
Layer: Off-White Joint Compound Chrysotile 2%
Layer: White Tape ND
Layer: Off-White Texture Chrysotile 2%
Layer: Paint ND
Friable/
RACM 1,280 Sq. Ft.
22B Drywall – Skip Trowel Texture w/
Tape & Joint Room 2 22
Layer: White Drywall ND
Layer: Off-White Joint Compound Chrysotile 2%
Layer: White Tape ND
Layer: Off-White Texture Chrysotile 2%
Layer: Paint ND
Friable/
RACM 1,280 Sq. Ft.
22C Drywall – Skip Trowel Texture w/
Tape & Joint Room 3 22
Layer: White Drywall ND
Layer: Off-White Joint Compound Chrysotile 2%
Layer: White Tape ND
Layer: Off-White Texture Chrysotile 2%
Layer: Paint ND
Friable/
RACM 1,280 Sq. Ft.
23A Drywall – Smooth Texture Room 4 23 Layer: White Drywall ND Layer: Paint ND N/A N/A
23B Drywall – Smooth Texture Room 4 23 Layer: White Drywall ND Layer: Paint ND N/A N/A
TAM + CZ Architects, Inc. – City of Fresno Warehouse Site Assessment 01-14-22 Asbestos Survey Report
www.forensicanalytical.com Forensic Analytical Consulting Services Appendix A
23C Drywall – Smooth Texture Room 5 23 Layer: White Drywall ND Layer: Paint ND N/A N/A
23D Drywall – Smooth Texture Room 15 23 Layer: White Drywall ND Layer: Paint ND N/A N/A
23E Drywall – Smooth Texture Room 15 23 Layer: White Drywall ND Layer: Paint ND N/A N/A
24A Drywall – Smooth Texture w/
Tape & Joint Room 4 24 Layer: White Drywall ND
Layer: Paint ND
Friable/
RACM 2,600 Sq. Ft.
24B Drywall – Smooth Texture w/
Tape & Joint Room 5 24 Layer: White Drywall ND
Layer: Paint ND
Friable/
RACM 2,600 Sq. Ft.
24C Drywall – Smooth Texture w/
Tape & Joint Room 5 24
Layer: White Drywall ND
Layer: White Joint Compound Chrysotile 2%
Layer: Tan Tape ND
Layer: White Texture Chrysotile 2%
Layer: Paint ND
Friable/
RACM 2,600 Sq. Ft.
24D Drywall – Smooth Texture w/
Tape & Joint Room 15 24
Layer: White Drywall ND
Layer: White Joint Compound Chrysotile 2%
Layer: Tan Tape ND
Layer: White Texture Chrysotile 2%
Layer: Paint ND
Friable/
RACM 2,600 Sq. Ft.
25A Drywall - Unfinished Room 14 25 Layer: White Drywall ND N/A N/A 25B Drywall - Unfinished Room 14 25 Layer: White Drywall ND N/A N/A 26A Duct Tape – White Room 8 26 Layer: White Tape ND N/A N/A 26B Duct Tape – White Room 8 26 Layer: White Tape ND N/A N/A 27A Duct Tape – Yellow Room 8 27 Layer: Yellow Tape ND N/A N/A TAM + CZ Architects, Inc. – City of Fresno Warehouse Site Assessment 01-14-22 Asbestos Survey Report
www.forensicanalytical.com Forensic Analytical Consulting Services Appendix A
28A Joint Compound – White Room 16 28 Layer: White Joint Compound ND Layer: Paint ND N/A N/A
28B Joint Compound – White Room 16 28 Layer: White Joint Compound ND Layer: Paint ND N/A N/A
29A Flooring Material – Black Vinyl Room 4 29 Layer: Black Non-Fibrous Material Chrysotile 2% Category I Non-Friable 5,170 Sq. Ft.
29B Flooring Material – Black Vinyl Room 4 29 Layer: Black Non-Fibrous Material Chrysotile 2% Category I Non-Friable 5,170 Sq. Ft.
30A Insulation – Brown Room 1 30 Layer: Brown Fibrous Material ND N/A N/A 30B Insulation – Brown Room 1 30 Layer: Brown Fibrous Material ND N/A N/A 30C Insulation – Brown Room 17 30 Layer: Brown Fibrous Material ND N/A N/A 31A Insulation Moisture Paper Room 17 31 Layer: Black Felt ND N/A N/A 31B Insulation Moisture Paper Room 17 31 Layer: Black Felt ND N/A N/A 32A Moisture Barrier – Felt Room 17 32 Layer: Black Felt ND N/A N/A 32B Moisture Barrier – Felt Room 17 32 Layer: Black Felt ND N/A N/A 33A Plaster Room 4 33 Layer: Off-White Plaster ND
Layer: Paint ND N/A N/A
33B Plaster Room 10 33 Layer: Off-White Plaster ND
Layer: Paint ND N/A N/A
33C Plaster Room 10 33 Layer: Off-White Plaster ND
Layer: Paint ND N/A N/A
TAM + CZ Architects, Inc. – City of Fresno Warehouse Site Assessment 01-14-22 Asbestos Survey Report
www.forensicanalytical.com Forensic Analytical Consulting Services Appendix A
33D Plaster Room 12 33 Layer: Off-White Plaster ND
Layer: Paint ND N/A N/A
33E Plaster Room 16 33 Layer: Off-White Plaster ND
Layer: Paint ND N/A N/A
34A Plaster on Brick Room 12 34 Layer: Off-White Plaster ND Layer: Paint ND N/A N/A
34B Plaster on Brick Room 13 34 Layer: Off-White Plaster ND Layer: Paint ND N/A N/A
34C Plaster on Brick Room 13 34 Layer: Off-White Plaster ND Layer: Paint ND N/A N/A
35A Pressed Wood – Tile Look w/
Mastic Room 8 35 Layer: Brown Fibrous Material ND
Layer: Paint ND N/A N/A
36A Pressed Wood Ceiling Room 10 36 Layer: Brown Fibrous Material ND Layer: Paint ND N/A N/A
36B Pressed Wood Ceiling Room 10 36 Layer: Brown Fibrous Material ND Layer: Paint ND N/A N/A
37A Pressed Wood w/ Yellow & Black
Mastic Room 6 37
Layer: Yellow Mastic ND
Layer: Brown Fibrous Material ND
Layer: Black Mastic ND
N/A N/A
37B Pressed Wood w/ Yellow & Black
Mastic Room 6 37
Layer: Yellow Mastic ND
Layer: Brown Fibrous Material ND
Layer: Black Mastic ND
N/A N/A
38A Transite Panel Rooms 8
(Attic) & 14 38
Layer: Grey Semi-Fibrous Material Chrysotile
10%
Layer: Paint ND
Category II
Non-Friable 60 Sq. Ft.
38B Transite Panel Rooms 8
(Attic) & 14 38
Layer: Grey Semi-Fibrous Material Chrysotile
10%
Layer: Paint ND
Category II
Non-Friable 60 Sq. Ft.
39A Vibration Dampener Room 8
(Attic) 39 Layer: Grey Fibrous Material Chrysotile 50% Friable / RACM 2 Each
TAM + CZ Architects, Inc. – City of Fresno Warehouse Site Assessment 01-14-22 Asbestos Survey Report
www.forensicanalytical.com Forensic Analytical Consulting Services Appendix A
39B Vibration Dampener Room 8
(Attic) 39 Layer: Grey Fibrous Material Chrysotile 50% Friable / RACM 2 Each
40A Vinyl Countertop Room 6 40
Layer: Grey Non-Fibrous Material ND
Layer: Black Fibrous Backing ND
Layer: Brown Mastic ND
N/A N/A
41A Vinyl Sheet Flooring – Black Room 12 41
Layer: Dark Brown Sheet Flooring ND
Layer: Black Fibrous Backing ND
Layer: Brown Mastic ND
N/A N/A
41B Vinyl Sheet Flooring - Black Room 12 41
Layer: Dark Brown Sheet Flooring ND
Layer: Black Fibrous Backing ND
Layer: Brown Mastic ND
N/A N/A
42A Vinyl Stair Tread Room 9B 42 Layer: Black Non-Fibrous Material ND N/A N/A 43A Wire Insulation Room 17 43
Layer: Tan Woven Material ND
Layer: Black Non-Fibrous Material ND
Layer: Tan Woven Material ND
N/A N/A
44A Fiberglass Insulation Paper Room 8 44
Layer: Yellow Fibrous Material ND
Layer: Brown Fibrous Material ND
Layer: Black Tar ND
N/A N/A
44B Fiberglass Insulation Paper Room 8 44
Layer: Yellow Fibrous Material ND
Layer: Brown Fibrous Material ND
Layer: Black Tar ND
N/A N/A
44C Fiberglass Insulation Paper Room 8 44
Layer: Yellow Fibrous Material ND
Layer: Brown Fibrous Material ND
Layer: Black Tar ND
N/A N/A
45A 9” VFT – Black Room 12 45 Layer: Tan Tile 5% Chrysotile Layer: Black Mastic ND
Category I
Non-Friable 500 Sq. Ft.
