Newark City Council
May 25, 2023

It would be consistent with the policies cited in “Regulatory Setting” above as described in Section 6, Energy and Section 17, Transportation.

Additionally, consistent with Action LU-1.B, this initial study is prepared to identify the potential environmental impacts of the project with mitigation measures specified to reduce environmental impact where they are significant to a less than significant level, in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Furthermore, the review and approval by the City of the proposed rezoning from Residential Medium Density (RM) to Residential Medium Density- planned Development (RM-PD), design of the project would ensure consistency with the purpose and intent of the Planned Development Overlay and rezoning.

As such, the project would not conflict with land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect and would not cause a significant environmental impact for that reason. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Packet Page 360
City of Newark
Cedar Boulevard Residential Development Page | 79
Mineral Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the
residents of the state?
□ □ ■ □
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
□ □ □ ■
Mineral Resources Setting
According to the Newark General Plan Tune Up Draft EIR, August 2013, the State Board of Mining and Geology has identified mineral resource zones (MRZ) containing sand, gravel, and stone deposits used for concrete aggregate underlying almost all of Newark. These include land classified as MRZ-2 (areas where significant mineral deposits are present or likely present) and MRZ-3 (areas containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data). There are no mineral extraction sites in Newark.

Regulatory Setting
The California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) identifies mineral resources within California. These maps identify and classify mineral resources as to their relative value for extraction.

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
The study area for the analysis of mineral resources encompasses the area of ground disturbance. The subject site is developed and is in an urban area of the City. Given the urban setting of the project site and existing development on it, it is unlikely that the project site has potential for mineral extraction.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? As indicated above, there are no mineral recovery sites in Newark. NO IMPACT Packet Page 361
City of Newark
Cedar Boulevard Residential Development Page | 80
Noise
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
□ □ ■ □
b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
ground-borne noise levels? □ □ ■ □ c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise level?
□ □ □ ■
Noise Setting
Noise
Noise is unwanted sound that disturbs human activity. Environmental noise levels typically fluctuate over time, and different types of noise descriptors are used to account for this variability. Noise level measurements include intensity, frequency, and duration, as well as time of occurrence. Noise level (or volume) is generally measured in decibels (dB) using the A-weighted sound pressure level (dBA). The Aweighting scale is an adjustment to the actual sound power levels to be consistent with that of human hearing response, which is most sensitive to frequencies around 4,000 Hertz (about the highest note on a piano) and less sensitive to low frequencies (below 100 Hertz).

Because of the logarithmic scale of the decibel unit, sound levels cannot be added or subtracted arithmetically. If the physical intensity of a sound is doubled, the sound level increases by 3 dBA, regardless of the initial sound level. For example, 60 dBA plus 60 dBA equals 63 dBA. Where ambient noise levels are high in comparison to a new noise source, the change in noise level would be less than 3 dBA.

For example, when 70 dBA ambient noise levels are combined with a 60 dBA noise source the resulting noise level equals 70.4 dBA.

Noise that is experienced at any receptor can be attenuated by distance or the presence of noise barriers or intervening terrain. Sound from a single source (i.e., a point source) radiates uniformly outward as it travels away from the source in a spherical pattern. The sound level attenuates (or drops off) at a rate of 6 dBA for each doubling of distance. For acoustically absorptive, or soft, sites (i.e., sites with an absorptive ground surface, such as soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees), ground attenuation of about 1.5 dBA per doubling of distance normally occurs. A large object or barrier in the path between a noise source and a receiver can substantially attenuate noise levels at the receiver. The amount of attenuation provided by this shielding depends on the size of the object, proximity to the noise source and receiver, surface weight, solidity, and the frequency content of the noise source. Natural terrain features (such as Packet Page 362
City of Newark
Cedar Boulevard Residential Development Page | 81
hills and dense woods) and human-made features (such as buildings and walls) can substantially reduce noise levels. Walls are often constructed between a source and a receiver specifically to reduce noise. A barrier that breaks the line of sight between a source and a receiver will typically result in at least 5 dBA of noise reduction.

Vibration
Vibration is a unique form of noise because its energy is carried through buildings, structures, and the ground, whereas noise is simply carried through the air. Thus, vibration is generally felt rather than heard.

Some vibration effects can be caused by noise (e.g., the rattling of windows from passing trucks). This phenomenon is caused by the coupling of the acoustic energy at frequencies that are close to the resonant frequency of the material being vibrated. Typically, ground-borne vibration generated by manmade activities attenuates rapidly as distance from the source of the vibration increases. The ground motion caused by vibration is measured as particle velocity in inches per second and is referenced as vibration decibels (VdB) in the U.S.

The vibration velocity level threshold of perception for humans is approximately 65 VdB. A vibration velocity of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels for many people. Most perceptible indoor vibration is caused by sources within buildings such as operation of mechanical equipment, movement of people, or the slamming of doors. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible ground-borne vibration are construction equipment, steel wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads.

Project Site Noise Environment
The on-site noise environment is controlled predominantly by vehicular traffic on I-880, which is adjacent to the northeast. Some noise is also generated by traffic on Cedar Boulevard. However, CEQA does not require evaluation of land use compatibility for exposure from noise sources other than aircraft. Impacts on the project from noise environment are presented under “NON CEQA IMPACTS” for informational purposes, later in this section of this initial study. A discussion of potential noise impacts for the proposed project is included below.

Regulatory Setting
Federal
Environmental Protection Agency
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that over a 24-hour period, an equivalent noise level (Leq) of 70 dBA will result in some hearing loss. Interference with activity and annoyance will not occur if exterior noise levels remain at or below a 55 dBA Leq and interior levels at or below 45 dBA.

Although these levels are relevant for planning and design and useful for informational purposes, they are not land use planning criteria because they do not consider economic cost, technical feasibility, or the needs of the community.

The EPA has set 55 dBA Ldn as the basic goal for residential environments. However, other federal agencies, in consideration of their own program requirements and goals, as well as acknowledgement of the difficulty of achieving a goal of 55 dBA Ldn, have generally agreed on 65 dBA Ldn as appropriate for residential uses as activity interference is kept to a minimum, and annoyance levels are still relatively low.

Packet Page 363
City of Newark
Cedar Boulevard Residential Development Page | 82
State
California Government Code
California Government Code Section 65302(f) requires all General Plans to include a Noise Element to address noise in the community. The State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has established guidelines for the content of the Noise Element, noting that the noise element shall identify and appraise noise problems in the community. The noise element shall also recognize the guidelines established by the Office of Noise Control, and analyze and quantify, to the extent practicable, current and projected noise levels for the following sources:
• Highways and freeways
• Primary arterials and major local streets
• Passenger and freight on-line railroad operations and ground rapid transit systems • Commercial, general aviation, heliport, and military airport operations, aircraft flyovers, jet engine test stands, and all other ground facilities and maintenance functions related to airport operation • Local industrial plants, including, but not limited to, railroad classification yards • Other stationary ground noise sources identified by local agencies as contributing to the community noise environment
State of California Code of Regulations
The State of California’s noise insulation standards are codified in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Part 2, California Building Code (CBC). These noise standards are applied to new construction in California for interior noise compatibility from exterior noise sources. The regulations specify that acoustical studies must be prepared when noise-sensitive structures, such as residential buildings, schools, or hospitals, are located near major transportation noise sources, and where such noise sources create an exterior noise level of 65 dBA CNEL or higher. Acoustical studies that accompany building plans must demonstrate that the structure has been designed to limit interior noise in habitable rooms to acceptable noise levels. For new residential buildings, schools, and hospitals, the acceptable interior noise limit for new construction is 45 dBA CNEL.

California Noise Land Use Compatibility Matrix
The State Department of Health Services, Office of Noise Control establishes compatibility of land uses relative to existing and future ambient noise levels. Appendix D of the State of California General Plan Guidelines, prepared by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, identifies noise level acceptability for each land use type from ‘normally acceptable’, to ‘clearly unacceptable’. Normally acceptable indicates new standard construction can occur with no special noise reduction requirements.

Local
The Noise Element of the City of Newark General Plan has policies and actions in place to address both construction and operational noise from developments. Additionally, NMC Section 17.24.100 contains noise regulations. These policies, actions and regulations are outlined in the “Environmental Noise Assessment”, dated July 1, 2022, and “Environmental Noise Assessment – Additional Comments”, dated Packet Page 364
City of Newark
Cedar Boulevard Residential Development Page | 83
September 16, 2022, prepared by Salter (Appendix 6). The following discussion is partially based on the analysis presented in this report.

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Construction:

Construction of the proposed project would include the demolition of the existing buildings, grading/site preparation work, construction of the new residential units and landscaping.

Construction noise impacts would be temporary and constructions hours would be required to comply with the City’s limits on construction hours. Based on the analysis presented in the noise report, typical construction equipment would likely exceed the City’s noise standard for equipment of 83 dBA at 25 feet. However, there are no noise-sensitive residential receivers located at this distance. The closest residential receptors are located approximately 120-ft outside the property plane across Cedar Boulevard and would not be affected by the project related construction noise.

Operation:

Operational noise increases would be attributable to the project generated traffic. Additionally, the project’s mechanical equipment would be a source of noise. However, the low noise levels from outdoor mechanical equipment would be discernable only by future residents of the project.

Mechanical Equipment Noise:

The proposed building would have mechanical equipment generally associated with building ventilation. This could include outdoor condensing/heat pump units for the residences, ventilation fans, and possibly equipment such as emergency generators.

NMC Section17.24.100.(A)(2) sets limits on noise from mechanical equipment noise at 70 dBA between the hours of 7 a.m. and 9 p.m., and 60 dBA between the hours of 9 p.m. and 7 a.m.

Mechanical equipment associated with the proposed project would need to comply with this requirement.

Additionally, the project’s noise study indicates that typical condensing/heat pump units have a sound power rating of approximately 75 dBA, which corresponds to a noise level of approximately 62 dBA at 5 feet and the individual pieces of equipment would be expected to meet the City of Newark Noise Ordinance for nighttime operation (60 dBA) at a distance of 7-ft from the equipment.

Traffic Noise
The Traffic Impact Assessment prepared for the project indicates that the project is estimated to generate 819 new daily trips. The analysis included in the project’s noise study indicates that noise levels as a result of the project traffic would increase less than 1dBA and the cumulative increase in noise levels would be less than 3dBA, which are not considered to be substantial. LESS THAN

SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Packet Page 365
City of Newark
Cedar Boulevard Residential Development Page | 84
b. Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or ground-borne noise levels?
Grading and other project activity related to construction would create perceptible groundborne vibration. Use of heavy equipment for demolition and grading and other activities through completion of buildings and landscaping would generate groundborne vibrations during construction. Primary vibration producing construction activities are likely to occur during demolition and site preparation with the use of dozers and possibly hydraulic breakers to clear the site and prepare the foundation of the buildings. Pile driving is not expected, however, pier drilling is expected. The proposed project is not anticipated to create ground-borne vibrations during operations of the residences.

CEQA does not specify acceptable vibration levels from construction activities. The City’s General Plan Action EH-7.D references the Federal Transit Administration’s vibration annoyance criterion as thresholds for “vibration-intensive” construction affecting vibration sensitive receivers. These thresholds are 80 VdB for residences and 83 VdB for institutions and offices with primarily daytime use. The vibration threshold in the NMC Section 17.24.120 does not apply since the temporary construction vibration is exempted. However, the Municipal Code exemption does not affect the applicability of the General Plan policy.

Sensitive receptors in the surrounding area are located across Cedar Boulevard in several blocks of single family homes to the south and west, with a church that also houses the Kings Kids preschool directly across Cedar Boulevard approximately 165 feet from the project site’s southwestern boundary. The project site is separated from residences to the north, northeast by I-880. The closest residential receptors are located across Cedar Boulevard, an arterial street, approximately 120 feet from the project site boundary to the south. Birch Grove Elementary school is also a sensitive receptor in the project vicinity that is located approximately 1700 feet to the southwest of the project site.

The noise report evaluates potential structural damage to industrial buildings immediately adjacent to the project as well as human annoyance at the sensitive receptors across Cedar Boulevard from construction vibration and concluded that construction vibration levels and consequently groundborne vibrations as a result of the project construction would not exceed the 78 VdB threshold for human annoyance at the nearest sensitive receptors location, or the 0.2 in/sec PPV threshold for damage to adjacent industrial (category III) buildings. Therefore, the level of generation of excessive groundborne vibration or ground-borne noise due to the project would result in less than significant impact. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise level? The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, an airport land-use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public-use airport. The nearest airport, Hayward Executive Airport is located approximately 11 miles to the north of the project site. Therefore, it would not expose people residing in the project area to excessive noise levels because of its distance from the nearest airport.

NO IMPACT
Packet Page 366
City of Newark
Cedar Boulevard Residential Development Page | 85
NON CEQA IMPACT:

Exposure of Project Residents to Existing Noise
Interior Noise
The City of Newark and the State of California require that interior noise levels in new residential units to meet an interior noise level of Ldn of 45 dBA or less. Based on the project design in terms of size and location of windows and noise measurement on site, the project’s Environmental Noise Study (Appendix

6.A) assesses the Sound Transmission Class (STC) ratings for windows and exterior doors that would be required to achieve the required reduction in interior noise levels. The minimum code-required STC rating for windows and exterior doors by the buildings’ floor are depicted in Figures 1 through 6 in Appendix

6.A.

Exterior Noise at Outdoor Spaces
The City has an Ldn of 60 dB standard for the residential outdoor living areas. According to General Plan Policy EH-7.4, where this level is exceeded due to freeways, the construction of berms, walls, buffer zones, and other noise-reduction measures to reduce noise to the greatest extent feasible would be required.

Based on the analysis presented in the project’s Environmental Noise Study (Appendix 6.A), the noise exposure at open spaces proposed in the central area of the development would be up to an Ldn of 65 dB due to noise from I‐880, based on the calculated noise reduction from the proposed 18‐ft barrier at the northeastern boundary adjacent to I-880. A noise level of 65 dB Ldn is within the normally acceptable range for neighborhood parks and playgrounds per the Noise Compatibility Guidelines of the City. It could potentially be acceptable for centralized open spaces in the proposed development or the City may consider a higher barrier, subject to a detailed analysis of the noise reduction achieved by such a measure to meet the 60 dB Ldn standard.

Packet Page 367
City of Newark
Cedar Boulevard Residential Development Page | 86
Population and Housing
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the Project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
□ □ ■ □
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
□ □ □ ■
Population and Housing Setting
The study area for the analysis of population and housing resources encompasses the City of Newark.

Background information about population and housing for the proposed project was obtained from the United States Census as well as the City’s General Plan EIR. The United States Census data for 2021 estimates the population of Newark to be 47,434 persons, which represents a decrease of 1.1 percent from 2020, based on a population estimate for the City on April 1, 2020. The Census data for 2021 estimates a household size of 3.34 persons in Newark15. The project proposes development of 118 residential units, which represents an addition of approximately 394 persons to the City’s population, based on a household size of 3.34 persons.

Regulatory Setting
State
State Housing Element Statutes
State housing element statutes (Government Code Sections 65580-65589.9) mandate that local governments adequately plan to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community. The law recognizes that for the private market to adequately address housing needs and demand, local governments must adopt land use plans and regulatory systems that provide opportunities for, and do not unduly constrain, housing development. As a result, State housing policy rests largely upon the effective implementation of local general plans and in particular, housing elements.

Additionally, Government Code Section 65588 dictates that housing elements must be updated at least once every eight years.

California Relocation Law, Public Resources Code Section 7260 et seq.

The California Relocation Law requires the fair and equitable treatment of persons displaced as a direct result of programs or projects undertaken by a public entity. The law requires agencies to prepare a relocation plan, provide relocation payments, and identify substitute housing opportunities for any resident that is to be displaced by a public project.
15 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/newarkcitycalifornia, last accessed August, 2022 Packet Page 368
City of Newark
Cedar Boulevard Residential Development Page | 87
Regional
Regional Housing Needs Plan
A Regional Housing Needs Plan is required under California Government Code Section 65584 to enable regions to address housing issues and meet housing needs based on future growth projections for the area. The State determines the number of total housing units needed for each region. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) allocates housing needs among cities and counties in the nine-county ABAG region for each jurisdiction to use in drafting its housing element.

ABAG is the official comprehensive planning agency for the San Francisco Bay region, comprising of the nine counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma. The nine-county ABAG region contains 101 cities. The allocation is based on projection modeling that is based on current general plan policies, land use designations, and zoning. “Smart growth” assumptions in the modeling and allocation aim to shift development patterns from historical trends (suburban sprawl) toward a better jobs/housing balance, increased preservation of open space, and development of mixed-use, transit-accessible areas.

Regional Housing Needs Allocation
Housing statues requires local jurisdictions to allow the construction of a share of the region’s projected housing needs. This share is called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is based on an analysis of the available housing stock and vacancy rate in each community, any existing unmet needs for housing, the projected growth in the number of households (population growth and household formation rate), the local and regional distribution of income, and the need for housing generated by local job growth.

The specific RHNA number for a jurisdiction is important because state law mandates that each jurisdiction provide sufficient land to accommodate a variety of housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community to meet or exceed this number of housing units. ABAG, as the regional planning agency, calculates the RHNA for individual jurisdictions including Newark.

Local
City of Newark Housing Element
Newark’s 2015 Housing Element Update provides the City’s Housing Plan for the 2015-2022 period. The 2015 Housing element contains a description of Newark’s population trends, housing characteristics, and employment trends, an analysis of the City’s housing needs in relation to RHNA, an overview of sites available for housing, an analysis of potential constraints to housing development, evaluation of the previous housing element, and housing goals and policies. The goals, objectives, and programs of the 2015 Housing Element promote the development of housing of all types, attempt to remove any constraints to housing development, and focus on meeting the needs of special need populations.16 Newark’s RHNA for the 2015-2022 planning cycle is 1,078 units comprising 497 very-low and low-income level units, 158 moderate income units and 423 above moderate income units.17T 16 City of Newark Housing Element Update, 2015, pg. H-93 17 City of Newark Housing Element Update, 2015, pg. H-33 Packet Page 369
City of Newark
Cedar Boulevard Residential Development Page | 88
Bay Area jurisdictions, including Newark, must adopt an updated Housing Element by January 2023 to plan for the housing needs for the next eight-year Housing Element Planning Period (2023-2031). The City of Newark is in the process of updating its Housing Element. The City’s Draft RHNA, January 2021 for planning for the 2023-2031 planning cycle housing allocations comprise of 1,874 units with 732 units allocation for very-low and low-income levels, 318 units for moderate income level, and 824 units for above moderate income level.18
City of Newark Affordable Housing Program
NMC Chapter 17.18, Affordable Housing Program establishes the City’s affordable housing program to provide safe and stable housing for households at all income levels. NMC Chapter 17.18 imposes a residential and non-residential development housing impact fee to provide a means whereby developers of residential and non-residential development projects contribute to the supply of housing for households with very low, low, and moderate incomes. As an alternative to paying the housing impact fee, a developer of residential property may provide on-site affordable rental or for-sale residential units or an alternative housing program, subject to the requirements of NMC Chapter 17.18.