45B 9” VFT – Black Room 12 45 Layer: Tan Tile 5% Chrysotile Layer: Black Mastic ND
Category I
Non-Friable 500 Sq. Ft.
46A Vinyl Sheet Flooring – Wood Room 12 46
Layer: Brown Sheet Flooring ND
Layer: Black Fibrous Backing ND
Layer: Brown Mastic ND
N/A N/A
46B Vinyl Sheet Flooring – Wood Room 12 46
Layer: Brown Sheet Flooring ND
Layer: Black Fibrous Backing ND
Layer: Brown Mastic ND
N/A N/A
TAM + CZ Architects, Inc. – City of Fresno Warehouse Site Assessment 01-14-22 Asbestos Survey Report
www.forensicanalytical.com Forensic Analytical Consulting Services Appendix A
47A Mirror Mastic Room 14 47 Layer: Yellow Foam ND
Layer: Yellow Mastic ND N/A N/A
Amended Report
(EPA Method 40CFR, Part 763, Appendix E to Subpart E and EPA 600/R-93-116, Visual Area Estimation) Bulk Asbestos Analysis
NVLAP Lab Code: 101459-0
FR09Client ID:FACS - Fresno
B327113Report Number:Tyler Faison
Date Received:21228 Cabot Blvd.
01/14/22Date Analyzed:
01/14/22Date Printed:Hayward, CA 94545
First Reported:
FR09PJ65200; TAM+CZ ARCHITECTS, INC. 735 H Street Fresno CA SGSFL Job ID:Job ID/Site:
Date(s) Collected: 12/22/2021
96Total Samples Submitted:
Total Samples Analyzed: 96
12/27/21
01/04/22
Sample ID Lab Numbe r
Asbestos
Type
Percent in
Layer
Asbestos AsbestosPercent in Percent in
Type Type Layer Layer
PJ65200-01A 12512916
Layer: Brown Mastic ND
Layer: Tan Fibrous Material ND
Layer: Paint ND
Asbestos (ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (95 %)
PJ65200-01B 12512917
Layer: Brown Mastic ND
Layer: Tan Fibrous Material ND
Layer: Paint ND
Asbestos (ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (95 %)
PJ65200-02A 12512918
Layer: Tan Fibrous Material ND
Layer: Paint ND
Asbestos
(ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (95 %)
PJ65200-02B 12512919
Layer: Tan Fibrous Material ND
Layer: Paint ND
Asbestos
(ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (95 %)
PJ65200-03A 12512920
Layer: Brown Tile ND
Layer: Tan Mastic ND
Asbestos (ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (Trace)
PJ65200-03B 12512921
Layer: Brown Tile ND
Layer: Tan Mastic ND
Asbestos
(ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (Trace)
1 of 13
3777 Depot Road, Suite 409, Hayward, CA 94545 / Telephone: (510) 887-8828 (800) 827-FASI / Fax: (510) 887-4218 Report Number: B327113
Date Printed: 01/14/22Client Name: FACS - Fresno
Sample ID Lab Numbe r
Asbestos
Type
Percent in
Layer
Asbestos AsbestosPercent in Percent in
Type Type Layer Layer
PJ65200-04A 12512922
Layer: Green Tile ND
Layer: Black Mastic ND
Asbestos (ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (Trace)
PJ65200-05A 12512923
Layer: Tan Tile Chrysotile 2 %
Layer: Yellow Mastic ND
Asbestos (2%)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (Trace)
PJ65200-05B 12512924
Layer: Tan Tile Chrysotile 2 %
Layer: Yellow Mastic ND
Asbestos
(2%)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (Trace)
PJ65200-06A 12512925
Layer: Brown Tile Chrysotile 5 %
Layer: Black Mastic ND
Asbestos
(5%)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (Trace)
PJ65200-07A 12512926
Layer: Tan Tile Chrysotile 5 %
Layer: Black Mastic ND
Asbestos (5%)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (Trace)
PJ65200-08A 12512927
Layer: Black Non-Fibrous Material ND
Layer: Beige Mastic ND
Asbestos (ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (Trace)
PJ65200-09A 12512928
Layer: Black Non-Fibrous Material ND
Layer: Beige Mastic ND
Asbestos
(ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (Trace)
PJ65200-10A 12512929
Layer: Beige Tile ND
Layer: Yellow Mastic ND
Asbestos
(ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (Trace) Talc (10 %)
2 of 13
3777 Depot Road, Suite 409, Hayward, CA 94545 / Telephone: (510) 887-8828 (800) 827-FASI / Fax: (510) 887-4218 Report Number: B327113
Date Printed: 01/14/22Client Name: FACS - Fresno
Sample ID Lab Numbe r
Asbestos
Type
Percent in
Layer
Asbestos AsbestosPercent in Percent in
Type Type Layer Layer
PJ65200-11A 12512930
Layer: Tan Tile Chrysotile 2 %
Layer: Black Mastic ND
Asbestos (2%)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (Trace) Talc (10 %)
PJ65200-11B 12512931
Layer: Tan Tile Chrysotile 2 %
Layer: Black Mastic ND
Asbestos (2%)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (Trace) Talc (10 %)
PJ65200-12A 12512932
Layer: Grey Fibrous Material Chrysotile 70 %
Asbestos
(70%)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (25 %)
PJ65200-12B 12512933
Layer: Grey Fibrous Material Chrysotile 70 %
Asbestos
(70%)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (25 %)
PJ65200-12C 12512934
Layer: Grey Fibrous Material Chrysotile 70 %
Asbestos (70%)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (25 %)
PJ65200-13A 12512935
Layer: Black Felt ND
Layer: Black Mastic ND
Asbestos (ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (85 %)
PJ65200-14A 12512936
Layer: Grey Fibrous Material ND
Asbestos (ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (Trace) Fibrous Glass (99 %)
PJ65200-14B 12512937
Layer: Grey Fibrous Material ND
Asbestos (ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (Trace) Fibrous Glass (99 %)
PJ65200-14C 12512938
Layer: Grey Fibrous Material ND
Asbestos
(ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (Trace) Fibrous Glass (99 %)
3 of 13
3777 Depot Road, Suite 409, Hayward, CA 94545 / Telephone: (510) 887-8828 (800) 827-FASI / Fax: (510) 887-4218 Report Number: B327113
Date Printed: 01/14/22Client Name: FACS - Fresno
Sample ID Lab Numbe r
Asbestos
Type
Percent in
Layer
Asbestos AsbestosPercent in Percent in
Type Type Layer Layer
PJ65200-15A 12512939
Layer: White Mortar ND
Asbestos (ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (Trace)
PJ65200-15B 12512940
Layer: White Mortar ND
Asbestos (ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (Trace)
PJ65200-15C 12512941
Layer: Red Cementitious Material ND
Layer: White Mortar ND
Asbestos
(ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (Trace)
PJ65200-15D 12512942
Layer: Red Cementitious Material ND
Layer: White Mortar ND
Asbestos
(ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (Trace)
PJ65200-15E 12512943
Layer: White Mortar ND
Asbestos (ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (Trace)
PJ65200-16A 12512944
Layer: Brown Carpet ND
Layer: Beige Mastic ND
Layer: Multicolored Foam ND
Asbestos (ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (Trace) Synthetic (85 %)
PJ65200-17A 12512945
Layer: Grey Carpet ND
Layer: Beige Mastic ND
Layer: Multicolored Foam ND
Asbestos
(ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (Trace) Synthetic (85 %)
PJ65200-18A 12512946
Layer: Multicolored Carpet ND
Asbestos
(ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (Trace) Synthetic (85 %)
4 of 13
3777 Depot Road, Suite 409, Hayward, CA 94545 / Telephone: (510) 887-8828 (800) 827-FASI / Fax: (510) 887-4218 Report Number: B327113
Date Printed: 01/14/22Client Name: FACS - Fresno
Sample ID Lab Numbe r
Asbestos
Type
Percent in
Layer
Asbestos AsbestosPercent in Percent in
Type Type Layer Layer
PJ65200-19A 12512947
Layer: Tan Carpet ND
Layer: Beige Mastic ND
Layer: Multicolored Foam ND
Asbestos (ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (Trace) Synthetic (85 %)
PJ65200-20A 12512948
Layer: Grey Cementitious Material ND
Asbestos (ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (Trace)
PJ65200-20C 12512949
Layer: Grey Cementitious Material ND
Asbestos
(ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (Trace)
PJ65200-20D 12512950
Layer: Grey Cementitious Material ND
Asbestos
(ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (Trace)
PJ65200-20E 12512951
Layer: Grey Cementitious Material ND
Asbestos (ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (Trace)
PJ65200-20F 12512952
Layer: Grey Cementitious Material ND
Asbestos (ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (Trace)
PJ65200-21A 12512953
Layer: Tan Fibrous Material ND
Asbestos
(ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (95 %)
PJ65200-22A 12512954
Layer: White Drywall ND
Layer: Off-White Joint Compound Chrysotile 2 %
Layer: White Tape ND
Layer: Off-White Texture Chrysotile 2 %
Layer: Paint ND
Asbestos
(Trace)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (20 %) Fibrous Glass (10 %)
5 of 13
3777 Depot Road, Suite 409, Hayward, CA 94545 / Telephone: (510) 887-8828 (800) 827-FASI / Fax: (510) 887-4218 Report Number: B327113
Date Printed: 01/14/22Client Name: FACS - Fresno
Sample ID Lab Numbe r
Asbestos
Type
Percent in
Layer
Asbestos AsbestosPercent in Percent in
Type Type Layer Layer
PJ65200-22B 12512955
Layer: White Drywall ND
Layer: Off-White Joint Compound Chrysotile 2 %
Layer: White Tape ND
Layer: Off-White Texture Chrysotile 2 %
Layer: Paint ND
Asbestos (Trace)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (20 %) Fibrous Glass (10 %)
PJ65200-22C 12512956
Layer: White Drywall ND
Layer: Off-White Joint Compound Chrysotile 2 %
Layer: White Tape ND
Layer: Off-White Texture Chrysotile 2 %
Layer: Paint ND
Asbestos (Trace)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (20 %) Fibrous Glass (10 %)
PJ65200-23A 12512957
Layer: White Drywall ND
Layer: Paint ND
Asbestos
(ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (20 %) Fibrous Glass (10 %)
PJ65200-23B 12512958
Layer: White Drywall ND
Layer: Paint ND
Asbestos
(ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (20 %) Fibrous Glass (10 %)
PJ65200-23C 12512959
Layer: White Drywall ND
Layer: Paint ND
Asbestos (ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (20 %) Fibrous Glass (10 %)
PJ65200-23D 12512960
Layer: White Drywall ND
Layer: Paint ND
Asbestos (ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (20 %) Fibrous Glass (10 %)
PJ65200-23E 12512961
Layer: White Drywall ND
Layer: Paint ND
Asbestos
(ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (20 %) Fibrous Glass (10 %)
6 of 13
3777 Depot Road, Suite 409, Hayward, CA 94545 / Telephone: (510) 887-8828 (800) 827-FASI / Fax: (510) 887-4218 Report Number: B327113
Date Printed: 01/14/22Client Name: FACS - Fresno
Sample ID Lab Numbe r
Asbestos
Type
Percent in
Layer
Asbestos AsbestosPercent in Percent in
Type Type Layer Layer
PJ65200-24A 12512962
Layer: White Drywall ND
Layer: Paint ND
Asbestos (ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (20 %) Fibrous Glass (10 %)
PJ65200-24B 12512963
Layer: White Drywall ND
Layer: Paint ND
Asbestos (ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (20 %) Fibrous Glass (10 %)
PJ65200-24C 12512964
Layer: White Drywall ND
Layer: White Joint Compound Chrysotile 2 %
Layer: Tan Tape ND
Layer: White Texture Chrysotile 2 %
Layer: Paint ND
Asbestos
(Trace)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (20 %) Fibrous Glass (10 %)
PJ65200-24D 12512965
Layer: White Drywall ND
Layer: Off-White Joint Compound Chrysotile 2 %
Layer: White Tape ND
Layer: Off-White Texture Chrysotile 2 %
Layer: Paint ND
Asbestos
(Trace)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (20 %) Fibrous Glass (10 %)
PJ65200-25A 12512966
Layer: White Drywall ND
Asbestos (ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (20 %) Fibrous Glass (10 %)
PJ65200-25B 12512967
Layer: White Drywall ND
Asbestos (ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (20 %) Fibrous Glass (10 %)
PJ65200-26A 12512968
Layer: White Tape ND
Asbestos
(ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (90 %)
PJ65200-26B 12512969
Layer: White Tape ND
Asbestos
(ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (90 %)
7 of 13
3777 Depot Road, Suite 409, Hayward, CA 94545 / Telephone: (510) 887-8828 (800) 827-FASI / Fax: (510) 887-4218 Report Number: B327113
Date Printed: 01/14/22Client Name: FACS - Fresno
Sample ID Lab Numbe r
Asbestos
Type
Percent in
Layer
Asbestos AsbestosPercent in Percent in
Type Type Layer Layer
PJ65200-27A 12512970
Layer: Yellow Tape ND
Asbestos (ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (90 %)
PJ65200-28A 12512971
Layer: White Joint Compound ND
Layer: Paint ND
Asbestos (ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (Trace)
PJ65200-28B 12512972
Layer: White Joint Compound ND
Layer: Paint ND
Asbestos (ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (Trace)
PJ65200-29A 12512973
Layer: Black Non-Fibrous Material Chrysotile 2 %
Asbestos (2%)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (Trace)
PJ65200-29B 12512974
Layer: Black Non-Fibrous Material Chrysotile 2 %
Asbestos (2%)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (Trace)
PJ65200-30A 12512975
Layer: Brown Fibrous Material ND
Asbestos (ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (95 %)
PJ65200-30B 12512976
Layer: Brown Fibrous Material ND
Asbestos
(ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (95 %)
PJ65200-30C 12512977
Layer: Brown Fibrous Material ND
Asbestos
(ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (95 %)
PJ65200-31A 12512978
Layer: Black Felt ND
Asbestos (ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (90 %)
PJ65200-31B 12512979
Layer: Black Felt ND
Asbestos (ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (90 %)
8 of 13
3777 Depot Road, Suite 409, Hayward, CA 94545 / Telephone: (510) 887-8828 (800) 827-FASI / Fax: (510) 887-4218 Report Number: B327113
Date Printed: 01/14/22Client Name: FACS - Fresno
Sample ID Lab Numbe r
Asbestos
Type
Percent in
Layer
Asbestos AsbestosPercent in Percent in
Type Type Layer Layer
PJ65200-32A 12512980
Layer: Black Felt ND
Asbestos (ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (90 %)
PJ65200-32B 12512981
Layer: Black Felt ND
Asbestos (ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (90 %)
PJ65200-33A 12512982
Layer: Off-White Plaster ND
Layer: Paint ND
Asbestos
(ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (Trace)
PJ65200-33B 12512983
Layer: Off-White Plaster ND
Layer: Paint ND
Asbestos
(ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (Trace)
PJ65200-33C 12512984
Layer: Off-White Plaster ND
Layer: Paint ND
Asbestos (ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (Trace)
PJ65200-33D 12512985
Layer: Off-White Plaster ND
Layer: Paint ND
Asbestos (ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (Trace)
PJ65200-33E 12512986
Layer: Off-White Plaster ND
Layer: Paint ND
Asbestos
(ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (Trace)
PJ65200-34A 12512987
Layer: Off-White Plaster ND
Layer: Paint ND
Asbestos
(ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (Trace)
PJ65200-34B 12512988
Layer: Off-White Plaster ND
Layer: Paint ND
Asbestos (ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (Trace)
9 of 13
3777 Depot Road, Suite 409, Hayward, CA 94545 / Telephone: (510) 887-8828 (800) 827-FASI / Fax: (510) 887-4218 Report Number: B327113
Date Printed: 01/14/22Client Name: FACS - Fresno
Sample ID Lab Numbe r
Asbestos
Type
Percent in
Layer
Asbestos AsbestosPercent in Percent in
Type Type Layer Layer
PJ65200-34C 12512989
Layer: Off-White Plaster ND
Layer: Paint ND
Asbestos (ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (Trace)
PJ65200-35A 12512990
Layer: Brown Fibrous Material ND
Layer: Paint ND
Asbestos (ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (95 %)
PJ65200-36A 12512991
Layer: Brown Fibrous Material ND
Layer: Paint ND
Asbestos
(ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (95 %)
PJ65200-36B 12512992
Layer: Brown Fibrous Material ND
Layer: Paint ND
Asbestos
(ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (95 %)
PJ65200-37A 12512993
Layer: Yellow Mastic ND
Layer: Brown Fibrous Material ND
Layer: Black Mastic ND
Asbestos (ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (95 %)
PJ65200-37B 12512994
Layer: Yellow Mastic ND
Layer: Brown Fibrous Material ND
Layer: Black Mastic ND
Asbestos (ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (95 %)
PJ65200-38A 12512995
Layer: Grey Semi-Fibrous Material Chrysotile 10 %
Layer: Paint ND
Asbestos
(10%)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (Trace)
PJ65200-38B 12512996
Layer: Grey Semi-Fibrous Material Chrysotile 10 %
Layer: Paint ND
Asbestos
(10%)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (Trace)
10 of 13
3777 Depot Road, Suite 409, Hayward, CA 94545 / Telephone: (510) 887-8828 (800) 827-FASI / Fax: (510) 887-4218 Report Number: B327113
Date Printed: 01/14/22Client Name: FACS - Fresno
Sample ID Lab Numbe r
Asbestos
Type
Percent in
Layer