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
The project is designated Medium Density Residential in the City’s General Plan, which allows for a density of 14 to 30 residential units per net acre. The project proposes 118 units on a 5.62 net acre site19, thereby proposing development of the site at a density of 21 units per acre, which is well within the allowable density for the subject site in the City’s General Plan.

Additionally, the City of Newark Housing Element Update, 2015, identifies the project site as a housing opportunity site, as part of the Cedar Boulevard Industrial to Residential Conversion area. The project site is identified as Site “G” in the City’s Housing Element Update 2015 and is included on the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) list.

The Newark General Plan anticipates the population to reach 60,510 persons at General Plan build out in 2035. As described in the “Population and Housing Setting” section above the project would add approximately 394 persons to the population in the City, which is well within the population planned for in the General Plan.

The project proposes upsizing of stormwater lines, near the southwestern and southeastern corner of the project site, through removal of portions of existing 18 inch main stormwater drainpipes in Cedar Boulevard installation of upsized 24 inch stormwater mains in their location to serve the project. These improvements are not likely to induce additional growth along Cedar Boulevard as no new roads or substantial new infrastructure are proposed as part of the project.

Based on the discussion above, the project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 18 City of Newark, https://newarkhousingupdate.org/, accessed August, 2022 19 Per City of Newark Municipal Code, density for Planned Development is calculated as total number of units/net acres (site area- excluding areas devoted to public and private streets) Packet Page 370
City of Newark
Cedar Boulevard Residential Development Page | 89
b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The project proposes development of 118 residential units upon demolition of industrial/ commercial buildings on site, which currently contains no residences and residents. In effect, the proposed project would create additional housing in the City and not displace existing housing or people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. NO IMPACT Packet Page 371
City of Newark
Cedar Boulevard Residential Development Page | 90
Public Services
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project
a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection? □ □ ■ □
ii. Police protection? □ □ ■ □
iii. Schools? □ □ ■ □
iv. Parks? □ □ ■ □
v. Other public facilities? □ □ ■ □
Public Services Setting
Newark is served by established public services as follows:

Fire Protection Services
Fire protection services in Newark are provided under contract with the Alameda County Fire Department (ACFD). AFCD provides all-risk emergency services to the unincorporated areas of Alameda County (excluding Fairview), the cities of San Leandro, Dublin, Newark, Union City and Emeryville, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Services for Newark residents in a 13 square mile area are provided through three fire stations.

Fire Station #27 at 39039 Cherry Street, the former Newark Fire Station #3, was built in 1981 and is home to a crew of three firefighters that staff one fire engine. Station #28 at 7550 Thornton Avenue, formerly Newark Fire Station #1, opened in 2005 and is approximately 13,500 square feet. This station is maintained by a crew of three firefighters that staff a Quint (a piece of fire apparatus that combines the features of a ladder truck and a fire engine) and one Battalion Chief. Station #29 at 35775 Ruschin Drive, the former Newark Fire Station #2, was built in 1962 and is staffed by a crew of three firefighters and one fire engine.

Police Protection
Police protection is provided by the City of Newark Police Department. The Field Operations Division is the largest component of the police department and is responsible for responding to both emergency and Packet Page 372
City of Newark
Cedar Boulevard Residential Development Page | 91
non-emergency calls for services from the public. In addition, this division handles special assignments, self-initiated activities, and addresses community concerns. Animal Control personnel and Reserve Officers are integral components of the division and community as well. Patrol Officers are responsible for partnering with the community to protect life and property and to maintain peace, order and safety and perform ancillary functions.

Schools
The City is served by the Newark Unified School District. The district operates six elementary schools (Grade Level K-6), one intermediate school (Grade Level 3-6), one junior high (Grade Level 6-8) and two high schools (Grade Level 9-12). Additionally, the school district offers independent study program and adult and career education.

Parks
The City of Newark maintains approximately 131 acres of land in parks and sports fields spread over 13 facilities including eight neighborhood parks, three community parks, and three special use parks, which include 6 acres in currently unimproved or largely unimproved land. Of the total acreage, 121 acres are owned by the City and 10 acres are leased from the Newark Unified School District. Additionally, there are parks and trails maintained by other agencies such as the East Bay Regional Parks and San Francisco Bay Trail that the City residents have access to.

Other Public Facilities
Other public facilities in Newark include a community center located at 35501 Cedar Boulevard in the 17- acre Newark Park, George M. Silliman Activity Center located at 6800 Mowry Avenue, which includes an aquatic center, a senior center located at 7401 Enterprise Drive as well as a library. The City of Newark also has a newly constructed Civic Center, which houses a new City Hall, Police Department building, and enlarged library, and is located within 2 miles of the project site.

Regulatory Setting
State
California Office of Emergency Services
The California Office of Emergency Services (OES) provides the basis for local emergency preparedness under the authority of the California Emergency Services Act of 1970. The Office of Emergency Services is responsible for preparing the California State Emergency Plan, last published in October 2017, and for coordinating and supporting emergency services conducted by local governments. The responsibility for immediate response to an emergency, such as fires, landslides, earthquakes or riots, rests with local government agencies and segments of the private sector, with support services provided by other jurisdictions and/or state and federal agencies. In accordance with their normal operating procedures, the initial response to an emergency will be made by local Fire, Law Enforcement, Medical or Maintenance (Public Works) districts or departments.

California Building Code
The 2019 California Building Standards Code (Cal. Code Regs., Title 24) was published on July 1, 2019, with an effective date of January 1, 2020. This Code establishes the minimum requirements, including but not Packet Page 373
City of Newark
Cedar Boulevard Residential Development Page | 92
limited to, safeguards for safety for life and property from fire and other hazards attributed to the built environment.20 Commercial and residential buildings are plan-checked by the City building officials for compliance with the California Building Code.

California Fire Code
The California Fire Code (Title 24, Part 9 of the California Code of Regulations) establishes regulations to safeguard against hazards of fire, explosion, or dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings, structures, and premises. The provisions of the Fire Code apply to the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal, and demolition of every building or structure throughout the State of California.

The Fire Code includes regulations regarding fire-resistance- rated construction, fire protection systems such as alarm and sprinkler systems, fire services features such as fire apparatus access roads, means of egress, fire safety during construction and demolition, and wildland-urban interface areas.

California Health and Safety Code
State fire and fire protection regulations are set forth in Sections 13000 et seq. of the California Code, Health and Safety Code: Fires and Fire Protection. This includes, but is not limited to, regulations for building standards (as also set forth in the California Building Code), fire protection and notification systems, fire protection devices such as extinguishers and smoke alarms, high-rise structure and childcare facility standards, and fire suppression training.

California Code of Regulations
The California Code of Regulations, Title 5: Education Code, governs all aspects of education within the state. These standards include, but are not limited to, teachers’ retirement system and compensation, California community colleges, and all standards governing the California Department of Education.

California State Assembly Bill 2926 - School Facilities Act of 1986 In 1986, AB 2926, entitled the School Facilities Act of 1986, which was enacted by the State of California and added to the California Code, Government Code, Section 65995. It authorizes school districts to collect development fees, based on demonstrated need, and generate revenue for school districts for capital acquisitions and improvements. It also established that the maximum fees, adjustable for inflation, which may be collected under this legislation and any other school fee authorization, are $1.50 per square foot ($1.50/sf) of residential development and $0.25/sf of commercial and industrial space.

AB 2926 was expanded and revised in 1987 through the passage of AB 1600, which added Section 66000 et seq. of the California Code, Government Code. Under this statute, payment of statutory fees by developers serves as total mitigation under CEQA to satisfy the impact of development on school facilities.

Subsequent legislative actions have expanded and contracted the provisions and limits placed on school fees by AB 2926.

California Senate Bill 50 (SB 50)
Further refinement of the legislation enacted under AB 2926 took place in the passage of SB 50 in 1998, which defined the Needs Analysis process in California Code, Government Code Sections 65995.5–65998. 20 ICC Digital Codes, https://codes.iccsafe.org/content, last accessed July 22, 2021 Packet Page 374
City of Newark
Cedar Boulevard Residential Development Page | 93
Under the provisions of SB 50, school districts may collect fees to offset the costs associated with increasing school capacity as a result of development.

Level One fees are assessed based upon the proposed square footage of residential, commercial, industrial, and/or parking structure land uses. Level Two fees require the developer to provide one-half of the costs of accommodating students in new schools, while the state would provide the other half.

Level Three fees require the developer to pay the full cost of accommodating the students in new schools and would be implemented at the time the funds available from Proposition 1A (approved by California voters in 1998) are expended.

School districts must demonstrate to the state their long-term facilities’ needs and costs based on longterm population growth to qualify for this source of funding. However, voter approval of Proposition 55 on March 2, 2004, precludes the imposition of the Level Three fees for the foreseeable future. Therefore, once qualified, districts may impose only Level Two fees, as calculated according to SB 50.

Local
City of Newark General Plan, 2013
The Newark General Plan includes several relevant policies and action programs, under the rubric of Public Safety, Educational Facilities, Open Space, and Parks Management, that seek to reduce or avoid impacts to public services. These include Public Safety Policies CSF-4.1, 4.2, 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6 and Actions CSF-4, 4.D,

4.H, 4.G and 4.5 on pg. CSF-25; Educational Facilities Policies CSF-2.1 and 2.2 on pg. CSF-22; Open Space Policy PR-1.2 and Action PR-1.B on pgs. PR-17 and PR 18, respectively; and Park Management Policies PR3.1, 3.2 and 3.8 on pgs. PR-20 and PR-21.

Fire Prevention Code
The City has adopted the 2019 California Fire Code by reference and amended through NMC Chapter

15.17. NMC Section 15.17.020 requires automatic fire sprinklers under certain conditions, including but not limited to, new buildings that have a total floor area of 1,000 square feet or more. New construction or improvements are subject to the Newark Fire Department’s plan review and approval.

Newark Capital Facilities Fees
As set forth in NMC Chapter 3.24, Development Impact Fees, all new development projects are required to pay Capital Facilities Fees, unless exempt by the provisions of NMC Section3.24.070. Capital Facilities Fees, where payable, consist of three types of fees: public safety, community service and facilities, and transportation impact fees. Capital Facilities fees on multi-unit residential development is payable for the total development when the first unit in the development receives its Certificate of Occupancy.

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire Protection
The ACFD maintains three fire stations in Newark: Station #27 at 39039 Cherry Street located 1.3 miles to the southeast, Station #28 at 7550 Thornton Avenue located approximately 2.5 to the southwest, Packet Page 375
City of Newark
Cedar Boulevard Residential Development Page | 94
and Station #29 at 35775 Ruschin Drive approximately 2.5 miles to the east of the project site. The proposed project involving construction of 118 residential units would result in an incremental increase in the need for fire protection services. However, the development of the project site at the proposed density is planned for in the General Plan and the project is not likely to require new, altered, or expanded fire protection facilities. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ii. Police Protection
The City of Newark Police Department would provide police protection to the proposed development.

The project would introduce new residential buildings and residents to the project site. This would result in an incremental increase in demand for police protection services. However, the development of the project site at the proposed density is planned for in the General Plan and the project.

Therefore, the project is not anticipated to require or result in any additional construction of new or physically altered police facilities. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT iii. Schools
The proposed project would result in the development of 118 residential units including single family residences and duplexes. It is likely that the residents of the development would include school aged children that would create a direct demand for school services. General Plan Policy CSF-2.2 requires mitigation of school impacts to the full extent permitted by law and collaboration by the City with the Newark Unified School Districts to ensure that appropriate fees are collected and other appropriate mitigation measures are taken. Therefore, the developer of the project would be required to pay appropriate school impact fees, which serves as total mitigation under CEQA to satisfy the impact of development on school facilities per California Assembly Bill (AB) 2926 described above. Therefore, the environmental impact of the project as it relates to schools would not be significant. LESS THAN

SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
iv. Parks
The City of Newark has adopted a 3.0-acre per 1,000 resident standard for planning purposes and its Quimby Act21 fee is based on this ratio. The City’s General Plan buildout predicted a population of 60,510 persons in Newark by 2035. At the current park ratio, the City would experience a shortfall of 49 acres of parkland at buildout.

The City has already planned to add at least 21 acres through new neighborhood parks in the Dumbarton TOD and Southwest Newark Residential and Recreational Focus Areas through the specific plans that apply to those locations22, which leaves a shortfall of 28 acres of parkland at buildout population of 60,510 residents. The increase of 394 persons23 attributable to the project is planned for in the General Plan given that the development would occur within the allowable density for the subject site. It would, thus, not add to the 28 acre shortfall and would not contribute to the need for parks beyond that identified in the General Plan. The General Plan EIR identified a less than significant 21 1975 Quimby Act (California Government Code §66477), authorizes cities and counties to pass ordinances requiring that developers set aside land, donate conservation easements or pay fees for park improvements. 22 General Plan Tune Up Draft EIR, City of Newark, August 13, 2013, pg. 4.12-20 23 Per 2021 Census, the average household size in the City of Newark is estimated to be 3.34 persons, which would yield 394 residents for the proposed development of 118 residential units.

Packet Page 376
City of Newark
Cedar Boulevard Residential Development Page | 95
impact to park facilities as a result of the development planned for in the General Plan.24 Therefore the project’s impact as it relates to park facilities would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
v. Other Public Facilities
The project includes the construction of a residential development comprised of 118 dwelling units.

As indicated in Section 14, Population and Housing, the proposed project will not induce substantial population growth in the area, either directly or indirectly. Therefore, impacts to other public facilities would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 24 General Plan Tune Up EIR, 2013, pg. 4.12-22
Packet Page 377
City of Newark
Cedar Boulevard Residential Development Page | 96
Recreation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
□ □ ■ □
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
□ □ ■ □
Recreation Setting
The City of Newark maintains 131 acres of land in parks and sportsfields spread over 13 parks including eight neighborhood parks, three community parks, and two special use parks. Additionally, there are parks and trails maintained by other agencies such as the East Bay Regional Parks and San Francisco Bay Trail.

Public land used for resource conversation such as the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge is also located in the vicinity of Newark. The Byington Park (neighborhood park) and Birch Grove Park (community park) are located within one mile of the proposed development. The City also operates other recreational facilities including a community center, a community activity center, which includes an aquatic center, and a senior center.

Regulatory Setting
State
Quimby Act
The Quimby Act, passed in 1975, authorizes cities and counties in California to pass ordinances requiring that developers set aside land, donate conservation easements, or pay fees for park improvements. The Quimby Act allows cities and counties to require the dedication of land, payment of in-lieu fees, or a combination of both. Parkland dedication/fee for neighborhood and community parks is limited to a maximum of three acres of parkland per 1,000 residents of a new subdivision. If the amount of existing neighborhood and community park area exceeds that limit, the city or county may require parkland matching the existing provision, up to 5 acres per 1,000 residents.

In 2013, Assembly Bill 1359 allowed cities and counties to use Quimby Act fees to provide parks in neighborhoods other than the one in which a developer’s subdivision is located and allows cities and counties to enter into a joint or shared use agreement with public districts to provide additional park and recreational access. Revenues generated through the Quimby Act are for parkland acquisition and cannot be used for the operation and maintenance of park facilities.

Local
The City of Newark Park Standards
Packet Page 378
City of Newark
Cedar Boulevard Residential Development Page | 97
The City of Newark applies two types of standards in park planning. The first standard isthe City’s adopted planning requirement of 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents in the application of the Quimby Act, which establishes a standard for land set aside by current and future developers. The second standard of park planning is the creation and enforcement of service area standards, categorized as neighborhood parks, community parks, and special use parks in the City of Newark. The City defines neighborhood parks as resident-serving recreation spaces ranging from 5 to 10 acres and accessible to users within a 0.5-mile radius. These parks typically host lawn, play areas, and small recreation facilities such as basketball courts.

Community parks may be 15 to 20-acres in size and are designed to serve residents within a 1 to 2-mile radius. These parks typically include off-street parking, larger recreation facilities that draw users from a greater service area and are accessible by public transit.25 The Citywide Parks Master Plan
Newark’s Citywide Parks Master Plan was updated in July 2017 and provides a framework for the provision of future parks in the City. The Parks Master Plan sets out protecting and supporting the existing network, accommodating demands in service, enhancing community identity and fostering connectivity as its overarching goals.

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? The City of Newark General Plan Tune Up EIR, August 2013, analyzed the impact on the City’s recreational facilities at built out in 2035 in accordance with the City’s General Plan and made a finding of less than significant impact given the applicable policies of the General Plan and City regulations26.

The existing General Plan designates the project site Medium Density Residential allowing the development of 14 to 30 residential units. The project proposes 118 units at a density of 21 units/acre commensurate with the densities allowable per the General Plan designation of Medium Density Residential.

The nearest parks to the proposed development are Byington Park (neighborhood park) and Birch Grove Park (community park). The City has established service area standards for neighborhood parks and community parks. As indicated in the City’s Parks Master Plan, 2017, neighborhood parks are designed to serve residents living within a 0.5-mile radius and are typically 5 to 10 acres in size.

Community parks are designed to serve residents living within a 1 to 2-mile radius and may be 15 to 20 acres in size .