Asbestos AsbestosPercent in Percent in
Type Type Layer Layer
PJ65200-39A 12512997
Layer: Grey Fibrous Material Chrysotile 50 %
Asbestos (50%)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (45 %) Synthetic (5 %)
PJ65200-39B 12512998
Layer: Grey Fibrous Material Chrysotile 50 %
Asbestos (50%)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (45 %) Synthetic (5 %)
PJ65200-40A 12512999
Layer: Grey Non-Fibrous Material ND
Layer: Black Fibrous Backing ND
Layer: Brown Mastic ND
Asbestos
(ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (40 %) Synthetic (10 %)
PJ65200-41A 12513000
Layer: Dark Brown Sheet Flooring ND
Layer: Black Fibrous Backing ND
Layer: Brown Mastic ND
Asbestos
(ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (35 %) Synthetic (5 %)
PJ65200-41B 12513001
Layer: Dark Brown Sheet Flooring ND
Layer: Black Fibrous Backing ND
Layer: Brown Mastic ND
Asbestos (ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (35 %) Synthetic (5 %)
PJ65200-42A 12513002
Layer: Black Non-Fibrous Material ND
Asbestos (ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (Trace)
PJ65200-43A 12513003
Layer: Tan Woven Material ND
Layer: Black Non-Fibrous Material ND
Layer: Tan Woven Material ND
Asbestos
(ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (80 %)
PJ65200-44A 12513004
Layer: Yellow Fibrous Material ND
Layer: Brown Fibrous Material ND
Layer: Black Tar ND
Asbestos
(ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (20 %) Fibrous Glass (70 %)
11 of 13
3777 Depot Road, Suite 409, Hayward, CA 94545 / Telephone: (510) 887-8828 (800) 827-FASI / Fax: (510) 887-4218 Report Number: B327113
Date Printed: 01/14/22Client Name: FACS - Fresno
Sample ID Lab Numbe r
Asbestos
Type
Percent in
Layer
Asbestos AsbestosPercent in Percent in
Type Type Layer Layer
PJ65200-44B 12513005
Layer: Yellow Fibrous Material ND
Layer: Brown Fibrous Material ND
Layer: Black Tar ND
Asbestos (ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (20 %) Fibrous Glass (70 %)
PJ65200-44C 12513006
Layer: Yellow Fibrous Material ND
Layer: Brown Fibrous Material ND
Layer: Black Tar ND
Asbestos (ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (20 %) Fibrous Glass (70 %)
PJ65200-45A 12513007
Layer: Tan Tile Chrysotile 5 %
Layer: Black Mastic ND
Asbestos
(5%)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (Trace)
PJ65200-45B 12513008
Layer: Tan Tile Chrysotile 5 %
Layer: Black Mastic ND
Asbestos
(5%)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (Trace)
PJ65200-46A 12513009
Layer: Brown Sheet Flooring ND
Layer: Black Fibrous Backing ND
Layer: Brown Mastic ND
Asbestos (ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (80 %) Synthetic (5 %)
PJ65200-46B 12513010
Layer: Brown Sheet Flooring ND
Layer: Black Fibrous Backing ND
Layer: Brown Mastic ND
Asbestos (ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (80 %) Synthetic (5 %)
PJ65200-47A 12513011
Layer: Yellow Foam ND
Layer: Yellow Mastic ND
Asbestos
(ND)Total Composite Values of Fibrous Components:
Cellulose (Trace)
Note: Samples out of order.
12 of 13
3777 Depot Road, Suite 409, Hayward, CA 94545 / Telephone: (510) 887-8828 (800) 827-FASI / Fax: (510) 887-4218 Report Number: B327113
Date Printed: 01/14/22Client Name: FACS - Fresno
Sample ID Lab Numbe r
Asbestos
Type
Percent in
Layer
Asbestos AsbestosPercent in Percent in
Type Type Layer Layer
Analytical results and reports are generated by SGS Forensic Laboratories (SGSFL) at the request of and for the exclusive use of the person or entity (client) named on such report.
Results, reports or copies of same will not be released by SGSFL to any third party without prior written request from client. This report applies only to the sample(s) tested.
Supporting laboratory documentationis available upon request. This report must not be reproduced except in full, unless approved by SGSFL. The client is solely responsiblefor the use and interpretation of test results and reports requested from SGSFL. SGSFL is not able to assess the degree of hazard resulting from materials analyzed. SGS Forensic Laboratories reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. All samples were received in acceptable condition unless otherwise noted.
Note: Limit of Quantification ('LOQ') = 1%. 'Trace' denotes the presence of asbestos below the LOQ. 'ND' = 'None Detected'.
Tad Thrower, Laboratory Supervisor, Hayward Laboratory
13 of 13
3777 Depot Road, Suite 409, Hayward, CA 94545 / Telephone: (510) 887-8828 (800) 827-FASI / Fax: (510) 887-4218 www.forensicanalytical.com Forensic Analytical Consulting Services Appendix B TAM + CZ Architects, Inc. – City of Fresno Warehouse Site Assessment 01-14-22 Asbestos Survey Report
Appendix B
Site Photos and Sample Location Drawings
735 H Street; Exterior View Loading Dock Concrete - Damaged 9-inch Vinyl Floor Tile – Gray Pebble Room 1 Carpets – Gray (above) & Tan (below)
www.forensicanalytical.com Forensic Analytical Consulting Services Appendix B TAM + CZ Architects, Inc. – City of Fresno Warehouse Site Assessment 01-14-22 Asbestos Survey Report
4-inch Vinyl Baseboard Drywall – Skip Trowel Texture
12-inch Acoustic Ceiling Tile – Pinhole Carpet - Gray
www.forensicanalytical.com Forensic Analytical Consulting Services Appendix B TAM + CZ Architects, Inc. – City of Fresno Warehouse Site Assessment 01-14-22 Asbestos Survey Report
6-inch Vinyl Baseboard Hallway Flooring
Drywall w/ Wallpaper Concrete Flooring
www.forensicanalytical.com Forensic Analytical Consulting Services Appendix B TAM + CZ Architects, Inc. – City of Fresno Warehouse Site Assessment 01-14-22 Asbestos Survey Report
Black and Yellow Mastic Under Floor Tile 3’x3’ Floor Tile - Black 9-inch Vinyl Floor Tile w/ Black Mastic 9-inch Vinyl Floor Tile w/ Black Mastic
www.forensicanalytical.com Forensic Analytical Consulting Services Appendix B TAM + CZ Architects, Inc. – City of Fresno Warehouse Site Assessment 01-14-22 Asbestos Survey Report
Pressed Wood Panel Ceiling 12-inch Acoustic Ceiling Tile – Uniform Hole
Pressed Wood Panel Ceiling Vinyl Sheet Flooring – Wood Look
www.forensicanalytical.com Forensic Analytical Consulting Services Appendix B TAM + CZ Architects, Inc. – City of Fresno Warehouse Site Assessment 01-14-22 Asbestos Survey Report
Drywall – Smooth & Mirror w/ Mastic Drywall – Smooth Texture Brick and Mortar – Basement 12- inch Vinyl Floor Tile - Marble
www.forensicanalytical.com Forensic Analytical Consulting Services Appendix B TAM + CZ Architects, Inc. – City of Fresno Warehouse Site Assessment 01-14-22 Asbestos Survey Report
Vinyl Sheet Flooring - Wood 9-inch Vinyl Floor Tile - Black Drywall – Smooth w/ Paint Sample Removed Wire Insulation
www.forensicanalytical.com Forensic Analytical Consulting Services Appendix B TAM + CZ Architects, Inc. – City of Fresno Warehouse Site Assessment 01-14-22 Asbestos Survey Report
Plaster on Brick Brick and Mortar Fireplace
Brick and Mortar Unfinished Drywall
MAP WITH ASSOCIATED SAMPLE LOCATIONS
Site Name: 735 H Street – City of Fresno Warehouse
Address: 735 H Street, Fresno, CA 93721
Date: 12-22-2021
Room 2
Room 1
735 H Street
Rooms 1-4, 14
Room 3
Room 14
01B
01A
04A 05A
05B
06A
Room 15
08A
09A
10A
15A
Room 4
16A
17A
19A
20C 20A
20D
20E
22B
22A
22C
23B
23A
24A
25B
25A
29B
29A
30A 30B
33A
38B
38A
Exterior Loading Dock
47A
735 H Street – East End
Rooms 5-12
Room 5
Room 10
Room 6
Room 7
Room 8
Room 11
Room 12
Stairs
Room 9
02B 02A
09A
11A
11B
13A
Room 4
15B
23C
24B
24C
33C
33B
33D
34A 35A
36B
36A
37B
37A
40A
41A
41B
46A
45B 45A
46B
735 H Street – West End
Room 16 East End
735 H Street – Upper Level
Rooms 9b and 8 Attic
Stairs
Room 9b
Room 8
12A
12C 12B
14A 14B 14C
15E
18A
20F
23E
23D
26B
27A
26A
Room 16
Room 15
33E
39B 39A
42A
44B
44A
44C
735 H Street – Sub Level
Room 13
735 H Street – Sub Level
Rooms 17 and 18
03A
03B
15D
15C
Stairs
To 16
Stairs
To 12
21A
Room 17 Room 18 Room 13
28B 28A 30C
31A 31B 32A 32B
34B
34C
43A
www.forensicanalytical.com Forensic Analytical Consulting Services Appendix C 01-14-22TAM + CZ Architects, Inc. – City of Fresno War ehouse Site Assessment Asbestos Survey Report
Appendix C
Certifications of Personnel and Laboratory
Forensic Analytical Consulting Services, Inc.
This is to confirm that
Chris Chipponeri
Has attended the four-hour
AHERA Refresher Course for Asbestos Inspectors
And has completed the requisite training and passed the exam for
asbestos accreditation under TSCA Title II
September 10, 2021
Certificate Number: FACSBIR1140
Valid Until: September 10, 2022
Cal/OSHA Approval Number: CA-025-06
David B. McGrath, Corporate Training Director
Forensic Analytical Consulting Services,Inc.
21228
Cabot Blvd, Hayward, CA 94545
(800) 677-1483
National Voluntary
Laboratory Accreditation Program
SCOPE OF ACCREDITATION TO ISO/IEC 17025:2017
For the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program Effective 2021-07-01 through 2022-06-30
SGS Forensic Laboratories
3777 Depot Road, Suite 409
Hayward, CA 94545-2761
Mr. Steven Takahashi
Phone: 310-294-4365 Fax: 310-764-1136
Email: [email protected]
http://www.falaboratories.com
ASBESTOS FIBER ANALYSIS NVLAP LAB CODE 101459-0
Bulk Asbestos Analysis
Code Description
18/A01 EPA -- 40 CFR Appendix E to Subpart E of Part 763, Interim Method of 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.
United States Department of Commerce
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Certificate of Accreditation to ISO/IEC 17025:2017
NVLAP LAB CODE: 101459-0
SGS Forensic Laboratories
Hayward, CA
is accredited by the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program for specific services, listed on the Scope of Accreditation, for:
Asbestos Fiber Analysis
2021-07-01 through 2022-06-30
Effective Dates For the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program This laboratory is accredited in accordance with the recognized International Standard ISO/IEC 17025:2017.
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).
Right People
Right Perspective
Right Now
www.forensicanalytical.com
APPENDIX C
PRELIMINARY STRUCTURAL
ASSESSMENT REPORT (2022)
ROBERT S. PARRISH, S.E. JAMES R.A. HANSEN, S.E. GARY W. CARLSON, S.E. ROBBY GOTTSELIG, S.E. 455 W. FIR AVENUE • CLOVIS, CALIFORNIA 93611 • PHONE 559.449.2700
Mr. Rod Andreasen, Project Architect February 16, 2022 Temple Andersen Moore Architects
6781 N. Palm Ave, Suite 120
Fresno, CA 93704
PRE
LIMINARY STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Cli
ent: Temple Andersen Moore Architects
RE:
H St. Building - Preliminary structural assessment of an existing building for future occupancy options
Facility: Vacant warehouse type building
Location: Northwest corner of H St. and Mono St., Fresno, CA Owner: City of Fresno, CA
Engineer: Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group – Parrish Hansen Division Project Manager: Robert S. Parrish, S.E.
PH File No.: 02984-21-006
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this report is to provide the Client and Owner with information describing the type of construction, condition of materials, and code compliance issues related to occupancy category changes for re-use of the facility. Inspections are limited to cursory observations of the interior and exterior of the building without destructive efforts to expose materials not open to view. The information provided in this report is strictly related to the building structural systems and materials. No material identifications and testings are to be performed at this phase of assessment.
This report has been prepared for the use of the Client, Owner and any party authorized by either for the purpose of the intended services. This report shall not be used by any other party, or for any other purpose without the written consent of this Engineer.
LIMITATIONS
Inasmuch as it is understood by all parties to this effort that the Engineer is providing structural engineering evaluation services based on limited observations of the existing conditions, the comments, findings, and opinions expressed in this report are subject to further verification by analysis, detailed inspection, and material testing in order to gain increased confidence for determining the appropriate application of the information as related to future proposed occupancy options. Where assumptions of material type and strength are required to perform structural evaluations, assumptions are generally
File: 02984-21-006 Page 2
Project: H St. Building Assessment February 16, 2022
made in general conformance to the most expected material type and grade that would have been used at the time of construction.
In the case of this building there is no information available to estimate the time of construction of various portions of the building structure. In that consideration, for the purpose of this assessment, materials are assumed as follows:
Wood: Construction Grade Doug-Fir.
Glu-lam: 1600F Doug-Fir.
Steel: Grade 30KSI.
Bolts: Grade 8.
Clay brick: f ’m = 1,000 psi
Concrete: f’c = 2,000 psi
No assumptions have been made to include higher than normal strengths of materials.
OBSERVATIONS
The building is a single-story construction with two basement spaces. The building is approximately 405 ft. long in the north-south dimension, and 50.5 ft. wide in the east- west dimension. One basement area is at the south end of the building and measures approximately 47 ft. x 47 ft. interior clear dimension between walls. The other basement is in the center portion of the building and measures 47 ft. wide x 100 ft. long clear between the walls.
The building roof construction is wood-framed with 2x4 joists (sub-purlins) @ 24” o.c. spacings, spanning between 4x14 solid wood purlins @ 8’-0” o.c. spacings. The purlins span between glued-laminated, tapered girders @ 24 ft. o.c. spacings, and between glued- laminated girder and the end masonry exterior walls at the north and south ends. The girders are supported within pockets through the upper extension walls at the east and west sides and extend through the wall extending as a cantilever for the east and west side overhangs.
The above grade exterior walls of the building are constructed of red clay brick in a two- wythe alternating pattern with what measures to be 8 ½” long x 3 ¾” wide brick units with a mortar joint of ½” thickness, resulting in a wall thickness of 12 ¾” to 13”. The brick portion of the walls is approximately 14 ft tall at the south section of the building and 16 ft. tall at the north end section. Bricks were laid in a ‘header course’, or ‘king row’ pattern at every 7 to 8 courses up the height of the brick portion of wall. These courses are for the purpose of ‘tying’ the inner and outer brick wythe course together and are an indication that the brick wall is unreinforced (no reinforcing steel).
Above the brick portion of the wall there is, what appears to be either a concrete wall section, or a framed wall with plaster coating each side. This section of wall is
File: 02984-21-006 Page 3
Project: H St. Building Assessment February 16, 2022
approximately 6 ft. tall at the north section of the building, and 8 ft. tall at the south section of the building and extends to the roof deck. This section of the wall appears to have been added to the top of the original brick wall to extend the height of the building roof evidenced by the original roofline impression at the north end wall. There has been no official information provided explaining the reason for this extension to the brick wall, and access was not available to reach the height of the wall to attempt to determine what construction type was installed.
The basement walls are completely sub-terranean and similar to the above-grade walls in that construction consists of unreinforced clay brick of multi-wythe construction. The thickness of the basement walls could not be determined; however, it is expected that the thickness is greater than the above grade walls due to the function of the basement walls for soil retainment. The basement walls also exhibited ‘header coursing’ indicating unreinforced brick construction.