As indicated above under “Recreation Setting”, Byington Park and Birch Grove Park are the nearest parks to the project site. Both are located at a distance of 0.8 miles from the project site. Given the distance of Byington Park from the project site, it would not be regarded as a neighborhood park serving the proposed development. Birch Grove Park, which is approximately 15 acres in size would be serving the residents of the proposed development as the community park in the area. Increased use of this parks by the residents of the development could cause or accelerate the park’s physical deterioration.
25 Citywide Parks Master Plan, 2017, pg. 19
26 General Plan Tune Up Draft EIR, City of Newark, August 13, 2013, pg. 4.12-21 Packet Page 379
City of Newark
Cedar Boulevard Residential Development Page | 98
As a planned development, however, the project would provide 44,990 square foot (approximately one acre) of open space in the development. This is 27 percent more than the 35,400 square feet of open space that would be required for the proposed development by standards applicable in the base Medium Residential (RM) district per NMC Section 17.07.030. This recreational open space has the potential to reduce the demand for recreational amenities at City parks. Additionally, the project would be subject to payment of park impact fees. This factor along with the policy of prioritization of park maintenance in the City’s Parks Master Plan, 2017 would result in less than significant impacts to parks facilities serving the residents of the proposed development. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? As stated above, the project would include 44,990 square foot (approximately one acre) of open space in the proposed development comprising of 33,283 square feet (approximately 0.76 acres) in common open space and 0.27 acres in private open space associated with each of the 118 units in the proposed development. The provision of the open space in the proposed development would be part of the planned construction of the project and is not anticipated to have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

The development of the project would yield an increase in the use of recreational facilities and community services by the future residents of the development but the increase is negligible and is not anticipated to require unplanned construction or expansion of recreational facilities as a result of the project. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Packet Page 380
City of Newark
Cedar Boulevard Residential Development Page | 99
Transportation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
□ □ ■ □
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? □ □ ■ □ c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
□ □ ■ □
d. Result in inadequate emergency access? □ □ ■ □
Transportation Setting
Road Network
The existing circulation network within the City of Newark is comprised of I-880, SR-84, and a network of arterials, collector streets, and local streets. I-880 is an eight-lane north/south freeway, with three mixedflow lanes and one high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction. I-880 primarily provides regional access from East Bay cities to San Jose, where it becomes SR 17. SR 84 is a six-lane east/west freeway, which extends from Highway 1 to the west through the Tri-Valley area to the east and defines the northwestern boundary of the City.

Local access to the site is provided on Mowry Avenue, Central Avenue, Thornton Avenue, and Cedar Boulevard. The project site is located on Cedar Boulevard, approximately 2,515 feet (approximately 0.5 miles) southeast of the intersection of Cedar Boulevard and Central Avenue, both of which are arterial roads. Smith Avenue meets Cedar Boulevard across the site near the site’s northwestern corner. Smith Avenue is a collector street. Collector streets carry relatively low volumes of cars and should be designed to emphasize walking, bicycling, and safe access to abutting parcels.

Transit
Existing local and regional transit service in Newark are provided by Alameda-Contra Costa Transit (AC Transit), Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), Amtrak’s Capital Corridor, and the Altamont Commuter Express (ACE). Newark is served directly by eleven AC Transit bus routes, and indirectly by nearby BART, commuter rail, and regional rail stations located in Fremont. The project site is served by AC Transit. Existing AC Transit bus stops are present along the project frontage. The closest bus stop is located at the intersection of Cedar Boulevard and Smith Avenue, near the northwest corner of the project site. Additionally, there are bus stops just south of the intersection of Cedar Boulevard and Moores Avenue.

AC Transit Routes 200 and 232 run along Cedar Boulevard in the project vicinity. Line 200 operates between the Union City and Fremont BART stations, with stops at the Lido Fair Shopping Center, Silliman Packet Page 381
City of Newark
Cedar Boulevard Residential Development Page | 100
Center, and NewPark Mall. It operates from 7:30 a.m. to 1:15 a.m. on weekdays and weekends with 30- minute headways. Line 232 operates between the Fremont BART station and NewPark Mall. It operates from 7:30 a.m. to 8:15 p.m. on weekdays and weekends with 60-minute headways.

Bicycle Facilities
Existing bicycle facilities in the project vicinity consist of a Class II bike lane along Cedar Boulevard. The bike lanes along Cedar Boulevard provide a connection to the project site from transit facilities and other points of interest in the area. A Class II bike lane is also located along Central Avenue, which connects the project site to central Newark and Fremont.

Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities consist of sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals at signalized intersections. In the vicinity of the project site, sidewalks exist along both sides of Cedar Boulevard with the exception of a missing segment in front of the public storage facility adjacent to the project site to its northwest.

Crosswalks with pedestrian signal heads and push buttons are provided on the south and west approaches of the Cedar Boulevard/Moores Avenue intersection. Crosswalks are provided along the north and west approaches of the unsignalized intersection of Cedar Boulevard and Smith Avenue. Additionally, crosswalks with pedestrian signal heads and push buttons are provided along all approaches of the Cedar Boulevard/Mowry Avenue and Cedar Boulevard/Central Avenue intersections.

Regulatory Setting
State
Assembly Bill 1358
On September 30, 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill (AB) 1358, the California Complete Streets Act of 2008, into law. As of January 2011, AB 1358 requires any substantive revision of the circulation element of a city or county’s general plan to identify how the circulation of all roadway users including pedestrians, bicyclists, children, seniors, individuals with disabilities, and transit riders, as well as motorists will be safely accommodated.

Senate Bill 375
Senate Bill (SB) 375 was adopted to enhance the GHG reduction goals outlined in AB 32 by establishing GHG reduction targets from passenger vehicles. Among other measures, SB 375 requires preparation and adoption of a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) that contains a growth strategy to meet emission targets for inclusion in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The SCS and RTP must be consistent with one other, including action items and financing decisions. MPOs must use transportation and air emissions modeling techniques that are consistent with guidelines prepared by the California Transportation Commission. The current RTP is the Plan Bay Area 2050, which is further described below.

Senate Bill 743
Senate Bill 743 (Steinberg, 2013) required changes to the guidelines implementing CEQA regarding the analysis of transportation impacts. Pursuant to Public Resource Code Section 21099, the criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts must “promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.” Packet Page 382
City of Newark
Cedar Boulevard Residential Development Page | 101
To that end, the State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) adopted changes to the CEQA Guidelines in December 2018 specifying vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the most appropriate metric to evaluate a project’s transportation impacts. The California Natural Resources Agency subsequently certified adoption of the changes to the CEQA Guidelines, and automobile delay, as measured by “level of service” (LOS) and other similar metrics, generally no longer constitute a significant environmental effect under CEQA. (Pub. Resources Code, Section 21099 (b)(2)).

SB 743 did not authorize OPR to set specific VMT impact thresholds, but it did direct OPR to develop guidelines for jurisdictions to utilize. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(1) describes factors that might indicate whether a development project’s VMT may be significant, or not. Notably, based recommended thresholds for residential, office and retail projects incorporated in the OPR guidelines, a proposed project exceeding a level of 15 percent below existing VMT per capita may indicate a significant transportation impact. Existing VMT per capita may be measured as regional VMT per capita or as city VMT per capita.

Conversely, projects under a level of 15 percent below existing VMT per capita would indicate a less than significant transportation impact. Furthermore, per the OPR guidelines, proposed development referencing a threshold based on city VMT per capita (rather than regional VMT per capita) should not cumulatively exceed the number of units specified in the SCS for that city and should be consistent with the SCS’s Transportation (VMT) impacts.

Regional
Regional Transportation Plan (Plan Bay Area, 2050)
On October 21, 2021, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Executive Board of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) adopted Plan Bay Area 2050 and certified the associated Final EIR. As indicated under the “Land Use and Planning” chapter of this study, Plan Bay Area 2050 builds upon the previously adopted Plan Bay Area 2040.

Plan Bay Area 2050 serves as both the region’s SCS and the RTP. It is an integrated long-range transportation and land-use/housing plan intended to support a growing economy, provide more housing and transportation choices, and reduce transportation-related pollution in the Bay Area. The Plan identifies 35 strategies across four elements (housing, economy, transportation, and the environment).

Transportation strategies are categorized into three themes: maintain and optimize the existing transportation system, create health and safe streets, and build a next-generation transit network.

Local
City of Newark General Plan, 2013
The City of Newark General Plan, adopted in 2013, includes several transportation policies and actions crafted to serve goals related to complete streets, bicycle and pedestrian circulation, transit, vehicle miles traveled, vehicular circulation and parking. The Policies and Actions are enumerated in the (General Plan pg. T-40 through T-58), Additionally Land Use Policies such as Policy LU-1.4 aim for coordinated land use and development decisions with the capacity of the transportation system and plans for future transportation improvements.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan
The City’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan, adopted in 2017, seeks to implement the goals and policies of the City’s General Plan Transportation element. The plan provides further purpose, goals and objectives Packet Page 383
City of Newark
Cedar Boulevard Residential Development Page | 102
towards evaluating the existing conditions, understanding the community’s needs and proposing new and enhanced citywide pedestrian and bicycle facilities for the future.

The City of Newark’s Complete Streets Policy
The City of Newark has an adopted Complete Streets policy requiring that transportation improvements in Newark be planned, funded, designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to provide safe mobility for all users appropriate to the function and context of the facility. The Complete Street policy establishes a principle, among others, that “all projects and project phases, with appropriate limited exceptions, account for and respond to complete streets policies and requirements.”27 A Traffic Study, titled “38478 Cedar Boulevard Transportation Impact Analysis”, dated July 5, 2022, and a Memo, dated October 3, 2022, including traffic queuing analysis for the project, were prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. (Appendix 7) for the project. The following analysis is partially based on these studies.

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Transportation planning in Newark is guided by the Alameda County Transportation Commission’s (ACTC) Congestion Management Program (CMP) and the Transportation policies of the City of Newark General Plan. The CMP describes performance measures related to the circulation system and emphasizes multi-modal accessibility and transportation/land use integration. It also provides specific measurement tools to assess the performance of roadways, transit service, bicycling, and walking.

The CMP recommends a detailed transportation impact analysis (TIA) for projects generating 100 vehicle-trips or more during the weekday PM peak hour.

The Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) estimated that the project would generate 819 daily trips 72 AM peak hour, and 88 PM peak hour net new automobile trips. Since the project is expected to generate fewer than 100 net PM peak hour trips, a CMP roadway segment analysis was not required.

The TIA includes an analysis of AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions for three (3) signalized intersections, Cedar Boulevard and Central Avenue, Cedar Boulevard and Moores Avenue, and Cedar Boulevard and Mowry Avenue, as well as one (1) unsignalized intersection, Cedar Boulevard and Smith Avenue. The TIA reports the estimated Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per capita and compared them to the regional average, evaluates potential impacts to pedestrians, bicycles, and transit, and site access and circulation.

Based on the analysis, the TIA recommended that the applicant coordinate with the City to determine whether a signal should be installed at the intersection of Cedar Boulevard and Smith Avenue, extend the left turn pocket at the Cedar Boulevard and Mowry Avenue intersections, install a left turn median refuge along Cedar Boulevard from the project driveway, and provide signage stating “No Outlet” at dead end aisles proposed as part of the development.

These recommendations are proposed as part of the improvements associated with the project. The TIA also concludes that the exiting drivers would have adequate sight distance at project driveways, that the proposed parking meets the requirements per NMC, that the project would not remove any 27 General Plan Tune Up Draft EIR, City of Newark, August 13, 2013, pg. 4.13-6 Packet Page 384
City of Newark
Cedar Boulevard Residential Development Page | 103
existing pedestrian sidewalks and bicycle facilities. Additionally, the project provides for a sidewalk in front of the Private Storage business to the northwest, and includes a new bus stop/shelter to serve the two bus routes which operate along Cedar Boulevard. Further, the project would be required to provide bicycle parking in conformance with NMC Section 17.23.070.

Based on the discussion above, the project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) (Vehicles Miles Travelled)?
Pursuant to SB 743, the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) states that vehicle miles travelled (VMT) will be the metric in analyzing transportation impacts for land use projects for CEQA purposes. The City of Newark has not established standards regarding VMT. As stated in the “Regulatory Settings” above, the OPR Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December 2018), recommends that a threshold that is 15 percent below the baseline (existing) conditions can be considered to yield less than significant VMT impacts. Based on the analysis presented in the TIA, the project VMT would be 18.1 percent lower than the baseline, that being the average daily VMT for the City of Newark under existing conditions. Therefore the VMT of the proposed project would not have a significant impact. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? The proposed project provides access to the site via two, two-way driveways, which would create unsignalized intersections with Cedar Boulevard. No entry control devises are proposed. The project’s TIA and Memo indicate that queuing for inbound traffic would not disrupt traffic along Cedar Boulevard. The queuing analysis has been reviewed and approved by the City’s Department of Public Works. Minor on-site vehicle queuing for exiting vehicles may occur due to the random occurrence of gaps in traffic along Cedar Boulevard but would not disrupt traffic along Cedar Boulevard as it will be onsite. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? The project’s circulation plan has been reviewed and meets all requirements of the City of Newark’s Public Works Department and Alameda County Fire Department. Site circulation was determined to be adequate by the City’s Public Works Department. The minimal increase of construction vehicles traveling to and from the project site on a temporary basis would not result in inadequate emergency access because construction activity in the public rights of way would require an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department to ensure that any obstructions due to construction traffic are adequately mitigated. Therefore, emergency vehicle access is adequate and potential impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Packet Page 385
City of Newark
Cedar Boulevard Residential Development Page | 104
Tribal Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe, and that is:
□ ■ □ □
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
□ □ □ ■
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in
its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying
the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of
Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the
lead agency shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California Native American
tribe.
□ ■ □ □
Tribal Cultural Resources Setting
Newark is in the San Francisco Bay area, which was occupied by scores of small independent tribal territories known as ‘tribelets.’ Each tribal territory, ranging from 8 to 12 miles wide, contained a number of intermarried families that comprised a small, autonomous political organization of 200 to 400 people.

Native Americans of the Tuibun tribelet, a sub-tribe of the Coastanoans, inhabited what is now Newark prior to European arrival.28
Newark is located in Alameda County where native American habitation is often marked by the presence of middens, which are piles of organic debris marking village refuse areas, typically containing marine shells and animal bones. Native American activity areas are also distinguished by scatters of “flakes” of chipped material that resulted from the handcrafting of stone tools and seed or acorn milling stations, which consist of depressions consistent with a mortar and pestle. Native American cultural resources in western Alameda County, which is where Newark is located, are typically found near the Bay shore and adjacent to other seasonal and perennial watercourses.29 The project site is inland, further away from the Bay shore, and is neither adjacent to nor contains any seasonal or perennial watercourses. 28 General Plan Tune Up Draft EIR, City of Newark, August 13, 2013, pg. 4.4-4 29 General Plan Tune Up Draft Program EIR, City of Newark, August 13, 2013, pg. 4.4-6 Packet Page 386
City of Newark
Cedar Boulevard Residential Development Page | 105
Regulatory Setting
State
Native American Historic Resource Protection Act - Assembly Bill No. 52 (AB 52) On September 25, 2014, then-Governor Brown signed Assembly Bill No. 52, which created a new category of environmental resources, Tribal Cultural Resources, that must be considered under the California Environmental Quality Act. AB 52 requires lead agencies to provide notice to tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project prior to the release of a negative declaration or environmental impact report for public review if they have requested notice of projects proposed within that area. If one of the contacted tribes requests consultation within 30 days of the notice, the lead agency must consult with the tribe. Consultation may include discussing the type of environmental review necessary, the significance of tribal cultural resources, the significance of the project’s impacts on the tribal cultural resources, and alternatives and mitigation measures recommended by the tribe.

Public Resources Code
Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21084.2 considers a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. In accordance with Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21084.2, lead agencies are required to consider tribal cultural resources, as defined in PRC Section 21074, in environmental review. PRC Section 21074 defines tribal cultural resources as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe.

Health and Safety Code
Section 7052 of the Health and Safety Code identifies the disturbance of Native American cemeteries as a felony. Under Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, if human remains are discovered during construction activities, work within the vicinity of must be halted until the County Coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the County Coroner must contact the California NAHC within 24 hours of this identification. A representative of the NAHC will identify a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods.

In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 specifies the procedures to be followed in case of the discovery of human remains on non-federal land. The disposition of Native American burials falls within the jurisdiction of the NAHC.

Archaeological Resources and Human Remains
As enumerated in the “Cultural Resources” section of this initial study, archaeological, paleontological, and historical sites are protected by state policies and regulations under the California Public Resources Code, California Code of Regulations (Title 14 Section 1427), and California Health and Safety Code.

California Public Resources Code Section 5097.95097.991 require notification of discoveries of Native American remains and provides for the treatment and disposition of human remains and associated grave goods.

Packet Page 387
City of Newark
Cedar Boulevard Residential Development Page | 106
State Law requires that the County Coroner be notified if cultural remains are found on a site. If the Coroner determines the remains are those of Native Americans, the Native American Heritage Commission and a “most likely descendant” must also be notified.

Local
City of Newark General Plan
The City’s General Plan incorporates policies to identify, preserve, and maintain historic structures and sites to enhance Newark's sense of place and create living reminders of the City's heritage. These policies include Policy LU-5.5 addressing Native American heritage resources. This policy states “Coordinate with local tribal representatives and the Native American Heritage Commission to ensure the protection of Newark’s Native American resources and to follow appropriate mitigation, preservation, and recovery procedures in the event that important resources are identified during development.” Impact Analysis
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

The project site is developed with industrial/commercial buildings and is almost entirely paved. It is not identified in the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF), based on a record search of the SLF. Given, that it is highly unlikely that the project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074. Additionally, the project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure CUL-1 for l for the protection of cultural resources, including tribal cultural resources, during construction.

This mitigation measure is enumerated in the “Cultural Resources” section of this study. LESS THAN

SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k).

As stated above, a search of the Sacred Lands file was conducted that did not indicate the presence of a Native American Sacred Site on the Project site. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on a tribal cultural resource that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k). NO IMPACT
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision(c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

The City notified 10 tribes on April 7, 2022, regarding the project. One response was received from the Confederated Villages of Lisjan Tribe. The representative of this tribe in correspondence with the City indicated that they had no further information to supply about the site at this time and wished to be notified if there were any findings. California Public Resources Code Section 5097.9-5097.991 and Mitigation Measure CUL-1 outlined in the “Cultural Resources” section of this initial study apply, Packet Page 388
City of Newark
Cedar Boulevard Residential Development Page | 107
in the event of cultural resources and/or burial finds. Mitigation Measures TC-1 below will reduce any potential impact to tribal cultural resources, in the event they are accidentally encountered.

Mitigation Measure
TC-1. Cultural resource representatives for the Confederated Villages of Lisjan Tribe shall be notified within 24 hours in the event of an unanticipated discovery of potential tribal cultural resources or if human remains are found during construction and Mitigation Measure CUL-1 pertaining to cultural resources shall apply as follows:
“During project construction, if historic, archaeological or Native American materials or artifacts are identified, work within 50 foot radius of such find shall cease and the City shall retain the services of a qualified archeologist and/or paleontologist to assess the significance of the find. If such find is determined to be significant by the archeologist and/or paleontologist, a resource protection plan conforming to CEQA Section 15064.5 shall be prepared by the archeologist and/or paleontologist and approved by the Community Development Director. The plan may include, but would not be limited to, removal of resources and similar actions. Project work may be resumed in compliance with such plan. If human remains are encountered, all ground disturbing activities near or in any area potentially overlying adjacent human remains shall cease, the County Coroner shall be contacted immediately, and the provisions of State law carried out.”

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
Packet Page 389
City of Newark
Cedar Boulevard Residential Development Page | 108
Utilities and Service Systems
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm
water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
□ □ ■ □
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry years? □ □ ■ □
c. Result in a determination by the waste water treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
□ □ ■ □
d. Generate solid waste in excess of state or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
□ □ ■ □
e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
□ □ ■ □
Utilities and Service Systems Setting
The proposed project is located within an urbanized environment within the City where utility infrastructure is in place. The project site and vicinity are served by the following service providers:

Water Supply and Distribution: Alameda County Water District (ACWD) Water for the project would be supplied by the Alameda County Water District (ACWD). ACWD’s primary water sources include the State Water Project (SWP), San Francisco Regional Water System (RWS), and local sources. The SWP and SF supplies are imported into the District service area through the South Bay Aqueduct and Hetch-Hetchy Aqueduct, respectively. Local supplies include fresh groundwater from the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin (underlying the District service area), desalinated brackish groundwater from portions of the groundwater basin previously impacted by seawater intrusion, and surface water from the Del Valle Reservoir. The ACWD provides retail water services in the cities of Fremont, Union City, and Newark with a total population of 345,000 people30 including a population of 47,229 (per January 2022 California Department of Finance Demographics) over a 13.8 square mile area in Newark. 30 ACWD Fact Sheet, https://www.acwd.org/93/Fact-Sheet, accessed August 2022 Packet Page 390
City of Newark
Cedar Boulevard Residential Development Page | 109
Wastewater Collection and Treatment: Union Sanitary District (USD)/ East Bay Dischargers Authority (EBDA).

The Union Sanitary District (USD) is an independent special district that provides collection, treatment, and disposal services for the cities of Newark, Fremont, and Union City. The USD is a member of East Bay Dischargers Authority (EBDA). The EBDA is a Joint Powers Agency, which consists of five local agencies:
the USD, the City of Hayward, the City of San Leandro, the Oro Loma Sanitary District, and the Castro Valley Sanitary District. The EBDA was formed to collectively manage the wastewater treatment and disposal from these agencies.31
The USD owns and maintains 839 miles of underground pipelines, and wastewater is transported to the 33-acre Alvarado Wastewater Treatment Plant (AWWTP) in Union City. The AWTP has undergone several upgrades and expansions, operates 24 hours a day every day of the year and currently has the capacity to treat 33 million gallons/day. Currently, wastewater treatment is provided for an average daily flow of 25 million gallons/day by the USD32.

USD has developed the Enhanced Treatment and Site Upgrade (ETSU) program to serve as a roadmap for the treatment plant’s infrastructure over the next 40 years. The program considers impending regulatory requirements such as nutrient restrictions, site layout possibilities, and capacity needed to meet the General Plans of the cities served, and USD has several current construction projects to improve the AWWTP.

Storm Drainage: City of Newark
In the City of Newark, the storm drainage system conveys runoff from impervious surfaces such as streets, sidewalks, and buildings to drains that release untreated storm water into local creeks and/or San Francisco Bay. The City of Newark has a stormwater program embodied in NMC Chapter 8.36, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. The activities of the stormwater program are managed in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit requirements enforced by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB).

The City of Newark also has a Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) Plan, dated September 12, 2019. The GSI has been developed in accordance with the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP), Order No.

R2-2015-0049, adopted by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board on November 15, 2015. The GSI aims to improve stormwater runoff quality prior to discharging it to local creeks and San Francisco with the added benefit of reducing localized flooding, and flows that may cause downstream erosion, and promoting recharge of groundwater through GSI.

GSI is engineered or man-made infrastructure that is based on natural processes to manage stormwater runoff, such as bioretention areas, flow-through planters, trees and nonproprietary tree-well filters, and pervious/permeable pavement. These methods of GSI may be implemented at different scales. At the project level involving development of a parcel, stormwater impacts could be mitigated by reducing 31 General Plan Tune Up Draft Program EIR, City of Newark, August 13, 2013, pg. 4.14-17 32 Union Sanitary District, https://www.unionsanitary.com/about-us/alvarado-treatmentplant#:~:text=It%20has%20undergone%20several%20upgrades,33%20million%20gallons%20per%20day, accessed August 2022
Packet Page 391
City of Newark
Cedar Boulevard Residential Development Page | 110
stormwater runoff through capture and reuse and/or by infiltrating and treating stormwater on-site before it enters the storm drain system.33
Solid Waste Service: Republic Services of Alameda County Republic Services provides non-hazardous solid waste disposal services to the City of Newark residents.

Solid waste is transported to the Fremont Recycling and Transfer Station, which is located at 41149 Boyce Road in Fremont. Solid Waste collected in Newark is consolidated at the Fremont Recycling and Transfer Station for ultimate disposal at the Altamont Landfill located at 10840 Altamont Pass Road in Livermore.

As per information on the Altamont Landfill web page, the landfill site is able to accept unlimited tons for disposal from Alameda and San Francisco counties at this time.34 Electrical and Natural Gas Power: Pacific Gas and Electric Company Electrical and gas utility services in Newark are provided by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E).

PG&E has jurisdiction over service connections between their main lines and the individual house meters.

Telecommunications Facilities
Telecommunication services include fixed-network services (data retail, Internet retail, voice retail and wholesale) and mobile services. Telecommunication services in Newark are available from many providers including, Xfinity, AT&T, Earthlink, among others.

Regulatory Setting
Federal
Clean Water Act
As described in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the Clean Water Act (CWA) authorizes the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to implement water quality regulations. Through Section 402 of the CWA, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program controls water pollution by regulating soil erosion and stormwater discharges into waters of the United States. NPDES permitting authority is administered by the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and its nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards.

Safe Drinking Water Act
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) authorizes the USEPA to set national standards for drinking water through the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations to protect against both naturally occurring and man-made contaminants. These standards set enforceable maximum contaminant levels in drinking water and require all water providers in the United States to treat water to remove contaminants, except for private wells serving fewer than 25 people. In California, the State Department of Health Services is responsible for ensuring water systems test for contaminants, review plans for water system improvements, conduct on-site inspections and sanitary surveys, provide training and technical assistance, and take enforcement actions against water systems not meeting standards. Under the SDWA, 33 City of Newark, Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) Plan, dated September 12, 2019, pg. 6 34 Altamont Landfill, https://altamontlandfill.wm.com/index.jsp, last accessed July 2, 2021 Packet Page 392
City of Newark
Cedar Boulevard Residential Development Page | 111
states are required to certify water system operators to ensure technical, financial, and managerial capacity is in place to ensure safe drinking water is provided to system users.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) gives the USEPA authority to regulate solid waste hazards and non-hazardous wastes. Regulations addressing solid waste are contained in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations including requirements that states implement their own permitting programs incorporating Federal landfill criteria. In California, the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) provides oversight for all of California’s state-managed non-hazardous waste handling and recycling programs.

State
California Water Code
The California Water Code establishes regulations for the protection of water quality and beneficial uses of water including ground and surface water. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board is the primary authority for controlling water quality and use.

Urban Water Management Planning Act
The Urban Water Management Planning Act serves as a framework for the management of all urban water demands and the efficient use of urban water. Under its provisions, every urban water supplier is required to prepare and adopt an urban water management plan. An “urban water supplier” is a public or private water supplier that provides water for municipal purposes either directly or indirectly to more than 3,000 connections or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually.

The urban water management plan must identify and quantify the existing and planned sources of water available to the supplier, quantify the projected water use for a period of 20 years, and describe the supplier’s water demand management measures. The urban water supplier should make every effort to ensure the appropriate level of reliability in its water service sufficient to meet the needs of its various categories of customers during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. The Alameda County Water District (ACWD) provides water to residential, commercial, and governmental customers in the City of Newark.

The On May 13, 2021, the ACWD Board of Directors adopted ACWD's 2020-2025 Plan, ACWD's Water Shortage Contingency Plan, and ACWD's Addendum to the 2015-2020 Plan in compliance with the Urban Water Management Planning Act.

General Waste Discharge Requirement
On May 2, 2006, the SWRCB adopted a General Waste Discharge Requirement (Order No. 2006-0003) for all publicly owned sanitary sewer collection systems in California with more than one mile of sewer pipe.

The order provides a consistent statewide approach to reducing sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) by requiring public sewer system operators to take all feasible steps to control the volume of waste discharged into the system, to prevent sanitary sewer waste from entering the storm sewer system, and to develop a Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP). The General Waste Discharge Requirement also requires that storm sewer overflows be reported to the SWRCB using an online reporting system. The SWRCB has delegated authority to nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards to enforce these requirements within their region. The City of Newark is within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB).

Packet Page 393
City of Newark
Cedar Boulevard Residential Development Page | 112
California Integrated Waste Management Act
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, or AB 939, mandated that all jurisdictions in the state divert at least 50 percent of their solid waste by 2000 through source reduction, composting, and recycling activities. The California Integrated Waste Management Act also mandates that each jurisdiction adopt a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE), which specifies how the community will meet the 50 percent goals set forth in the Act. Each community is also required to take measures to reduce solid waste generation and to provide for the safe disposal of special and hazardous wastes. In 2009, AB 737 amended the Integrated Waste Management Act to require CalRecycle to adopt programs to increase statewide diversion to 75 percent by 2020.

Solid Waste Disposal Measurement System Act
The Solid Waste Disposal Measurement System Act, also known as SB 1016, amends the California Integrated Waste Management Act compliance requirements for measuring and reporting fifty percent solid waste diversion requirements. Beginning in 2009, the Act requires that diversion rates be measured in terms of per-capita disposal expressed as pounds per person per day. Every year CalRecycle calculates each jurisdiction’s per capita (per resident and per employee) disposal rates and reviews jurisdiction compliance on a case-by-case basis. Jurisdictions are not compared to other jurisdictions or the statewide average but compared to their own fifty percent per capita disposal target.

Senate Bill 1383
SB 1383, signed in September 2016, aims to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants. As it pertains to CalRecycle, SB 1383 establishes targets to achieve a fifty percent reduction in the level of the statewide disposal of organic waste from the 2014 level by 2020 and a seventy-five percent reduction by 2025. The law grants CalRecycle the regulatory authority required to achieve the organic waste disposal reduction targets and establishes an additional target that not less than twenty percent of currently disposed edible food is recovered for human consumption by 2025. SB 1383 further supports California’s efforts to achieve the statewide seventy-five percent recycling goal by 2020 established in AB 341.

CalGreen Code
CalGreen established planning and design standards for sustainable site development, including water conservation and requires new buildings to reduce water consumption by twenty percent. The mandatory provisions of the California Green Building Code Standards became effective January 1, 2011. The building efficiency standards are enforced through the local building permit process.

The 2019 CalGreen code contains construction waste management requirements for certain new construction and additions, as well as demolition of nonresidential (i.e., State-owned buildings and commercial, industrial, and medical facilities) and residential buildings. Newly constructed multi-family housing with more than five units are required to have accessible areas that serve the entire building and are identified for the depositing, storage, and collection of recycling.

The 2022 CALGreen code goes into effect January 1, 2023, and focuses on battery storage system controls, demand management, heat pump space and water heating, and building electrification.

Packet Page 394
City of Newark
Cedar Boulevard Residential Development Page | 113
Regional
In addition to the state requirements, Measure D, approved in 1990 in Alameda County, established the Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board (“Recycling Board”) and mandated that the Recycling Board create and periodically update a plan for a comprehensive source reduction and recycling program. Measure D had established Alameda County-mandated 75 percent recycling goal as part of the County Integrated Waste Management Plan. In 2010, the Recycling Board targeted the end of calendar year 2020 for achievement of the 75% goal. However, progress toward this goal plateaued, demonstrating that the approach of relying primarily on collection and processing isn’t enough to meet the 75% target.

Therefore, the Recycling Board’s new plan, Beyond 75% Diversion: A Vision for Landfill Obsolescence, December 2020, sets a new goal for landfill obsolescence by the year 2045.

Pursuant to SB 1383, the Organics Reductions and Recycling Ordinance was adopted by Alameda County to keep food and other compostable material out of landfills to reduce emissions that contribute to climate change. The City of Newark adopted Ordinance No. 533 on November 18. 2021 to comply with this ordinance through NMC Chapter 8.40.

Local
The City’s Green Building and Construction and Demolition Recycling Ordinance, codified in NMC Chapter

15.44 requires all “covered projects” to divert 100 percent of all portland cement concrete and asphalt concrete and an average of no less than 50 percent of all remaining construction and/or demolition debris.

Covered projects include all city or privately-owned construction projects whose total costs are greater than $100,000 , or structure demolition projects whose total costs are greater than $20,000, or pavement demolition Projects involving over 1,000 square feet of removed pavement.

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Water
The necessity for new or expanded water infrastructure due to the proposed project would only arise if the water supply capacity of the ACWD was exceeded because of it. The ACWD has developed and is implementing a 25-year Capital Improvements Program (CIP) spanning FY 2011/12 to FY 2035/36 to provide reliable water supply to its customers in the tri-city area.

Table 10 below outlines the past ACWD past and current water use through to the year 2020, as incorporated in the ACWD’s Final Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), 2020-2025. As shown in this table the water use for single family residences has reduced since 2011 and has stayed the same for multi-family residences.

Packet Page 395
City of Newark
Cedar Boulevard Residential Development Page | 114
Table 10: ACWD Past and Current Water Use (Acre-Feet)
Water Use
Category
Fiscal Year
10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 Distribution
System
Single-Family
Residential
21,800 21,700 23,200 21,600 16,600 14,400 17,400 17,200 17,100 17,700 Multi-Family
Residential
7,500 7,600 8,200 8,100 7,100 6,900 7,100 7,300 7,200 7,500 Commercial 4,700 3,800 5,000 5,000 4,600 4,400 4,700 4,900 4,800 4,700 Industrial 2,500 2,600 2,500 2,300 2,200 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,300 2,300 Institutional 1,700 1,900 2,000 1,800 1,300 1,000 1,300 1,400 1,400 1,300 Landscape 4,900 6,400 5,700 5,200 3,600 2,800 3,500 4,600 4,500 5,100 Other 200 100 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 100
Total
Consumption
43,300 44,100 46,800 44,200 35,600 31,800 36,400 37,900 37,500 38,700 Non-Revenue
Water
4,100 4,200 2,000 2,400 2,800 4,500 2,600 3,600 4,000 4,700 Distribution
System
Total
47,400 48,300 48,800 46,600 38,400 36,300 39,000 41,500 41,500 43,400 Groundwater
System
Private
Groundwater
2,000 2,600 1,900 2,000 2,000 2,000 1,600 1,800 1,500 1,700 Groundwater
Reclamation
-ARP Pumping 11,300 12,000 11,000 11,400 11,200 11,900 11,500 10,900 10,700 12,100 -SalineOutflow 6,100 4,700 3,600 300 2,200 4,900 8,500 7,400 7,700 6,300 Groundwater
System
Total
19,400 19,300 16,500 13,700 15,400 18,800 21,600 20,100 19,900 20,100 Grand Total 66,800 67,600 65,300 60,300 53,800 55,100 60,600 61,600 61,400 63,500 Source: Alameda County Water District, Urban Water Management Plan 2020-2025 The ACWD conducts detailed demand forecasts, which for the City of Newark is consistent with the City’s General Plan through 2035. The demand forecast is substantially reduced in the 2020 UWMP as opposed to previous years because of more efficient plumbing code standards, lower per unit consumption, and a permanent post-drought water use efficiency ethic apparent in the consumption data after the most recent statewide drought 2012-2016.35 35 Alameda County Water District, Addendum to 2015-2020 Urban Water Management Plan, https://www.acwd.org/DocumentCenter/View/3818/Final-2015-2020-UWMP-Addendum-Reduced-DeltaReliance-Reporting, accessed August 2022 Packet Page 396
City of Newark
Cedar Boulevard Residential Development Page | 115
However, because approximately 35% of the ACWD’s demand comes from landscape irrigation, dry periods tend to increase demands as low rainfall and higher temperatures result in increased evapotranspiration requirements for landscaping. In extreme dry periods, the ACWD may set either a voluntary or even mandatory water use reduction target under the ACWD’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan as well as requiring customers to implement permanent demand reductions during the drought that extend beyond the end of the drought and have lasting effects on water demands, as demonstrated during past droughts.

Therefore, reconstruction or relocation of water infrastructure is not anticipated as a result of the project even though the project would add a total of 118 units and approximately 394 persons.

Additionally, the applicant shall be required to provide a “Will Serve” letter from the provider, prior to issuance of a building permit. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Wastewater Treatment
According to the analysis presented in the General Plan Tune Up EIR (2013), the additional wastewater flows from the development envisioned in the City’s General Plan would have a less than significant impact on wastewater infrastructure. This is because the Alvarado Wastewater Treatment Plant (AWWTP) would still be operating at 74 percent of its capacity with the additional flows from the development envisioned in the General Plan.