The floor framing over the basements is of diagonal wood sheathing spanning to the wood joists @ 16” o.c., which are supported by wood post and beam construction. The floors over the basement areas are covered over the top surface with steel plate for an unknown reason, other than it would be expected that previous occupancy may have involved heavy loading conditions such as material storage or vehicle traffic.
Beam supports to the posts are of varying types of bearings and attachments. The basement at the north end appeared to have wood posts that were added after the original construction, with bearing blocks set directly on the basement floor slab, while the original posts are setting on various bearing blocks of wood spreaders set on grout and brick pads. Whether there were footings under the basement floor slabs at the original posts could not be verified.
The east side of the building has a raised concrete loading dock slab that extends to H St. with no shoulder at the traffic lane. The loading dock is level with the interior floor slab of the building. The support wall for the loading dock slab is an unreinforced brick wall at H St.
OBSERVATIONS & DISCUSSIONS
Roof framing –
Observations of the roof framing indicated that some water infiltration had occurred in the interior portion at the north end as there is a section of roof where the plywood sheathing and joists had been replaced. Other locations were observed that indicate moisture damage may exist at the top of the roof sheathing. The exterior roof, especially at the east side, exhibited signs of moisture infiltration damage significant enough to suspect that fungal decay has occurred in the roof decking and framing. There are several locations where the east fascia beam is completely rotted and breaking loose of the File: 02984-21-006 Page 4
Project: H St. Building Assessment February 16, 2022
supporting beams. The roof structure is supporting only the weight of the roof structural components, as no insulation, ceiling, mechanical or electrical materials exists.
Refer to the ‘Assessments’ portion of this report for results of a preliminary load analysis of the structural roof components.
Above-grade exterior walls –
Throughout the entire building there are significant occurrences of extreme exfoliation of the interior and exterior surfaces of the bricks leaving piles of ‘red-dust’ and ‘lamellar crusts’ at the bottom of the walls. This type of exfoliation is due to deterioration of the brick material caused by years of moisture infiltration through the walls, evaporating from the wall surfaces, which occurs primarily at the lower courses of the wall where the exterior soil is moist and wicks up the exterior wall surface. The degree of exfoliation that was observed is extreme, and irreparable, indicative of an extremely long period of moisture exposure. In addition, the mortar joints in the lower portions of the walls are also highly deteriorated, even to the point of being completely missing from the joists, also due to exfoliation.
The most curious structural aspect of the building is the 6 ft. and 8 ft. high extension of the exterior wall, which occurs around the entire perimeter of the building. There are indications that the roof had been positioned at or near the top of the brick portion of the wall when originally constructed. It was suggested in a discussion at the site, although not verified, that the building had experienced a fire in the past that destroyed a major portion of the roof, and when the roof was re-built the roof height was raised by adding these extensions on top of the original brick wall. However, and for whatever reason the wall was increased in height, it is expected that the upper extension portion of the walls is of unreinforced concrete and results in a 38% to 60% increase in the original wall height, depending on which section of the building is being considered. This amount of height increase would result in a 90% to 150% increase in the stress level of the original wall when subjected to out-of-plane wind or seismic loads. This is an extreme increase in seismic/wind risk from the original intended construction.
Observations around the perimeter of the roof at the top of the concrete portion of the wall do not exhibit any ‘out-of-plane’ ties (connectors) or in-plane shear transfers, except that there are steel clip angles each side of the girders on the exterior face of the wall.
This method of anchorage of the walls to the roof would be considered extremely minimal and not adding any significant strength to the seismic resisting integrity of the wall-to-roof connection.
Basement walls –
The brick and mortar materials of the basement walls are also extremely deteriorated exhibiting extreme exfoliation; however, the exfoliation is over the entire height of the File: 02984-21-006 Page 5
Project: H St. Building Assessment February 16, 2022
walls as these walls are soil retaining and constantly exposed to moist soil conditions over the full height. There are many locations where the mortar is completely missing from the joints. The surrounding mortar joints and brick units could easily be scraped away with a screwdriver.
Footings –
There are no portions of the perimeter of the building that were not covered by concrete pavement. Therefore, no observations could be made of the footings below the above
grade structural walls. To provide for observations of the footing systems concrete slabs would need to be removed alongside portions of the building where the basements do not occur and saw cutting of the interior basement slabs would be required to remove soil alongside the wall for observation of the basement footings.
Considering the type of brick construction of the above-grade and basement walls, and the vintage of original construction, it is anticipated that the footing system is a ‘stacked’ brick footing which would consist of layers of bricks widening with each layer to create a soil bearing width. Considering the degree of deterioration observed in the building and basement wall brick and mortar, it would be expected that the brick footings would have also experienced significant deterioration due to constant exposure to damp soil.
Ground floor –
The ground floor appeared to be concrete slab where the basements did not occur. These slab surfaces could not be observed due to the steel plate coverings.
The floors over the basement are wood-framed as described, however, it is curious that the north end basement has had posts added at some point after the original construction, reducing the floor beam spans to 50% of their original spans. There is also a section of the basement where joist framing that had experienced consecutive floor joist failure and had been repaired with doubler joists and a strongback spreader. There are some other areas where splitting of the joists has occurred. Some of these locations have not been repaired, and others have been repaired with various types of remediation methods indicating that failures had been occurring over a significant period of time.
Loading dock –
The loading dock concrete slab appeared to be reasonably level, however exhibiting significant conditions of cracking. The retaining wall at the H St. edge was constructed of unreinforced brick and covered over with a cement coating. The cement coating is highly deteriorated and much of the coating has spalled away leaving the brick exposed. There is a high degree of green moss on the surface of the brick and the bricks are extremely deteriorated.
File: 02984-21-006 Page 6
Project: H St. Building Assessment February 16, 2022
ASSESMENTS
Roof Framing –
An analysis of the structural stresses of the roof framing components was performed using only the ‘assumed’ possible existing material weights, and assuming the grades of wood materials as described in this report. The results of the analyses are as described:
2x4 joists:
Assumed roof material weight –
Roofing (assumes built-up roof with re-cap) = 6.0 psf
Plywood (5/8”) = 2.0 psf
2x4 joists = 0.7 psf
= 8.7 psf
Code required live load = 20.0 psf
Under the assumed grade of material, dead weight loads and required design live loads the joists are overstressed by approximately 15% (1.15) of allowable stress limit, which indicates that the joists cannot sustain any added load for future remodeling.
4x14 purlins:
Assumed roof material weight –
Joist analysis weight (above) = 8.7 psf
Purlin weight = 1.5 psf
Misc. = 0.5 psf
10.7 psf
Code required live load = 20.0 psf
Under the assumed grade of material, dead weight loads and required design live loads the purlins are overstressed by approximately 90% (1.90) of allowable stress limit, which indicates that the joists cannot sustain any added load for future remodeling, and if subjected to the required design loads, would be approaching stress levels close to expected material failure for new material, causing more concern in consideration of the age of the wood purlins.
Glued-laminated girders:
Assumed roof material weight –
Purlin analysis weight (above) = 10.7 psf
Girder weight = 40.0 plf
297.0 plf
File: 02984-21-006 Page 7
Project: H St. Building Assessment February 16, 2022
Under the assumed grade of material, dead weight loads and required design live loads the girders are overstressed by approximately 30% (1.30) of allowable stress limit, which indicates that the girders cannot sustain any added load for future remodeling.
Keeping in mind that the material species and grade levels are ‘assumed’ minimum stress levels that could have been used for the original construction materials, the roof framing system does not appear to be capable of supporting any added loads, should the addition of materials be required for any proposed future use.
Exterior walls –
Based on the type of unreinforced brick construction originally constructed to a height of 14 ft. and 16 ft., and considering the added extension of a 6 ft. and 8 ft. high concrete wall extending the walls to approximately +22 ft. above the floor elevation, the strength capacity of the wall would need to be evaluated for gravity, wind and seismic load considerations in order to establish a level of stress relative to strength. This analysis would require wall materials (brick and mortar) to be sampled and tested to establish allowable brick strengths, mortar strengths, and in-place shear strengths. These tests would need to be performed by a material testing agency.
However, the degree of brick and mortar deterioration at the lower portions of the above- grade walls is a telltale indication that the brick and mortar strengths throughout these areas will not be adequate enough to satisfy the minimum requirements for testing. The degree of deterioration of these lower level materials is far too extreme. Faces of the bricks are completely exfoliated and piles of brick and mortar dust occur at the base of the walls indicating a long-term period of deterioration resulting from moisture infiltration and evaporation.