As indicated above, currently, the AWWTP has the capacity to treat 33 million gallons/day, and the USD treats approximately 25 million gallons of wastewater/day. The proposed project would not exceed the population anticipated in the General Plan and given the remaining capacity for treating wastewater flows at AWWTP, the proposed project would not create the need for relocated or new infrastructure for wastewater. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Stormwater
The impervious area of the proposed development would be less than the existing condition. The project proposes on-site bioretention and silva cells for storm water management and will need to comply with the NPDES stormwater controls. The stormwater management plan has been reviewed by the City’s Engineering Division of the Public Works Department. The proposed project would require upsizing of two stormwater pipelines in Cedar Boulevard, as described in the Project Description. These pipelines would connect to an existing main in the street, and their installation would not create significant environmental effects as it would be located within an existing street.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Electric Power and Natural Gas
It is anticipated that the proposed project would be served by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company through the service connections between their main lines and the individual house meters. LESS THAN

SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Telecommunication Facilities
It is anticipated that the telecommunications service providers in Newark would provide services to the proposed project, once constructed. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Packet Page 397
City of Newark
Cedar Boulevard Residential Development Page | 116
b. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Based on the assessment in the 2010-2015 UWMP, Newark’s General Plan Tune Up EIR (2013) found the cumulative impacts on water supply to be less than significant for the planned development envisioned in the General Plan at built out in 2035.36 The proposed project represents an increment in the population of the City planned for and analyzed in the General Plan and EIR, respectively.

Additionally, the 2020-2025 UWMP prepared for such time assesses approximately 5 million gallons per day [mgd] of passive water use efficiency savings in its 25-year planning horizon of the 2020 UWMP compared to only approximately 1.8 mgd previously estimated in the 25-year planning horizon of the 2015 UWMP.37 Given that, a population increment planned for in the General Plan Update in 2013 would not create significant water supply impacts. Further, the proposed project would be required to obtain a “will serve” letter from the ACWD. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT c. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
As discussed above under section a., the proposed project would not result in the need for expanded capacity for wastewater infrastructure. The USD would, therefore, have adequate capacity to serve the project. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Newark generates a small percent (2%) of the total amount of yearly waste disposed in the Altamont landfill and there would be a relatively small increase in the amount of waste generated within the City of Newark for the projected population by the year 2035, due to recycling ordinances and diversion of plant debris for composting.38
The proposed project would result in an addition of approximately 394 persons to the population of the City that is planned for in the City’s General Plan and analyzed in the Plan’s EIR. Additionally, given that the Altamont Landfill is able to accept unlimited solid waste from Alameda County at this time, the solid waste generated from the project would be within the capacity of the local infrastructure for disposal.

The project would be required to comply with applicable state, ACWMA, and City of Newark laws and regulations. Compliance with these would ensure that the state or local standards for solid waste or solid waste reduction goals are met by the proposed project. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT e. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
The federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste are detailed in the “Regulatory Setting” above. The project would be required to meet the solid waste management and 36 General Plan Tune Up Draft Program EIR, City of Newark, August 13, 2013, pg. 4.14-13, 4.14-14 37 Alameda County Water District, Addendum to 2015-2020 Urban Water Management Plan, https://www.acwd.org/DocumentCenter/View/3818/Final-2015-2020-UWMP-Addendum-Reduced-DeltaReliance-Reporting, accessed August 2022 38 General Plan Tune Up Draft Program EIR, City of Newark, August 13, 2013, pg. 4.14-36 Packet Page 398
City of Newark
Cedar Boulevard Residential Development Page | 117
reduction goals in accordance with the applicable ACWMA regulations ensuring the project’s compliance with applicable statutes and regulations. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Packet Page 399
City of Newark
Cedar Boulevard Residential Development Page | 118
Wildfire
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? □ □ □ ■
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
□ □ □ ■
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
□ □ □ ■
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
□ □ □ ■
Wildfire Setting
Wildland fires typically start in undeveloped areas such as a forest or grassland, which typically cause more damage than urban fires. In California, most wildfire damage occurs in WUI areas, or areas where homes abut undeveloped forests or grasslands. The project site is surrounded by urban development and does not abut undeveloped forests or grassland.

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) maps areas of significant wildfire hazards based on weather, terrain, and fuel types and are designated as either a State Responsibility Area (SRA) or Local Responsibility Area (LRA), based on population density, land use, and land ownership. CAL FIRE identifies Fire Hazard Severity Zones within SRAs. In addition, CAL FIRE must recommend Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) identified within any LRA. The project site is not located in or near a SRA and is not on land classified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) in the LRA39.

Regulatory Setting
Federal
Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA)
FEMA's mission is to lead the effort to prepare the nation for all hazards and effectively manage federal response and recovery efforts following any national incident. FEMA also initiates proactive mitigation activities, trains first responders, and manages the U.S. Fire Administration. The City of Newark is under the jurisdiction of FEMA Region 9, which covers Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Guam, American Samoa, Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, Republic of Marshall Islands, Federated State of 39 Office of the State Fire Marshal, Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer, https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/, last accessed July, 2022.

Packet Page 400
City of Newark
Cedar Boulevard Residential Development Page | 119
Micronesia, and more than 150 sovereign tribal entities. FEMA Region 9 specifically plans to respond to local hazards, including wildfires.

State
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) CAL FIRE protects people and safeguards property from wildland fires in California. Prevention is a key component of CAL FIRE’s mission including pre-fire engineering, vegetation management, fire planning, education, law enforcement. It provides statewide direction for fire prevention in wildland areas and reviews regulations and building standards. CAL FIRE maps Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZs) sitewide based on fuel, slope, and weather. It also designates land as either Federal, State, or Local Responsibility Area (FRA, SRA, or LRA).

California Fire Code
The California Fire Code (CFC) is Part 9 of Title 24, California Code of Regulations, also referred to as the California Building Standards Code. The CFC incorporates the 2018 International Fire Code of the International Code Council with necessary California amendments. The purpose of the CFC is to establish the minimum requirements consistent with nationally recognized best practices to safeguard the public health, safety, and general welfare from the hazards of fire, explosion, or dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings, structures, and premises, and to provide safety and assistance to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations.

California Building Code
Chapter 7A of the California Building Code (CBC) establishes specific requirements for construction of new buildings located within areas designated as Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). This chapter of the CBC is intended to increase fire resistance of buildings and structures located within the WUI and includes regulations related to vegetation management, non-combustible materials, and the location of vents, among other requirements.

AB 747 and Public Resources Code 4291
AB 747 requires cities and counties to address evacuation routes related to identified fire and geologic hazards in the safety element of general plans. The Public Resources Code 4291 includes regulations related to defensible vegetation clearing around structures located within a State Responsibility Area.

Local
The City of Newark Municipal Code
The City of Newark is neither in a State High Fire Severity Area within the SRA, nor a Local Very High Severity Area within the LRA and, as such, is considered to be at low risk for wildfire. Not unlike other urbanized areas, the city does face the risk of urban structure fires. Preventative measures in the City’s Fire Code (NMC Chapter 15.17) and Building Code (NMC Chapter 15.08) reduce the risk of fire and ensure the ability to detect and respond to fires when they occur. These measures address evacuation, alarm systems, emergency response, water availability and pressure, road design, and building access.

Packet Page 401
City of Newark
Cedar Boulevard Residential Development Page | 120
Impact Analysis
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a. Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. Would the project due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. Would the project require the installation of or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d. Would the project expose people or structure to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.

The project site is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. Therefore, it would not result in any of the wildfire impacts identified above.

NO IMPACT
Packet Page 402
City of Newark
Cedar Boulevard Residential Development Page | 121
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
□ □ ■ □
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects
of probable future projects.)
□ □ ■ □
c. Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
□ □ ■ □
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Based on the discussion provided in this initial study, the proposed project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment. The project site is located in an urbanized area, is developed and does not contain fish or wildlife habitat with the exception of some trees. As such, the project would not substantially reduce fish and wildlife habitat or populations to below sustainable levels cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 (See, “Biological Resources”).

The project site is located in an urban environment with no bodies of water on or near the site. The proposed project would also not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory with the implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 identified in this document in the “Cultural Resources” section, and Mitigation Measure TC-1 described in “Tribal Cultural Resources” section. As such, the project’s potential impacts would be reduced to levels below significance. Thus, the overall impacts of the project due to degradation of the quality of the environment would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when Packet Page 403
City of Newark
Cedar Boulevard Residential Development Page | 122
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
The CEQA Guidelines defines cumulative impacts as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.

The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or increase in environmental impacts. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the proposed project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time” (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15355(a),(b)).

The analysis of cumulative impacts for each environmental factor can employ one of two methods to establish the effects of other past, current, and probable future projects. A lead agency may select a list of projects, including those outside the control of the agency, or, alternatively, a summary of projections. These projections may be from an adopted general plan or related planning document, or from a prior environmental document that has been adopted or certified, and these documents may describe or evaluate the regional or area-wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact.

The City General Plan EIR, 2013, analyzed cumulative impacts on environmental resource areas for the City General Plan, 2013. This EIR indicates that with the exception of the environmental effects related to Aesthetics, Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise and Traffic, the level of environmental impacts in other resource areas would be less than significant with application of the General Plan Policies and mitigation measures.

As analyzed in this Initial Study, environmental impacts, pursuant to CEQA, of the proposed project in these areas would be less than significant or would be less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated. Further, the project does not have individual impacts that would result in cumulatively considerable impacts.
• The City implements Design Review to evaluate project aesthetics. Additionally, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and a standard condition of approval would address impacts to cultural resources for this project and would also be imposed on future development projects, as necessary that will ensure that future developments in combination with the project would not result in significant cumulative impacts.
• The project meets the operational significance threshold developed by state agencies, which is an indication that the project would not contribute incrementally to cumulative effects that are significant with respect to Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases, subject to mitigation measures as outlined in this study with respect to “Air Quality” and “Greenhouse Gas Emissions”. Construction impacts are temporary. An entitlement application to develop the adjacent site to the east of the project site is expected in the near future. In the event, the project on the adjacent site may be developed at the same time as the project, it would need to comply with the Construction Best Management Practices as well as obtain an encroachment permit for any work within the public right of way from the City’s Public Works Department thus ensuring that the Air Quality and Green House Gas Emission as well as Transportation impacts are addressed.

Packet Page 404
City of Newark
Cedar Boulevard Residential Development Page | 123
• The project site is identified as Opportunity Site “G” in the City’s Housing Element Update 2015, and is included on the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) list and would be developed within the range of densities proposed and planned for in the City’s General Plan.

It is consistent with the Housing and Transportation strategies identified in Plan Bay Area 2050, which serves both as the region’s Sustainable Communities Strategy and the Regional Transportation Plan. Therefore, the project would not have cumulatively considerable transportation impacts.40
• All future projects in the city will be assessed regarding potential environmental effects, pursuant to CEQA. If necessary, mitigation measures would be required to ensure that impacts from other future Projects remain at less-than-significant levels. All future projects are also required to demonstrate compliance with established regulations and standards.

Therefore, the development of the project, in combination with future development of the same type in the area is not expected to result in significant long-term cumulative impacts. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
As discussed in this initial study, the project’s potential impacts would be reduced below levels of significance with respect to air quality and greenhouse gas emission with the implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 described in the “Air Quality” section, Mitigation Measure TC1 described in the “Tribal Cultural Resources” section. The project would also be safely constructed as discussed in the “Geology and Soils” section with implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1.

Further, as discussed in this Initial Study, the noise and traffic impacts due to the proposed project would be less than significant. As such, the project would not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. “LESS THAN

SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
40 Per OPR guidelines proposed development referencing a threshold based on city VMT per capita, as is the case with this project (rather than regional VMT per capita) should not cumulatively exceed the number of units specified in the SCS for that city, and should be consistent with the SCS’s Transportation (VMT) impacts.

Packet Page 405
City of Newark
Cedar Boulevard Residential Development Page | 124
References

TECHNICAL APPENDICES

1. Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment, September 2022, ESA

2. Tree Inventory and Assessment, June 21, 2022, Monarch Consulting Arborists

3. Historic Resource Assessment, June 17, 2022, TreanorHL

4. Geotechnical Study, September 8, 2021, Geo-Logic Associates

5. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, June 20, 2022, Ramboll

6. Environmental Noise Assessment, July 1, 2022 & Environmental Noise Assessment – Additional Comments, September 16, 2022, Salter

6.A Environmental Noise Study, May 5, 2021, Salter

7. Transportation Impact Analysis, July 5, 2022, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

OTHER DOCUMENTS REFERENCED

1. Newark California General Plan, adopted December 12, 2013

2. General Plan Draft Tune Up EIR for the City of Newark, August 13, 2013

3. Citywide Parks Master Plan, June 2017

4. Pedestrian and Bicycle Mater Plan, February 23, 2017

5. City of Newark, Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) Plan, September 12, 2019

6. Alameda County Water District, Addendum to the 2015-2020 Urban Water Management Plan, May 2022
List of Preparers
M-Group, Inc. prepared this IS-MND under contract to the City of Newark. Persons involved in data gathering analysis, project management, and quality control include the following:

M-Group, Inc.

Ranu Aggarwal, Principal Planner
Mary-Ann Matheou, Associate Planner
City of Newark
Carmelisa Lopez, Senior Planner
Packet Page 406
38478 CEDAR BOULEVARD PROJECT

NEWARK, CALIFORNIA
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment Prepared for September 2022
Robson Homes
2185 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126
APPENDIX 1
Packet Page 407
Packet Page 408
38478 CEDAR BOULEVARD PROJECT

NEWARK, CALIFORNIA
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment

Prepared for September 2022
Robson Homes
2185 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126
180 Grand Avenue
Suite 1050
Oakland, CA 94612
510.839.5066
www.esassoc.com
Irvine
Los Angeles
Oakland
Orlando
Pasadena
Petaluma
Portland
Sacramento
San Diego
San Francisco
Santa Monica
Seattle
Tampa
Woodland Hills

201400020.07
Packet Page 409

OUR COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY | ESA helps a variety of public and private sector clients plan and prepare for climate change and emerging regulations that limit GHG emissions. ESA is a registered assessor with the California Climate Action Registry, a Climate Leader, and founding reporter for the Climate Registry. ESA is also a corporate member of the U.S. Green Building Council and the Business Council on Climate Change (BC3). Internally, ESA has adopted a Sustainability Vision and Policy Statement and a plan to reduce waste and energy within our operations.

Packet Page 410
38478 Cedar Boulevard Project i ESA D20140020.07
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment September 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Chapter 1 1
Introduction 1
Project Location and Description 1
Chapter 2 3
Air Quality Analysis 3
Approach to Analysis 3
Impact Assessment 4
Chapter 3 21
Greenhouse Gas Analysis 21
Approach to Analysis 22
Impact Assessment 25
Chapter 4 1
References 1
Appendices
Appendix A Emissions Estimates and Health Risk Assessment A-1 Figures
Figure 1 Project Location 2
Figure 2 Construction Area and MEIR Location 16
Tables
Table 2-1 BAAQMD Project-Level Air Quality Thresholds of Significance .............................. 4 Table 2-2 CEQA Guidelines Air Quality Issues Summary ....................................................... 5 Table 2-3 Average Daily Construction Emissions ................................................................. 10 Table 2-4 Project Operational Emissions .............................................................................. 11 Table 2-5 Modeled Maximum Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk, Chronic Hazard Index, and Annual Average PM2.5 Concentrations at the MEIR Location ....................... 15 Table 3-1 BAAQMD Project-Level Greenhouse Gas Thresholds of Significance ................. 22 Table 3-2 CEQA Guidelines Greenhouse Gas Issues Summary .......................................... 25 Table 3-3 Project Greenhouse Gas emissions ...................................................................... 26 Packet Page 411
Table of Contents
38478 Cedar Boulevard Project ii ESA D20140020.07
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment September 2022 This page intentionally left blank
Packet Page 412
38478 Cedar Boulevard Project 1 ESA D20140020.07
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment September 2022 CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Robson Homes (Applicant) is proposing to build 130 single family homes and duets, or townhouses, at 38478 Cedar Boulevard (Project) in the City of Newark, California. This report analyzes the air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts, within the context of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), that would result from the construction and operation of the Project and provides mitigation measures to reduce any significant impacts.

Supporting technical information is included in Appendix A.

Project Location and Description
The Project site occupies approximately eight acres between Cedar Boulevard and Interstate 880 (I-880), just north of the Mowry Avenue interchange (see Figure 1). Land uses surrounding the Project site are mainly residential with a few commercial and industrial parcels. The Project proposes to construct up to 130 single family homes and duets, or townhouses, on an approximately eight-acre site.

The Project would involve demolition of the existing industrial and commercial buildings currently occupying the site. Construction of the proposed project would involve grading and utilities, construction of the residential buildings, painting (architectural coating), and paving of the driving and parking surfaces. The demolition, site preparation, and grading phases have been estimated to take place over the period from October 4, 2021 through early January 2022. Building construction, paving, and architectural coating have been estimated to start in early January 2022 and progress in phases until completion, which is projected to occur in approximately September 2024. Total construction would last for approximately 780 work days. The equipment involved in construction includes saws, dozers, loaders, graders, scrapers, backhoes, cranes, forklifts, generators, welders, cement mixers, pavers, rollers, and air compressors, are all assumed to be diesel-fueled.

Packet Page 413

1. Introduction
38478 Cedar Boulevard Project 2 ESA D20140020.07
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment September 2022 Packet Page 414
38478 Cedar Boulevard Project 3 ESA D20140020.07
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment September 2022 CHAPTER 2
Air Quality Analysis
The Project site is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). BAAQMD’s jurisdiction includes all of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties, and the southern portions of Solano and Sonoma counties.

Under amendments to the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has classified air basins or portions thereof as either "attainment" or "nonattainment" for each criteria air pollutant, based on whether or not the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been achieved. The California CAA, which is patterned after the federal CAA, also requires areas to be designated as "attainment" or "non-attainment" for the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Thus, areas in California have two sets of attainment designations: one set with respect to the NAAQS and one set with respect to the CAAQS. The SFAAB is currently designated as a nonattainment area for state and national ozone standards, state particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) standards, and the federal PM2.5 (24-hour) standard (BAAQMD, 2017a). The BAAQMD is the primary agency responsible for assuring both sets of ambient air quality standards are attained and maintained in the Bay Area.