Basement walls –
As discussed above for the above-grade walls, the basement walls are at a greater level of deterioration involving the brick and mortar materials, and deterioration occurs over the full height of the walls. The deterioration is so extreme that bricks and mortar are completely missing, not from being removed, but from the materials completely deteriorating into brick and mortar dust as can been seen in the piles of dust at the bottom of the walls on the floor slab.
There are some locations observed where the floor beams and header lintels over openings are bearing on brick pilasters and wall jambs where brick and mortar are completely missing below the beams.
File: 02984-21-006 Page 8
Project: H St. Building Assessment February 16, 2022
Interior floors –
The interior wood framed floors over the basements should be evaluated for the capacity to support the intended occupancy live loads. All remediations of floor joist failures should be evaluated for the effectiveness of the repairs..
Exterior loading dock –
The loading dock slab is assumed to be a concrete slab-on-fill soil and would require replacement of many portions due to cracking conditions. The loading dock retainment wall at H St. should be removed and replaced due to the extreme degree of deterioration of the brick and mortar.
Gravity-load resistance –
As has been discussed previously in this report, the roof framing system cannot receive any additional material weight due to the existing stress levels analyzed under the building code requirements for dead and live loads. However, the results of the analysis should be understood that a live load does not currently exist, and that there does not appear to be any reason to suspect that failures would occur under the current dead loading condition. Those areas of damage and current failure are an exception and need to be remediated.
Although the existing framing is ‘legacied’ (grandfathered), the stress level results from our analyses are concerning, and at least warrant upgrading of the 4x purlins regardless of the future use of the building. It is also a recommendation that live loads (personnel access) be limited to this roof.
This is to say, however, that personnel should not be allowed to access the roof without understanding that a risk level exceeding the minimum code requirements does exist.
In consideration of the level of deterioration of the above-grade walls, it is expected that proper repair of the deteriorated brick and mortar would be extremely expensive, however, under gravity loading these walls do tend to distribute loads through better portions of the walls limiting the risk of an abrupt wall failure.
The basement walls are a different category of risk as they support the above-grade walls and floor beams and are depending on the remaining integrity of highly deteriorated brick and mortar for support. Considering the extreme degree of deterioration of these walls it is unpredictable when an abrupt local failure could occur involving loss of support of a floor beam, or the caving in of a portion of the exterior retainment wall. Replacement of these walls would be extremely expensive as the walls would need to be replaced in their entirety, or otherwise remediated with the installation of new reinforced concrete walls at the interior faces and modified supports for support of the above-grade walls and floor beams.
File: 02984-21-006 Page 9
Project: H St. Building Assessment February 16, 2022
Lateral-load resistance –
The assessments of materials of the structural system have been described above for the local effects of gravity load conditions. However, a structural system relies on all parts of the structural system to be properly functioning for the effective resistance to lateral loads such as seismic (earthquake) activity and wind pressures. In the consideration of the conditions of this building there are many concerns for the seismic/wind resistance of the existing structural system.
This is a large ‘open-space’ building with ‘heavy mass’ unreinforced brick walls, minimal plywood roof diaphragm, and many openings in the east and south exterior walls. In addition, there does not exist any measurable connection between the exterior walls and the roof framing. Each of these characteristics alone are considered problematic for lateral-load resistance of a building. The combination of these characteristics provides for the worst case scenario for lateral-load resistance and establishes such minimal level of resistance to lateral loads, especially seismic activity, that this structure would be considered extremely ‘unsafe’ and at ‘high risk’ of collapse in the event of a minor to moderate seismic event.
Plywood roof sheathing resisting the lateral forces of thick masonry brick walls are subject to failure if not installed with the proper thickness, blocked edges, nailing, and limited diaphragm spans (distances between walls) creating diaphragm stiffness sufficient to limit deflections and distortions of the brick walls under seismic activity. In addition, the brick walls would require substantial connection to the roof, developed into the diaphragm to prevent the walls from pulling away from the roof resulting in roof and wall collapse. The integrity of the brick and mortar materials is important for the resistance of both in-plane and out-of-plane shear forces as these materials, when in a deteriorated state, will be subject to crumbling, again possibly resulting in roof and wall collapse.
The south end of the building has very little brick wall available for lateral load resistance as most of the length of the wall includes areas of large openings. The headers of these opening are inlaid into the brick piers further limiting their effective resistance to lateral shear loads even more. This wall would be expected to fail under minor levels of seismic forces.
The east wall is similar to the south wall in that there are many large openings along its length, and significant deterioration of the lower courses of brick. To compound the issue, the above-grade walls bear on top of the basement walls, relying on the extremely deteriorated basement walls for lateral-load shear transfers to the foundation/soil.
Based in this engineer’s experience with evaluation of buildings subjected to seismic damage it is my opinion that this building could experience significant structural damage at a Richter level 4 event, and catastrophic damage, including collapse, at a Richter level 5 event.
File: 02984-21-006 Page 10
Project: H St. Building Assessment February 16, 2022
CONCLUSIONS
Conclusions can only be made based on the owner’s expectation for the structural performance of the existing building considering the owner’s intent for public safety and the potential occupancy types for continued use. Assuming the new occupancy category keeps the building within the same ‘Risk Category’ as currently assigned, per Table 1604.5 of the California Building Code (CBC), structural remediations of certain conditions are required by the building code due to deficiencies and deteriorations; and structural upgrades, regardless of what is required by the building code, can be made voluntarily. Otherwise, if the new occupancy should put the building into a higher Risk Category, then the entire building would need to be brought into compliance with the building code as for new construction, including options for the application of the ASCE 41 methods for rehabilitation.
This being an existing building of significant age, unreinforced brick constructions, significant brick and mortar deteriorations, significant deficiencies in roof framing capability, and extreme deficiencies in resistance to seismic and wind forces, the questions that need to be answered are:
- What extent of remediation and code upgrade is required by the building codes based on the existing structural conditions, within the current building’s Risk Category?
- What extent of public safety is desired for the intended occupancy that would warrant additional voluntary structural upgrades, without a change in the building’s Risk Category?
- Will the intended Change of Occupancy require compliance with the Existing Building Code for structural upgrades due to a change in the building’s Risk Category?
- Are there intended modifications to the building structure to accommodate the new occupancy which will trigger code compliance with affected portions of the structure?
In an attempt to provide answers to the above options, it should first be understood that, in the opinion of this engineer, the findings of this evaluation define the building as ‘extremely dangerous’ due to a combination of the many structural characteristics and conditions as noted above. This opinion is based on the historical experience of buildings of this type of construction when subjected to seismic activity, as unreinforced buildings without adequate wall-to-roof connections are the ‘worst’ of combined conditions for seismic resistance and are highly susceptible to collapse.
In the case of this building, the unreinforced character of the walls is only one character weakness, compounded by the level of brick and mortar deterioration, minimal diaphragm strength,
File: 02984-21-006 Page 11
Project: H St. Building Assessment February 16, 2022
minimal wall pier at the south wall, absence of wall-to-roof connections and deficient capability of the roof structural components.
In consideration of these combinations of the characteristics it is this engineer’s opinion that the remediations and upgrades required by the building code due solely to the existing structural deficiencies and deteriorations, without consideration of voluntary upgrades to enhance public safety, would cost considerably more than the replacement of this building with a new, similar type of construction. However, to evaluate the cost of required remediations and upgrades, in-place evaluations from a materials testing agency, and a masonry repair contractor would be required as this type of repair/replacement of brick masonry is a specialty construction and involves maintaining the support of the building walls above.
If the intent in the re-use of this building is to achieve a public safety performance level that would include an upgrade of the building’s seismic/wind resisting system, then the combined cost of such rehabilitation along with the required remediations and upgrades would be that much more than replacement of the building and would not have achieved the level of seismic/wind resistance as a new structural system.
According to the California Existing Building Code, Appendix A, the purpose of this code section is for the strengthening of unreinforced masonry buildings, however, compliance with this code “will not necessarily prevent loss of life or injury or prevent earthquake damage to retrofitted buildings, as defined in the following code Section:
Cha
pter A1 Seismic Strengthening Provisions for Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Wall Buildings
Section A101 Purpose
[BS] A101.1 Purpose
The purpose of this chapter is to promote public safety and welfare by reducing the risk of death or injury from the effects of earthquakes on existing unreinforced masonry bearing wall buildings.
The provisions of this chapter are intended as minimum standards for structural seismic resistance, and are established primarily to reduce the risk of life loss or injury. Compliance with these provisions will not necessarily prevent loss of life or injury or prevent earthquake damage to retrofitted buildings.
File: 02984-21-006 Page 12
Project: H St. Building Assessment February 16, 2022
To develop a scope of rehabilitation and cost estimate for this building the following information will be required:
- Establish an Occupancy Category for the proposed use of the building to determine if the Risk Category will change.
- Establish a level of public safety to be achieved in the upgrading and retrofitting of the building. (This is a subjective level of upgrade to be discussed with the owner.)
- Determine what, if any, modifications to the existing structure will be required by code specification for the new occupancy.
It is our hope that this preliminary assessment report covers enough information regarding the existing building descriptions and conditions to evaluate the potential for re-use of the building.
If you should have any questions regarding the information provided in this report please call my office.
Respectfully,
Robert S. Parrish
Structural Engineer
(S2331-CA)
Project Manager
Attachments: 16 photo sheets
any
02/16/2022
3/23
any
PROJECT : H St. Warehouse Building FILE No: 02984-21-006 SHEET : P1 SUBJECT : Structural Assessment DATE : 02-15-2022 OF : 16
PHOTO #
1 COMMENTS : View of southeast corner at Mono St. and H St.
PHOTO #
2 COMMENTS : View of west (back) side of building.
PROJECT : H St. Warehouse Building FILE No: 02984-21-006 SHEET : P2 SUBJECT : Structural Assessment DATE : 02-15-2022 OF : 16
PHOTO #
3 COMMENTS : View of interior.
PHOTO #
4 COMMENTS : View of roof purlins supported at the north end wall and glu-lam outrigger beam.
Note the newer unpainted roof plywood and purlin.
PROJECT : H St. Warehouse Building FILE No: 02984-21-006 SHEET : P3 SUBJECT : Structural Assessment DATE : 02-15-2022 OF : 16
PHOTO #
5 COMMENTS : View of east exterior wall, looking north. Note the upper portion of wall that appears to be an exte
nsion of the height of the original building.
PHOTO #
6 COMMENTS : View of south exterior wall, looking east. Note the number of openings closed up with plywood.
This wall has very minimal seismic shear resistance. Note the headers inlaid to the brick piers.
PROJECT : H St. Warehouse Building FILE No: 02984-21-006 SHEET : P4 SUBJECT : Structural Assessment DATE : 02-15-2022 OF : 16
PHOTO #
7 COMMENTS : Brick exfoliation at interior surface of the west wall. Note the extreme degree of deterioration of both
brick and mortar.
PHOTO #
8 COMMENTS : Interior of west wall with plywood to cover over extreme deteriorations of the brick and mortar.
PROJECT : H St. Warehouse Building FILE No: 02984-21-006 SHEET : P5 SUBJECT : Structural Assessment DATE : 02-15-2022 OF : 16
PHOTO #
9 COMMENTS : Northwest exterior corner. Note the mortar completely missing from joints.
PHOTO #
10 COMMENTS : Exterior of west wall. Note the extreme deterioration of the brick and mortar, and the plaster coat at the bottom applied to help prevent further damage.
PROJECT : H St. Warehouse Building FILE No: 02984-21-006 SHEET : P6 SUBJECT : Structural Assessment DATE : 02-15-2022 OF : 16
PHOTO #
11 COMMENTS : Glu-lam girder extending through pocket in exterior wall. Note the clip angle bolted to the wall and
beam (each side). This is the only method of connection of the exterior walls to the roof structure.
PHOTO #
12 COMMENTS : Interior opening between areas of the building. Note the grout at the header indicating a repair or replacement of the original header system.
PROJECT : H St. Warehouse Building FILE No: 02984-21-006 SHEET : P7 SUBJECT : Structural Assessment DATE : 02-15-2022 OF : 16
PHOTO #
13 COMMENTS : View of the underneath of the east roof deck over the loading dock. Staining and peeling of the pain
t is due to moisture infiltration to the roof structure.
PHOTO #
14 COMMENTS : East roof overhang. Rotted roof deck and fascia beam.
PROJECT : H St. Warehouse Building FILE No: 02984-21-006 SHEET : P8 SUBJECT : Structural Assessment DATE : 02-15-2022 OF : 16
PHOTO #
15 COMMENTS : View of the bottom of a portion of the basement wall. Extreme brick and mortar deterioration.
PHOTO #
16 COMMENTS : A typical basement wall surface with extreme brick and mortar deterioration. Note the ‘Red Dust” piled at the bottom of the wall. Evidence of a very long term condition beyond repair.
PROJECT : H St. Warehouse Building FILE No: 02984-21-006 SHEET : P9 SUBJECT : Structural Assessment DATE : 02-15-2022 OF : 16
PHOTO #
17 COMMENTS : Basement wall deterioration in pilaster supporting a main floor beam.
PHOTO #
18 COMMENTS : Basement wall brick and mortar deterioration. The brick on the floor was easily removed by hand.
PROJECT : H St. Warehouse Building FILE No: 02984-21-006 SHEET : P10 SUBJECT : Structural Assessment DATE : 02-15-2022 OF : 16
PHOTO #
19 COMMENTS : South basement floor framing. Unconventional floor beam supports.
PHOTO #
20 COMMENTS : View of floor joists setting on basement wall wood plate. Blockings between joists do not have connections to the wood plate. Not shear resistance exists between the floor and the basement wall.
PROJECT : H St. Warehouse Building FILE No: 02984-21-006 SHEET : P11 SUBJECT : Structural Assessment DATE : 02-15-2022 OF : 16
PHOTO #
21 COMMENTS : Steel header beam in basement. Note the extreme deterioration of the brick and mortar intended to sup
port the header.
PHOTO #
22 COMMENTS : Closeup view of laminar exfoliation of a brick occurring over a long period of moisture infiltration and evaporation. This type of damage is non-reparable and can eventually result in collapse of the wall.
PROJECT : H St. Warehouse Building FILE No: 02984-21-006 SHEET : P12 SUBJECT : Structural Assessment DATE : 02-15-2022 OF : 16
PHOTO #
23 COMMENTS : The unpainted post has been added since the original construction. These added posts are typical thro
ughout the north basement and were added at mid-span of the floor beams.
PHOTO #
24 COMMENTS : The white painted post is an original post supporting a floor beam and sets on a wood shim and brick spreader on the slab. The unpainted post was added after original construction and is setting on wood blocks on the slab. It could not be verified if there were dedicated footings under the slab at the original posts.
PROJECT : H St. Warehouse Building FILE No: 02984-21-006 SHEET : P13 SUBJECT : Structural Assessment DATE : 02-15-2022 OF : 16
PHOTO #
25 COMMENTS : A beam and post repair effort for broken floor joists.
PHOTO #
26 COMMENTS : An added post at a broken floor joist.
PROJECT : H St. Warehouse Building FILE No: 02984-21-006 SHEET : P14 SUBJECT : Structural Assessment DATE : 02-15-2022 OF : 16
PHOTO #
27 COMMENTS : An added ‘strongback’ with doubled joists to spread the load from broken joists to unbroken joists.
PHOTO #
28 COMMENTS : Another type of broken floor joist repair.
PROJECT : H St. Warehouse Building FILE No: 02984-21-006 SHEET : P15 SUBJECT : Structural Assessment DATE : 02-15-2022 OF : 16
PHOTO #
29 COMMENTS : A typical view of the face of the loading dock retainment wall. The cement coating, which was pro
bably applied to protect the brick from further deterioration, has fallen apart. Brick is behind the green moss.
PHOTO #
30 COMMENTS : Close-up of the condition of the loading dock wall brick behind the plaster coating.
PROJECT : H St. Warehouse Building FILE No: 02984-21-006 SHEET : P16 SUBJECT : Structural Assessment DATE : 02-15-2022 OF : 16
PHOTO #
31 COMMENTS : Failure of the concrete slab breaking away from the loading dock at the H St. wall.
PHOTO #
32 COMMENTS : Elevator lift in the basement. The pit and walls could not be observed.
APPENDIX D
FEMA FLOOD HAZARD AREAS MAP
/0 /1 /2 /3 /4 /5 /i255 /7 /8 /i255 /9 /i255 /10 /11 /12 /13 /14 /15 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255/17/2/18 /5 /i255 /10 /19/20/21/i255 /10 /23 /15 /15 /24 /i255/25/8/26 /8 /11 /24 /i255 /21 /11 /12 /8 /13 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /i255 /27 /2 /28 /4 /i255 /29 /4 /30 /31 /4 /29 /4 /31 /5 /i255 /32 /33 /34 /32 /35 /34 /35 /33 /35 /35 /36/31 /31 /i255 /30 /37 /28 /4 /38 /i255 /39 /4/29 /4 /i255 /40 /40 /40