Approach to Analysis
The analysis presented below follows the guidelines and recommendations of the BAAQMD in its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (BAAQMD Guidelines) (BAAQMD, 2017b). Potential air quality impacts are assessed by modeling the estimated average daily emissions generated by Project construction and operations using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2016.3.2 and comparing them to the BAAQMD’s project-level thresholds of significance. BAAQMD’s project-level significance thresholds are shown in Table 2-1 below.

Sensitive Receptors
From an air quality analysis standpoint, sensitive receptors are defined as facilities and land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples include schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. Residential areas are also considered sensitive to poor air quality because people typically stay home for extended periods of time, which results in greater exposure to ambient air quality.

Packet Page 415

2. Air Quality Analysis
38478 Cedar Boulevard Project 4 ESA D20140020.07
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment September 2022 TABLE 2-1

BAAQMD PROJECT-LEVEL AIR QUALITY THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE Pollutant
Construction-Related Operational-Related
Average Daily
Emissions, lb/day
Average Daily Emissions,
lb/day
Maximum Annual
Emissions, tons/year
ROG 54 54 10
NOX 54 54 10
PM10 (exhaust) 82 82 15
PM2.5 (exhaust) 54 54 10
PM10/PM2.5 (fugitive dust) BMPs None
Local CO None 9.0 ppm (8-hour average),

20.0 ppm (1-hour average)
Risks and Hazards
(individual project)
Same as operational
thresholds
Compliance with Qualified Community Risk Reduction Plan; or increased cancer risk of greater than 10.0 in a million; or increased non-cancer risk of greater than 1.0 hazard index (chronic or acute); or ambient PM2.5 increase of greater than

0.3 µg/m3
annual average
Risks and Hazards
(cumulative threshold)
Same as operational
thresholds
Compliance with Qualified Community Risk Reduction Plan; or increased cancer risk of greater than 100 in a million from all local sources; or increased non-cancer risk of greater than 10.0 hazard index (chronic or acute) from all local sources; or ambient PM2.5 increase of greater than 0.8 µg/m3
annual
average from all local sources
NOTES:

BMPs = Best Management Practices
ABBREVIATIONS:

ROG = reactive organic gases; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = particulate matter with diameter equal to or less than 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter with diameter equal to or less than 2.5 microns.

SOURCE: BAAQMD, 2017b.

The Project site is across Cedar Boulevard from several blocks of single family homes to the south and west, with Kings Kids preschool directly across Cedar Boulevard from the Project site and an elementary school approximately 1,700 feet to the southwest. The Project site is separated from residences to the north by I-880. The closest residential receptors are located approximately 120 feet from the project site boundary.

Impact Assessment
This impact assessment below follows the air quality impacts described within the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Initial Study Checklist. Table 2-2 presents a summary of the air quality issues and impacts.

Packet Page 416

2. Air Quality Analysis
38478 Cedar Boulevard Project 5 ESA D20140020.07
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment September 2022 TABLE 2-2

CEQA GUIDELINES AIR QUALITY ISSUES SUMMARY
Issue
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant
for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
d) Result in other emissions (such as
those leading to odors) adversely
affecting a substantial number of
people?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
SOURCE: CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) The most recently adopted air quality plan in the Bay Area is the BAAQMD’s 2017 Clean Air Plan - Spare the Air, Cool the Climate (2017 CAP). The 2017 CAP updates the 2010 Clean Air Plan to fulfill state ozone planning requirements, and includes all feasible measures to reduce emissions of ozone precursors (reactive organic gases [ROG] and nitrogen oxides [NOx]) and reduce transport of ozone and its precursors to neighboring air basins. In addition, the 2017 CAP builds upon and enhances the BAAQMD’s efforts to reduce emissions of fine particulate matter and Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) (BAAQMD, 2017c). The 2017 CAP also addresses GHG reductions and is discussed below.

BAAQMD recommends that a project’s consistency determination with the applicable air quality plan be made with respect to the following questions. If all the questions are concluded in the affirmative, and those conclusions are supported by substantial evidence, the BAAQMD considers the project to be consistent with air quality plans prepared for the Bay Area (BAAQMD, 2017b).

1. Does the project support the primary goals of the air quality plan? The primary goals of the 2017 CAP are to attain air quality standards, reduce population exposure to pollutants, protect public health within the SFAAB, and reduce GHG emissions and protect the climate. Any project that would not support these goals would not be considered consistent with the 2017 CAP. The recommended measure for determining project support of these goals is consistency with BAAQMD-approved CEQA thresholds of significance. Therefore, if a project Packet Page 417

2. Air Quality Analysis
38478 Cedar Boulevard Project 6 ESA D20140020.07
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment September 2022 would not result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts, after the application of all feasible mitigation measures, the project would be considered consistent with the 2017 CAP.

As indicated in the discussion under checklist question b) below, the proposed Project would not result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts. Criteria air pollutant emissions would be less than significant prior to mitigation and would be reduced further with implementation of Mitigation Measures 2-1 and 2-2. TACs and fugitive dust emissions from construction activities would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures 2-1 and 2-2. Longterm operational emissions would be less than significant without mitigation. Therefore, per BAAQMD guidance, the Project would be considered to support the primary goals of the 2017 CAP.

2. Does the project include applicable control measures from the applicable air quality plan?
Projects that incorporate all feasible air quality plan control measures are considered consistent with the 2017 CAP. The 2017 CAP includes a comprehensive strategy of 85 measures aimed at reducing air pollution in the Bay Area. Along with the traditional stationary, area, mobile source and transportation control measures, the 2017 CAP contains a number of new control measures designed to protect the climate and promote mixed use, compact development to reduce vehicle emissions and exposure to pollutants from stationary and mobile sources. BAAQMD encourages project developers to incorporate all feasible measures in the building, energy, transportation, waste, and water sectors into proposed project designs and plan elements.

The Project is located in an area well served by public transit. Existing public transit services in the Project area are provided by AC Transit, BART, and Amtrak. The Project site is approximately 2.5 miles from the Fremont BART station and 3 miles from the Amtrak Fremont Centerville station. An AC Transit bus line runs on Cedar Boulevard directly adjacent to the Project site.

The Project’s location in an area with very good access to transit services would serve to reduce vehicle trips. Future residents of the Project could also be expected to take advantage of teleworking opportunities reducing vehicle trips further, but the extent to which teleworking would occur cannot be accurately predicted at this time. The Project features described above ensure consistency of the Project with the transportation sector control measures in the 2017 CAP.

The Project would comply with the California Green Building (CalGreen) Code and Title 24 building energy efficiency requirements, and would include energy saving features such as highefficiency lighting and water heaters, in addition to solar panels. The City, as part of its implementation of the CalGreen residential code requirements, requires a disclosure and certification of construction materials used in building construction for volatile organic compounds (VOC) compliance, water conservation and efficiency. These features ensure Project consistency with the control measures in the energy and building sectors of the 2017 CAP.

Packet Page 418

2. Air Quality Analysis
38478 Cedar Boulevard Project 7 ESA D20140020.07
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment September 2022 The Project residences would be served by the Alameda County Waste Management Authority, which provides an unlimited curbside recycling program. The program would facilitate the proper recycling and disposal of waste from the Project residences in accordance with statewide waste reduction goals. These features ensure Project consistency with the control measures in the waste sector of the 2017 CAP.

In summary, existing mechanisms or those included in the Project would be consistent with all of the relevant control measures of the 2017 CAP.

3. Does the project disrupt or hinder implementation of any control measures in the air quality plan?
If approval of a project would not cause the disruption, delay or otherwise hinder the implementation of any air quality plan control measure, the BAAQMD considers the project to be consistent with the 2017 CAP. As discussed above, the Project would comply with all feasible control measures in the 2017 CAP. Construction and operation of the Project would also not hinder implementation of any other control measures included in the 2017 CAP.

With all three questions above concluded in the affirmative, the Project would be considered to be consistent with the 2017 CAP. This would be a less than significant impact with mitigation.

Mitigation: Mitigation Measures 2-1 and 2-2, described under b) and c) below.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.
b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)
According to the BAAQMD, no single project can, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. The BAAQMD Guidelines recommend using its quantitative thresholds of significance to determine if an individual project’s emissions would considerably contribute to cumulative air quality impacts in the region. If a project’s emissions exceed the identified significance thresholds, its contribution to cumulative air quality would be considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions. Alternatively, if a project does not exceed the identified significance thresholds, then the project would not be considered cumulatively considerable and would result in less-than-significant air quality impacts (BAAQMD, 2017b). The Project’s contribution to cumulative air quality of the area has been evaluated below by comparing its construction and operational emissions to the applicable BAAQMD thresholds.

The Project would generate criteria pollutants and TACs during short-term construction activities as well as long-term operational criteria pollutant emissions from sources including on-road vehicles, onsite area and energy sources. As the Project consists of development of only Packet Page 419

2. Air Quality Analysis
38478 Cedar Boulevard Project 8 ESA D20140020.07
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment September 2022 residential land uses, once operational, it would not be a source of substantial TACs. TAC emissions impacts are addressed within Impact c) below.

Construction
The use of construction equipment during the demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating phases would emit criteria pollutants1, including reactive organic gases (ROG), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and particulate matter smaller than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) and 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). The demolition, site preparation, and grading phases are currently estimated to take place over the approximate period from October 2021 through early January 2022. Building construction, paving, and architectural coating are currently estimated to start in early January 2022 and progress in phases until completion, which is projected to occur in approximately September 2024. Total construction would last for approximately 780 work days.

Construction emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2016.3.2. CalEEMod is an emissions estimation model that calculates all emissions associated with land use projects. Based on the land use description and size (e.g. townhouses and single family dwellings), CalEEMod calculates the amount of construction equipment and phasing required to construct a project, plus the emissions associated with energy use, landscaping, and personal product use associated with the land use type once the construction is complete and the building is occupied. The CalEEMod modeling is based on construction commencing in October of 2021. Emission factors within CalEEMod decrease into future years, because of improvements in vehicle technology and cleaner construction equipment. Therefore, this analysis is conservative and would over-estimate emissions if construction started later than 2021.

This model is regulatory-approved for CEQA projects and has been developed by, or in coordination with, the California Air Resources Board (CARB). CalEEMod was used to estimate emissions from construction activities, using default construction equipment and emission factors based on the construction phasing schedule and soil and demolition debris export quantities associated with proposed project construction (provided by the applicant). All equipment was assumed to be diesel-powered. Emissions were estimated for NOX, ROG, PM10, and PM2.5. The emission estimates from CalEEMod are based on the project phases and equipment usage developed by CalEEMod based on the project type and size. The construction phasing, equipment usage, and resulting emissions are presented in the CalEEMod output file (included in Appendix A).

Construction emissions from all phases are presented in Table 2-3, Average Daily Project Emissions. The emissions are compared to the BAAQMD significance thresholds.2 As shown below, construction emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD’s significance thresholds for any pollutant; therefore, project construction air quality impacts would be less than significant. The 1 Criteria pollutants are those pollutants for which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the state of California have established levels to protect human health. 2 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, May 2017. Available at https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planningand-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en, accessed December 2020.

Packet Page 420

2. Air Quality Analysis
38478 Cedar Boulevard Project 9 ESA D20140020.07
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment September 2022 PM10 and PM2.5 emissions in Table 2-3 were used in the HRA discussed below. The table includes both unmitigated emissions and mitigated emissions, the latter of which includes the use of Tier 4 Final off-road construction equipment. Although mitigation is not required for criteria pollutant emissions (unmitigated construction emissions are below the BAAQMD thresholds), mitigation is required for health risks. See the Health Risk Assessment section below for discussion.

Project related demolition, grading, excavation and building construction activities at the project site may cause wind-blown dust that could generate particulate matter into the atmosphere.

Fugitive dust includes not only PM10 and PM2.5 but also larger particles that can cause nuisance impacts. For mitigation of fugitive dust emissions, the BAAQMD Guidelines recommend using specific Best Management Practices (BMPs), which has been a practical and effective approach to control fugitive dust emissions. The Guidelines note that individual measures have been shown to reduce fugitive dust by anywhere from 30 percent to more than 90 percent and conclude that projects that implement construction BMPs would reduce fugitive dust emissions to a less than significant level; thus there are no significance thresholds for fugitive dust. To ensure implementation of BMPs, they are identified herein as Mitigation Measure 2-1. Thus, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 2-1, the Project would have a less than significant impact from construction emissions.

Packet Page 421

2. Air Quality Analysis
38478 Cedar Boulevard Project 10 ESA D20140020.07
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment September 2022 TABLE 2-3

AVERAGE DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Year /
Construction
Phase
Unmitigated Average Daily Emissions
(pounds per day)
Mitigated Average Daily Emissions
(pounds per day) a

ROG NOX
PM10
Exhaust
PM2.5
Exhaust
Fugitive
Dust ROG NOX
PM10
Exhaust
PM2.5
Exhaust
Fugitive
Dust
2021
Demolition b 1.54 16.41 0.72 0.67 -- 0.29 2.83 0.03 0.03 -- Site
Preparation c 0.61 6.24 0.31 0.29 -- 0.08 0.32 0.01 0.01 -- Grading d 0.97 12.12 0.45 0.42 -- 0.23 3.21 0.03 0.03 -- Total Average
Daily f 3.12 34.77 1.49 1.38 7.21 0.60 6.36 0.07 0.07 3.25 2022
Grading d 0.04 0.52 0.02 0.02 -- 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00 -- Building
Construction e 1.90 16.80 0.80 0.75 -- 0.55 3.67 0.05 0.05 -- Total Average
Daily f 1.94 17.32 0.82 0.77 0.80 0.56 3.82 0.05 0.05 0.36 2023
Building
Construction e 1.78 15.56 0.70 0.66 -- 0.54 3.41 0.05 0.04 -- Total Average
Daily f 1.78 15.56 0.70 0.66 0.61 0.54 3.41 0.05 0.04 0.28 2024
Building
Construction e 1.33 11.61 0.49 0.46 -- 0.42 2.70 0.04 0.04 -- Paving g 0.02 0.20 0.01 0.01 -- 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.00 --
Architectural
Coating h 42.34 0.13 0.01 0.01 -- 42.33 0.02 0.00 0.00 -- Total Average
Daily f 43.69 11.93 0.51 0.48 0.50 42.75 2.74 0.04 0.04 0.23 BAAQMD
Significance
Thresholds
54 54 82 54 N/A 54 54 82 54 N/A
Significant
Impact? No No No No N/A No No No No N/A
NOTES:
a Mitigation includes Tier 4 Final off-road construction equipment. b Demolition occurs from 10/4/2021 to 11/12/2021 for 30 workdays. c Site Preparation occurs from 11/13/2021 to 11/26/2021 for 10 workdays. d Grading occurs from 11/27/2021 to 1/7/2022 for 30 workdays. e Building Construction occurs from 1/8/2022 to 8/2/2024 for 670 workdays. f Total average daily emissions for each year are averaged over the following annual workdays: 65 in 2021, 260 in 2022, 260 in 2023, and 195 in 2024.
g Paving occurs from 8/3/2024 to 8/30/2024 for 20 workdays. h Architectural Coating occurs from 8/31/2024 to 9/27/2024 for 20 workdays.

ABBREVIATIONS:

ROG = reactive organic gases; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = particulate matter with diameter equal to or less than 10 microns; PM2.5 =particulate matter with diameter equal to or less than 2.5 microns.

Packet Page 422

2. Air Quality Analysis
38478 Cedar Boulevard Project 11 ESA D20140020.07
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment September 2022 Operation
Once the Project residences are occupied, air pollutant emissions would include mobile emissions from vehicle trips generated by the Project occupants, and delivery vehicles, as well as from on-site area and energy sources (e.g., natural gas combustion for space and water heating, landscape maintenance, use of consumer products such as hairsprays, deodorants, cleaning products, etc.) The analysis conservatively assumed 76 single family homes and 54 townhouses. The analysis is conservative, as the trip generation rate in the CalEEMod model is higher for single family homes.

Project operational emissions were also calculated using the CalEEMod and the results are presented in Table 2-4 below.

TABLE 2-4

PROJECT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Emission Source
Average Daily Emissions (pounds
per day) a
Total Annual Emissions (tons per year)
ROG NOX PM10 PM2.5 ROG NOX PM10 PM2.5
Area 8.05 0.05 0.03 0.03 1.47 0.01 0.01 0.01
Mobile 1.10 5.59 4.00 1.10 0.20 1.02 0.73 0.20
Total 9.15 5.64 4.03 1.13 1.67 1.03 0.74 0.21
BAAQMD Significance
Thresholds
54 54 82 54 10 10 15 10
Significant Impact? No No No No No No No No
NOTES:

Categories defined as follows:

Area = Emissions from landscaping equipment. Emissions were modeled using CalEEMod.

Energy (natural gas) = Emissions from natural gas combustion for space heating and cooking. Emissions were modeled using CalEEMod.

Mobile = Operating emissions from daily vehicle trips. Emissions were estimated outside of CalEEMod using emission factors from EMFAC2017.
a Average daily emissions are calculated by dividing by 365 days per year.

ABBREVIATIONS:

ROG = reactive organic gases; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = particulate matter with diameter equal to or less than 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter with diameter equal to or less than 2.5 microns.

Table 2-4 summarizes the average daily mobile, energy, and area emissions of criteria pollutants that would be generated by Project operation and compares the emissions to BAAQMD thresholds. As shown in Table 2-4, operational emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 would be well below the BAAQMD significance thresholds during operations, and thus, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact in relation to regional operational emissions.

In regards to localized CO concentrations, the BAAQMD has developed screening criteria for local CO impacts. Projects would result in a less-than-significant impact to localized CO concentrations if the following screening criteria are met:

1. The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans.

Packet Page 423

2. Air Quality Analysis
38478 Cedar Boulevard Project 12 ESA D20140020.07
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment September 2022

2. The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour.

3. The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway).

The proposed Project would generate minimal new traffic trips and would not exceed these screening criteria. Based on the BAAQMD’s criteria, project-related traffic from both projects would not exceed CO standards and therefore, no further analysis was conducted for CO impacts.

This impact would be considered less than significant on a project-level and cumulative basis.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 2-1: The project applicant shall ensure that construction plans include the BAAQMD Best Management Practices for fugitive dust control. The following will be required for all construction activities within the project area. These measures will reduce fugitive dust emissions primarily during soil movement, grading and demolition activities, but also during vehicle and equipment movement on unpaved project sites:

1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.

2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.

3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.

4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.

5. All streets, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.

6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of CCR). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.

7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.

8. A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

Packet Page 424

2. Air Quality Analysis
38478 Cedar Boulevard Project 13 ESA D20140020.07
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment September 2022 c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Less than Significant with Mitigation) The potential for the Project to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations is associated mainly with construction emissions, which involve diesel combustion equipment.

The majority of operational phase emissions from the project are from gasoline-fueled passenger vehicles, which do not emit a substantial amount of TACs. The health risks from diesel-fueled are the main concern for this analysis.

The TACs included in the health risk assessment (HRA) were limited to the pollutants of primary concern associated with construction of the project, which include diesel exhaust particulate matter (DPM) and PM2.5 exhaust emissions from heavy construction equipment and trucks, and PM2.5 fugitive road dust from construction activities. The emissions model calculates particulate matter emissions in both the PM10 and PM2.5 size range. Emissions of PM10 exhaust are used as a surrogate for DPM emissions.3
Construction activities for the proposed Project would produce DPM and PM2.5 emissions from the construction equipment described above. These emissions could result in elevated concentrations of DPM and PM2.5 at nearby receptors. These elevated concentrations could lead to an increase in the risk of cancer or other health impacts. Consequently, an HRA was performed to determine the extent of increased cancer and non-cancer risks at the maximally exposed individual residence (MEIR). The HRA was based on recommended methodology of the Office of Environmental of Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and adopted by the BAAQMD (BAAQMD, 2012b). The cancer risk to nearby residential receptors assumes exposure would occur 8 hours per day, five days per week, to account for the active construction duration.

Additionally, cancer risk estimates also incorporate age sensitivity factors and daily breathing rates recommended by OEHHA. This approach factors in the increased susceptibility of infants and children to carcinogens as compared to adults as required by OEHHA.

The HRA was conducted using the U.S. EPA AERMOD dispersion model (version 19191) and uses measured meteorology to predict conservative concentrations at specific locations defined by a Cartesian coordinate system. Diesel construction equipment would be used during the demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating phases, which would take place over a 7.75-acre area. A conservative representation of the on-site construction equipment within the proposed project site was modeled as a rectangular area source, based on the site planning diagrams (included in Appendix A). The modeling parameters are as follows:

One polygon area source dimensions covering the project site, with;  Release height of 5 meters for construction equipment exhaust;  Initial vertical dimension of 1.4 meters;
3 OEHHA guidance indicates that the cancer potency factor to be used to evaluate cancer risks were developed based on whole (gas and particulate matter) diesel exhaust, and that the surrogate for whole diesel exhaust is DPM, with PM10 serving as the basis for the potential risk calculations. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, August 2003, https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/hraguidefinal.pdf, accessed July 2020.

Packet Page 425

2. Air Quality Analysis
38478 Cedar Boulevard Project 14 ESA D20140020.07
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment September 2022  Emissions occurring only between the hours of 8 AM and 6 PM.4 A line-area source representing the haul route along Cedar Boulevard, with:
 Release height of 2.55 meters for haul truck exhaust;  Initial vertical dimension of 2.37 meters;
 Emissions occurring only between the hours of 8 AM and 6 PM, and; Receptor flagpole height of 1.5 meters (ground-level receptor at breathing height).

The sources were modeled with an emission rate of one gram per second to obtain a dispersion factor (unit concentration) at each receptor location. Emissions of exhaust PM10 were assumed to be DPM. The DPM and PM2.5 concentrations were calculated using the dispersion factors and the DPM and PM2.5 emissions from Table 2-3.

Lifetime excess cancer risk and non-cancer chronic hazard index were calculated using the resulting DPM concentrations along with equations and factors from the OEHHA 2015 Risk Assessment Guidelines and the BAAQMD HRA Guidelines.5,6 Table 2-5 presents the lifetime excess cancer risk, non-cancer chronic hazard index, and annual average PM2.5 concentrations at the MEIR location. Results are presented for a third-trimester fetus (assuming a pregnant woman could be living at the MEIR), a child below two years of age, and a child between 2 and 9 years of age. The maximum cancer risk occurs for the child below two years of age due to the higher breathing rate of a child compared to the other ages (the third-trimester fetus assumes an adult breathing rate). The MEIR location is shown in Figure 2.

Modeling assumptions, equations, and the cancer risk calculations are included in Appendix A.

4 Construction hours limited to typical active workday hours for construction projects. 5 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program – Risk Assessment Guidelines, February 2015, http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/hotspots2015.html, accessed July 2020. 6 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment (HRA) Guidelines, January 2016, http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/rules-and-regs/workshops/2016/reg-2- 5/hra-guidelines_clean_jan_2016-pdf.pdf?la=en, accessed June 2020.

Packet Page 426

2. Air Quality Analysis
38478 Cedar Boulevard Project 15 ESA D20140020.07
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment September 2022 TABLE 2-5

MODELED MAXIMUM EXCESS LIFETIME CANCER RISK, CHRONIC HAZARD INDEX, AND ANNUAL AVERAGE PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS AT THE MEIR LOCATION Construction Scenario/
Maximally Exposed Individual Receptor
Cancer Risk
(in 1 million)
Chronic Hazard
Index (unitless)
PM2.5 Concentration
(µg/m3
)
Unmitigated Construction
MEIR (child resident) 22.0 0.03 0.07
Kings Kids Preschool 8.4 0.01 0.03
BAAQMD Significance Threshold 10 1.0 0.3
Exceeds Threshold? Yes No No
Mitigated Construction
MEIR (child resident) 1.2 0.001 0.004
Kings Kids Preschool 0.4 0.0004 0.001
BAAQMD Significance Threshold 10 1.0 0.3
Exceeds Threshold? No No No
ABBREVIATIONS:

PM2.5 = particulate matter with diameter equal to or less than 2.5 microns; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter.

SOURCE: ESA, 2020. See Appendix A, Emissions and Health Risk Calculations.

Because unmitigated proposed project health risk impacts would exceed risk thresholds for maximum excess lifetime cancer risk, project impacts would be potentially significant.

Additionally, Table 3 presents a mitigated cancer risk value modeled with all equipment meeting U.S. EPA Tier 4 Final emissions standards. This mitigated scenario reduces the risks down to approximately 1 in one million, which is well below the BAAQMD standard of 10 in one million.

Therefore, a construction fleet with a sufficient number of equipment meeting Tier 4 Final emissions standards will reduce the risk to below BAAQMD significance thresholds.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure 1 would reduce cancer risks from project construction to below the risk thresholds. This mitigation measure assumes that the project construction fleet would comprise a sufficient number of off-road equipment engines that meet U.S. EPA Tier 4 Final engine emissions standards to bring the risk level to below 10 in one million.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure 2-2: U.S. EPA Tier 4 Engines. The applicant and/or its construction contractors shall be required to use off-road diesel construction equipment compliant with U.S. EPA Tier 4 Final non-road engine standards. If Tier 4 Final equipment is unavailable for a portion of the project’s equipment fleet, then prior to the commencement of construction activities, an emissions estimate will be modeled to identify the portion of the fleet that must use Tier 4 Final engines to achieve a cancer risk value below the BAAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million. The list shall be made available at the construction site and shall be updated when new or replacement construction equipment are brought to the site.

Packet Page 427

2. Air Quality Analysis
38478 Cedar Boulevard Project 16 ESA D20140020.07
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment September 2022 Packet Page 428

2. Air Quality Analysis
38478 Cedar Boulevard Project 17 ESA D20140020.07
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment September 2022 Regarding other potential construction impacts, unmitigated demolition activities could result in airborne entrainment of asbestos, a TAC, particularly where structures built prior to 1980 would be demolished. However, these materials would be removed in accordance with the procedures specified by Regulation 11, Rule 2 (Asbestos Demolition, Renovation and Manufacturing) of BAAQMD’s regulations; therefore, with adherence to regulatory requirements, asbestos would not be emitted to any substantial degree during demolition. Implementation of the Mitigation Measures 2-1 would ensure that project-generated fugitive dust during construction would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Cumulative Analysis
Consistent with BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines, the health risk from cumulative exposure to PM2.5, DPM, and other nearby sources of TACs was evaluated for the MEIR. The cumulative evaluation combines health risks from proposed project construction with other nearby sources of PM2.5 and TAC emissions within 1,000 feet of the project site boundary.

Within 1,000 feet of the project site, there are three stationary, permitted sources that are automobile repair and body shops. Other sources of TACs are mobile: rail, major streets, and highways, emitting mainly DPM but also volatile organic compounds in gasoline. This analysis evaluated health risks from the three stationary sources listed below, based on the BAAQMD Permitted Stationary Sources Risk and Hazards web-based GIS tool:7  California Camper Repair, 38456 Cedar Boulevard
 Golden State Auto Collision, Inc., 38594 Cedar Boulevard  Bay Area Body Shop, 38472 Cedar Boulevard
The first two of these stationary sources do not have any health risk values reported by the BAAQMD for cancer risk or PM2.5 concentrations. The third source, Bay Area Body Shop, will be demolished before the proposed project is built on that property.

Therefore, the only existing sources of cumulative health risk at the MEIR are mobile sources.

Health risks from mobile sources were based on a BAAQMD geographic information systems (GIS) dataset that provides separate health risk estimates for rail, major streets, and highways.

The BAAQMD Health Risk Calculator tool and the BAAQMD GIS mobile source files were used to estimate cancer risk and annual average PM2.5 concentrations from the nearby mobile sources located within 1,000 feet of the project boundary.

The background cumulative cancer risk values represent exposure to TAC emissions beginning with a fetus in the third trimester (pregnant woman) and continuing through childhood and early adulthood over a 30-year exposure period. Modeling assumptions, equations, and the cancer risk calculations are included in Appendix A.

Table 2-6 presents the modeled cumulative cancer risks and PM2.5 concentrations for construction plus existing TAC sources. The table shows both unmitigated and mitigated 7 https://baaqmd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2387ae674013413f987b1071715daa65 Packet Page 429

2. Air Quality Analysis
38478 Cedar Boulevard Project 18 ESA D20140020.07
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment September 2022 cumulative cancer risks and PM2.5 concentrations at the MEIR. Both unmitigated and mitigated cancer risk impacts are below the BAAQMD cumulative cancer risk threshold of 100 per million.

In addition, both the unmitigated and mitigated cumulative PM2.5 concentrations are below the BAAQMD cumulative threshold of 0.8 µ/m3
.

TABLE 2-6

CUMULATIVE MAXIMUM HEALTH RISKS FOR EXISTING OFF-SITE MEIR Receptor Type/TAC Source Lifetime Excess Cancer Risk
(per million)
Annual Average PM2.5
Concentration (µg/m3)
Existing Off-site MEIR
Project Construction, unmitigated 21.87 0.07
Background Rail 3.40 0.01
Background Major Street 1.25 0.03
Background Highway 24.53 0.43
Total 51.05 0.54
BAAQMD Significance Thresholds 100 0.8
Exceeds Threshold? No No
Existing Off-site MEIR
Project Construction, mitigated 1.17 0.004
Background Rail 3.40 0.01
Background Major Street 1.25 0.03
Background Highway 24.53 0.43

30.35 0.43
BAAQMD Significance Thresholds 100 0.8
Exceeds Threshold? No No
NOTES:
a Since the new on-site MEIR would not be present at the site until construction is complete, the MEIR would not be exposed to any TAC emissions from construction. Therefore, only background cumulative risk values are presented.

ABBREVIATIONS:

PM2.5 = particulate matter with diameter equal to or less than 2.5 microns; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter.

Criteria Air Pollutants
The following analysis of air quality impacts considers the potential impacts related to emissions of nonattainment pollutants and their precursors. Although ozone, as a secondary pollutant, would not be directly emitted by the Project, ozone precursors ROG and NOx would be emitted and are therefore, along with particulate matter, the focus of the impact assessment. Given that ozone formation occurs through a complex photo-chemical reaction between NOX and ROG in the atmosphere with the presence of sunlight, the impacts of ozone are typically considered on a basinwide or regional basis instead of a localized basis. The health-based ambient air quality standards for ozone are established as concentrations of ozone and not as tonnages of their precursor pollutants (i.e., NOX and ROG). It is not necessarily the tonnage of precursor pollutants that causes human health effects, but the concentration of the resulting secondary pollutants which are Packet Page 430

2. Air Quality Analysis
38478 Cedar Boulevard Project 19 ESA D20140020.07
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment September 2022 ozone and particulate matter in this case. Because of the complexity of ozone formation and the non-linear relationship of ozone concentration with its precursor gases, and given the state of atmospheric modeling in use at this time, it is infeasible and not scientifically defensible to convert specific emissions levels of NOX or ROG emitted in a particular area to a particular concentration of ozone in that area. Meteorology, the presence of sunlight, seasonal impacts, and other complex photochemical factors all combine to determine the ultimate concentration and occurrence of ozone. Since the Project would not exceed the numeric indicator for ROG and NOX emissions during either construction or operation, it is not likely that Project ROG and NOX emissions could result in an increase in ground-level ozone concentrations in proximity to the Project sites or elsewhere in the air basin and impacts can be considered less than significant.

As expressed in the amicus curiae brief submitted for the Sierra Club v. County of Fresno case (Friant Ranch Case), the CEQA criteria pollutants significance thresholds from the air districts were set at emission levels tied to the region’s attainment status. These emission levels are indexed to stationary pollution sources permitted by the air district to compel the operator to offset their emissions and they are not intended to be correlated to localized human health impacts.

Furthermore, available models today are designed to determine regional, population-wide health impacts, and cannot accurately quantify ozone-related health impacts caused by NOX or ROG emissions at a project level. Therefore, it is not scientifically defensible to connect the projectlevel ROG or NOX emissions to ozone-related health impacts at present.

Mitigation Measure 2-2: U.S. EPA Tier 4 Engines. The applicant and/or its construction contractors shall be required to use off-road diesel construction equipment compliant with U.S. EPA Tier 4 Final non-road engine standards. If Tier 4 Final equipment is unavailable for a portion of the project’s equipment fleet, then prior to the commencement of construction activities, an emissions estimate will be modeled to identify the portion of the fleet that must use Tier 4 Final engines to achieve a cancer risk value below the BAAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million. The list shall be made available at the construction site and shall be updated when new or replacement construction equipment are brought to the site.
d) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (No Impact)
BAAQMD has identified typical sources of odor in the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, examples of which include manufacturing plants, rendering plants, coffee roasters, wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfills, and solid waste transfer stations. The proposed Project would not include uses that have been identified by BAAQMD as potential sources of objectionable odors; this is a less than significant impact. Also, there are no sources of odor located in the Project area that future occupants of the Project would be exposed to. Therefore, there would be no impact with respect to exposure of people of odorous emissions.

Packet Page 431

2. Air Quality Analysis
38478 Cedar Boulevard Project 20 ESA D20140020.07
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment September 2022 This page intentionally left blank
Packet Page 432
38478 Cedar Boulevard Project 21 ESA D20140020.07
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment September 2022 CHAPTER 3
Greenhouse Gas Analysis
“Global warming” and “global climate change” are the terms used to describe the increase in the average temperature of the earth’s near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its forecasted continuation. Increases in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the earth’s atmosphere are known to be the main cause of human-induced climate change. GHGs naturally trap heat by impeding the exit of solar radiation that has hit the earth and is reflected back into space. Some GHGs occur naturally and are necessary for keeping the earth’s surface inhabitable.

However, increases in the concentrations of these gases in the atmosphere during the last 100 years have decreased the amount of solar radiation that is reflected back into space, intensifying the natural greenhouse effect and resulting in the increase of global average temperature. Carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) are the principal GHGs. When concentrations of these gases exceed natural concentrations in the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect may be enhanced. CO2, CH4, and N2O occur naturally, and are also generated through human activity. Emissions of CO2 are largely by-products of fossil fuel combustion, whereas the majority of CH4 results from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills.

Other human-generated GHGs include fluorinated gases such as SFCs, PFCs, and SF6, which have much higher heat-absorption potential than CO2, and are byproducts of certain industrial processes.

CO2 is the reference gas for climate change because it is the predominant GHG emitted. The effect that each of the aforementioned gases can have on global warming is a combination of the mass of their emissions and their global warming potential (GWP). GWP indicates, on a poundfor-pound basis, how much a gas is predicted to contribute to global warming relative to how much warming would be predicted to be caused by the same mass of CO2. CH4 and N2O are substantially more potent GHGs than CO2, with 100-year GWPs of 25 and 298 times that of CO2, respectively.

In emissions inventories, GHG emissions are reported in terms of metric tons of CO2 equivalent (CO2e). CO2e is calculated as the product of the mass emitted of a given GHG and its specific GWP. While CH4 and N2O have much higher GWPs than CO2, CO2 is emitted in such vastly higher quantities that it accounts for the majority of GHG emissions in CO2e, both from residential developments and human activity in general.

Packet Page 433

3. Greenhouse Gas Analysis
38478 Cedar Boulevard Project 22 ESA D20140020.07
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment September 2022 Approach to Analysis
With regard to impacts from GHGs, both BAAQMD and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) consider GHG impacts to be exclusively cumulative impacts (BAAQMD, 2017b; CAPCOA, 2008); therefore, assessment of significance is based on a determination of whether the GHG emissions from a project represent a cumulatively considerable contribution to the global atmosphere. This analysis uses both a quantitative and a qualitative approach. Because the quantifiable thresholds included in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines are based on the its 2009 Justification Report which formulated these thresholds based on AB 32 and California Climate Change Scoping Plan reduction targets and strategies developed to reduce GHG emissions statewide, a project cannot exceed a numeric BAAQMD threshold without also conflicting with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs (BAAQMD, 2009). Therefore, if a project exceeds a numeric threshold and results in a significant cumulative impact, it would also result in a significant cumulative impact with respect to plan, policy, or regulation consistency, even though the project may incorporate measures and have features that would reduce its contribution to cumulative GHG emissions.

Separate thresholds of significance are established for operational emissions from stationary sources (such as generators, furnaces, and boilers) and non-stationary sources (such as vehicle traffic from land use development). As no threshold has been established for construction-related emissions, GHG emissions over the entire Project construction are amortized over a project life of 30 years and considered with the operational emissions for comparison to thresholds. For operational emissions from non-stationary sources, a significance criterion based on an emissions efficiency threshold, defined as emissions per service population, is presented in Table 3-1. This threshold is based on the project’s total GHG emissions divided by the population occupying the housing. This threshold also represents a 40 percent reduction below that presented in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines to reflect the goal of 40 percent reduction in GHGs from 2020 to 2030.

TABLE 3-1

BAAQMD PROJECT-LEVEL GREENHOUSE GAS THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE Pollutant
Construction-Related Operational-Related
Average Daily
Emissions, lb/day Emissions Efficiency Threshold
GHGs* None 2.76 metric tons of CO2e per service population per year NOTES: The service population is the sum of residents plus employees expected for a development project. * For projects other than stationary sources.

SOURCE: BAAQMD, 2017b.

The City of Newark’s Climate Action Plan (CAP), January 2010 Initial Framework commits to the following:

Packet Page 434

3. Greenhouse Gas Analysis
38478 Cedar Boulevard Project 23 ESA D20140020.07
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment September 2022

1. Analyze the available data on emissions from both municipal and community activities, to present a comprehensive inventory of emissions from (a) City government operations and (b) community-wide activities.

2. Present this inventory as a baseline against which to measure progress towards reducing GHG emissions.

3. Develop a set of emission reduction goals for municipal operations over the next 1-4 years (short term), from years 4-8 (medium term) and from year 8 and beyond (long term) timeframes.

4. Present actions that the citizens and businesses of Newark can implement in the medium and long-term to help reduce emissions from the Community.

5. Present long-term Planning efforts to layout future development with vehicle trip reduction as an important goal.

The CAP commits to statewide GHG reduction goals but only includes a 2020 target based on the State’s AB 32 goals. Because the target year for completion of the project is 2024, it is more appropriate to identify a project-specific threshold that is consistent with the reductions needed by 2030 as part of SB 32.

GHG emissions resulting from the proposed Project were also estimated using CalEEMod, using assumptions included in Appendix A. CalEEMod defaults were used when Project-specific data was not available. Construction emissions were estimated for equipment and truck exhaust and construction worker vehicles. In regards to operations, vehicle trips were obtained from the traffic analysis conducted for the Project. The model makes adjustments for implementation of Pavley vehicle standards and Low Carbon Fuel Standards.

3.1 Existing BAAQMD Significance Thresholds
As discussed above, the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines establish thresholds for analyzing the GHG emissions associated with land use development projects:
 Compliance with a qualified Climate Action Plan, with a goal consistent with AB 32,  A GHG efficiency threshold of 4.6 MTCO2e per service population (project jobs plus project residents).

As noted above, the City of Newark CAP sets a regional target for the year 2020. The proposed Project buildout would occur after 2020, rendering the CAP inadequate for CEQA tiering because it does not have a planning horizon that extends to the proposed Project’s buildout date.

For projects such as the proposed Project that have a sizable residential population and/or employees, the efficiency threshold is more appropriate than a mass emissions threshold. The BAAQMD efficiency threshold (4.6 MTCO2e) is tied directly to AB 32 and statewide emissions reduction goals for 2020 and was derived by dividing the AB 32 GHG reduction target for land use development emissions in California by the estimated 2020 population and employment level.

Packet Page 435

3. Greenhouse Gas Analysis
38478 Cedar Boulevard Project 24 ESA D20140020.07
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment September 2022 However, as this efficiency threshold does not consider the statewide emissions target mandated by SB 32 for 2030, it would have to be adjusted to be consistent with SB 32.

Based on the existing information the proposed Project would be fully operational in 2024. AB 32 includes a statewide GHG reduction target to achieve 1990 levels by the year 2020, while SB 32 extends the statewide target to a reduction of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Since the proposed Project has a buildout date is between 2020 and 2030 an appropriate threshold is one that interpolates between the AB 32 and SB 32 targets, recognizing that important State initiatives (most notably, the vehicle fuel efficiency standards and the Renewables Portfolio Standard) are scheduled to reduce emissions substantially as the decade progresses. The most conservative approach would be to use a threshold based on the 2030 target, which would be consistent with a 2016 white paper by the Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP) Climate Change Committee recommending that when a project is built out before the next milestone target year adopted by the State, the milestone year should be used as the basis for the project-level threshold.8 Note that the AEP white paper is advisory only and is not binding guidance or an adopted set of CEQA thresholds.

3.2 Project Significance Criteria
Because the BAAQMD hasn’t adopted GHG-related CEQA Significance Thresholds for the SB 32 horizon year of 2030, and the City does not currently have a “qualified” GHG reduction strategy available, specific project-level thresholds have been identified for the purposes of CEQA analysis, consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.4 and CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. The adjusted efficiency threshold identified below is interpolated to be consistent with both the 2020 target and the adjusted 2030 SB 32 horizon year target. Specifically, the proposed Project would be deemed to have a significant adverse impact9 related to GHG emissions if it would:

1. Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, from the construction and operation of the proposed Project in exceedance of the interpolated, adjusted emissions threshold that is 40% below the 2020 mass emissions threshold of 4.6 MTCO2e per service population per year, which equates to 2.76 MTCO2e per service population per year, or

2. Result in a conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

The first threshold is consistent with AB 32 and SB 32 targets and maintains consistency with SB 743. SB 743 is focused on transportation impact requirements and VMT analysis and metrics thresholds and has direct correlation with the associated mobile GHG emissions.

The second threshold requires an assessment of the proposed Project’s consistency with applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of 8 Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP), 2016, Final White Paper - Beyond 2020 and Newhall: A Field Guide to New CEQA Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan Targets for California, October 18.

Available at: https://califaep.org/docs/AEP-2016_Final_White_Paper.pdf. Accessed January 2020. 9 Greenhouse gas impacts are, by their nature, cumulative impacts because one project by itself cannot cause global climate change. These thresholds pertain to a project’s contribution to cumulative impacts but are labeled “ProjectLevel Impacts” here to be consistent with the terminology used by BAAQMD.

Packet Page 436

3. Greenhouse Gas Analysis
38478 Cedar Boulevard Project 25 ESA D20140020.07
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment September 2022 GHGs, including CA2020, Moving Forward 2040, Plan Bay Area 2040, CARB’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update, and Executive Order S-3-05. Note that CA2020 has a planning horizon of 2020, and the County/RCPA have not adopted a plan to achieve its 2030 GHG reduction goal as expressed in CA2020.

Impact Assessment
This impact assessment follows the GHG issues described within the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Initial Study Checklist. Table 3-2 presents a summary of the greenhouse gas issues and impacts.

TABLE 3-2

CEQA GUIDELINES GREENHOUSE GAS ISSUES SUMMARY
Issue
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with an adopted plan, policy,
or regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
SOURCE: CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G
a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (Less than Significant)
BAAQMD requires that both direct and indirect sources of GHG emissions be considered in the analysis. Direct emissions include emissions from construction equipment and vehicles, operational vehicle trips generated by the Project, and use of fuel in landscaping equipment. The proposed project would not use any natural gas, and rooftop solar panels would generate some of the Project’s electricity needs. Indirect emissions are associated with offsite electricity generation, transport and disposal of solid waste, and water and wastewater transport and treatment.

These GHG sources and emissions are detailed below:
 Construction Activities. Construction equipment typically use fossil-based fuels (primarily diesel) to operate. The combustion of fossil-based fuels creates GHGs such as CO2, CH4, and N2O. CH4 is also emitted during the fueling of heavy equipment.

Packet Page 437

3. Greenhouse Gas Analysis
38478 Cedar Boulevard Project 26 ESA D20140020.07
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment September 2022  Solid Waste Disposal Emissions. When solid waste generated by projects is deposited in landfills, anthropogenic CH4 is generated from the anaerobic breakdown of the organic material in solid waste.
 Electricity and Water Use. Electricity used on-site can result in GHG production if the electricity is generated by combustion of fossil fuel. Although the project would install rooftop solar panels, the modeling did not assume any reduction in electricity use from this feature. However, since natural gas would not be part of the Project, any additional electricity demand is assumed to be met by the solar panels. GHG emissions from water and wastewater transport result from the generation of energy required to treat and transport water from its source, and the energy required to treat wastewater and transport it to its treated discharge point.
 Motor Vehicle Use. Transportation associated with the project would result in GHG emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels in daily automobile and truck trips. However, not all of these emissions would be “new” to the region or state since drivers would likely have relocated from another area. To be conservative, however, all vehicle trips predicted were assumed to be new trips in this analysis.

GHG emissions over the 3-year construction period were estimated using CalEEMod and amortized assuming a 30-year development life after completion of construction. The amortized emissions were added to the Project’s operational emissions for comparison to significance thresholds. Amortized GHG emissions associated with construction of the proposed Project would result in the generation of 40.1 metric tons of CO2e per year over the assumed life of the Project.

Project construction and operational emissions as estimated using CalEEMod are shown in Table 3-3 below. Operational emissions include GHG emissions from motor vehicle trips, grid electricity usage, solid waste, and other sources (including area sources, natural gas combustion, and water/wastewater conveyance).

TABLE 3-3

PROJECT GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Source
Emissions,
metric tons of CO2e per year
Project construction emissions (amortized) 40.11
Project operations2 935.4
Total project GHG emissions (construction and operation) 975.5 Project service population (number of residents) 371
Emissions per service population 2.63
Adjusted BAAQMD GHG efficiency threshold 2.76
Exceeds threshold? No
NOTES:
1 Total CO2e emissions from construction total 1,201.45 metric tons over the four years of construction. The amortized emissions represent the total divided by 30 years. 2 Project operational emissions do not take into account reduction in electricity usage from the solar panels on Project residences.

Actual emissions would be lower.

Packet Page 438

3. Greenhouse Gas Analysis
38478 Cedar Boulevard Project 27 ESA D20140020.07
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment September 2022 SOURCE: APPENDIX A.

Table 3-3 indicates that the total GHG emissions per service population per year associated with the Project would be below the project-specific GHG efficiency threshold of 2.76 metric tons of CO2e per service population per year, and the impact would be less than significant.

The proposed project is located within the BAAQMD, who presented a draft update to the CEQA thresholds of significance for GHGs during a public workshop on December 9, 2021 (BAAQMD, 2021), and subsequently finalized its CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate impacts (BAAQMD 2022). The BAAQMD draft and final thresholds of significance were drafted to aid in compliance with the Statewide goals established by Assembly Bill 32 and Senate Bill 32 and are presented in Table 3-4.

TABLE 3-4

BAAQMD GHG THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE (MUST INCLUDE A OR B) Option Draft Air District Thresholds
Option A Projects must include, at a minimum, the following project design elements:
1) Buildings
a. No natural gas (residential and non-residential)
b. The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
2) Transportation
a. Achieve compliance with EV requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2 b. Achieve SB 743 target of 15% reduction in VMT per capita below regional average Option B Be consistent with a local GHG Reduction Strategy that meets the criteria under the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b)
SOURCES: BAAQMD 2021, Air District Update to CEQA Thresholds of Significance for Greenhouse Gases – Public Workshop (December 9, 2021).

The proposed project would meet threshold option A for the following reasons:

Option A, 1a.) Buildings: The proposed project would not include natural gas.

Option A, 1b.) The proposed project will not result in any inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary energy use. The proposed project would not involve natural gas use and would comply with Title 24, part 6 energy and water efficiency requirements. The proposed project would include the installation of solar panels and provision of electric vehicle parking spaces.

Construction of the Project would not be more demanding of fuel resources than other similar construction projects within the vicinity. The impact would be less than significant Option A, 2a.) Transportation: The proposed project would include EV hookups consistent with CALGreen Tier 2.

Option A, 2b.) Transportation: The average annual VMT calculated using CalEEMod defaults is 2,319,459. Based on the transportation analysis, including trip generation, conducted for the project, the project’s annual VMT would be 1,928,720. This represents a 17% reduction in the average, default VMT associated with this land use.

Packet Page 439

3. Greenhouse Gas Analysis
38478 Cedar Boulevard Project 28 ESA D20140020.07
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment September 2022 b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (Less than Significant)
As presented above, one of the City of Newark’s CAP commitments is:
(5.) Present long-term Planning efforts to layout future development with vehicle trip reduction as an important goal.

This is directly applicable to the Project. The CAP includes goals and action items organized by the municipal, residential, and business communities, as well as for transportation planning and zoning, and describes the goals and action items to achieve its commitments.

The CAP Chapter 6 Transportation and Zoning section describes goals related to reducing vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled. As discussed above in Section 2 under Impact (a), the Project is located in an area with access to public transit. An AC Transit line runs along Cedar Boulevard, adjacent to the Project site, with BART and AMTRAK each within 3 miles of the site. This proximity to public transit would reduce vehicle trips and is consistent with the development planning goal of the CAP.

The Project would be consistent with the CAP’s transportation planning goals, as described above. As such, this impact would be less than significant.

Packet Page 440
38478 Cedar Boulevard Project 1 ESA D20140020.07
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment September 2022 CHAPTER 4
References
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2009. Revised Draft Options and Justification Report California Environmental Quality Act Thresholds of Significance, October 2009. Available at http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-andresearch/ceqa/revised-draft-ceqa-thresholds-justification-report-oct-2009.pdf?la=en.

BAAQMD, 2017a. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status, last updated January 5, 2017.

Available at http://www.baaqmd.gov/research-and-data/air-quality-standards-and-attainmentstatus.

BAAQMD, 2017b, BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, updated May 2017. Available at https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-andresearch/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed January 2021.

BAAQMD, 2017c. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan, April 19, 2017. Available at:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-airplan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf. Accessed January 2021.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2012a. Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards. May 2012. Available:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/risk-modelingapproach-may-2012.pdf?la=en. Accessed January 2021.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2020. Permitted Sources Risk and Hazards Map. Available at:
https://baaqmd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2387ae674013413f987 b1071715daa65. Accessed January 2021.

BAAQMD 2021, Air District Update to CEQA Thresholds of Significance for Greenhouse Gases – Public Workshop (December 9, 2021).

BAAQMD 2022. CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts.

Available at: chromeextension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/pla nning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa-thresholds-2022/justification-report-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed September 20, 2022.

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2008. CEQA & Climate Change, Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act, January 2008. Available:
http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA-White-Paper.pdf.

Packet Page 441

3. References
38478 Cedar Boulevard Project 2 ESA D20140020.07
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment September 2022 California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). 2016. California Emissions Estimator Model, version 2016.3.2. Available: http://www.caleemod.com/.

City of Newark, 2010. Climate Action Plan. Available at https://www.newark.org/home/showpublisheddocument?id=328. Accessed January 2021.

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), 2015. Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, February 2015. Available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf SCAQMD, Application of the South Coast Air Quality Management District for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party and Brief of Amicus Curiae. In the Supreme Court of California. Sierra Club, Revive the San Joaquin, and League of Women Voters of Fresno v. County of Fresno, 2014.

SJVAPCD, Application for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae Brief of San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District in Support of Defendant and Respondent, County of Fresno and Real Party In Interest and Respondent, Friant Ranch, L.P. In the Supreme Court of California. Sierra Club, Revive the San Joaquin, and League of Women Voters of Fresno v. County of Fresno, 2014.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. Haul Road Workgroup Final Report Submission to EPA-OAQPS. March.

Packet Page 442
38478 Cedar Boulevard,
Newark, CA
Tree Inventory and Assessment June 21, 2022
June 21, 2022
Robson Homes, LLC
2185 The Alameda, Suite 150
San Jose, CA 95126
Summary
The plans are to renovate the area. The tree inventory contains all those located along Cedar Boulevard north and south sides between Smith Avenue to the west and the flood control drainage to the east, and in front of the “Public Storage”. The inventory contains 48 trees comprised of 6 different species with a little more than fifty percent being Canary Island pines (Pinus canariensis). Twenty-four trees are in good condition, fourteen fair, four poor, five very poor, and one is dead. Twenty-eight trees will be highly impacted and caused to be removed while the remaining twenty are not expected to be impacted by the proposed improvements.

Assignment, Limits, Purpose and Use
Provide an arborist’s report including an assessment of the trees within the project area and on the adjacent sites where necessary. The assessment is to include the species, size (trunk diameter), and condition (health, structure and form).

The information in this report is limited to the condition of the trees during my inspection on June 4, 2022. No tree risk assessments were performed.

The plans review for this project are Vesting Tentative Track Map 8583, 38478 Cedar Boulevard provided by RJA dated April 13, 2022 sheets 1-13.

The report is intended to identify all the trees within the plan area that could be affected by a project. The report is to be used by the property owners, owner’s agents, and the City of Newark as a reference for existing tree and site conditions to help satisfy planning requirements.

Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - [email protected] Page of 1 12
APPENDIX 2
Packet Page 443
38478 Cedar Boulevard,
Newark, CA
Tree Inventory and Assessment June 21, 2022
Observations
The tree inventory contains all those located along Cedar Boulevard north and south sides between Smith Avenue to the west and the flood control drainage to the east.

The inventory contains 48 trees comprised of 6 different species with a little more than fifty percent being Canary Island pines (Chart 1).

Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - [email protected] Page of 2 12
Quantity
Packet Page 444
38478 Cedar Boulevard,
Newark, CA
Tree Inventory and Assessment June 21, 2022
Discussion
Condition Rating
A tree’s condition is a determination of its overall health, structure, and form (ISA 2018). The assessment considered all three characteristics for a combined condition rating. • 100% - Exceptional = Good health and structure with significant size, location or quality. • 61-80% - Good = Normal vigor, well-developed structure, function and aesthetics not compromised with good longevity for the site.
• 41-60 % - Fair = Reduced vigor, damage, dieback, or pest problems, at least one significant structural problem or multiple moderate defects requiring treatment. Major asymmetry or deviation from the species normal habit, function and aesthetics compromised. • 21-40% - Poor = Unhealthy and declining appearance with poor vigor, abnormal foliar color, size or density with potential irreversible decline. One serious structural defect or multiple significant defects that cannot be corrected and failure may occur at any time. Significant asymmetry and compromised aesthetics and intended use.
• 6-20% - Very Poor = Poor vigor and dying with little foliage in irreversible decline. Severe defects with the likelihood of failure being probable or imminent. Aesthetically poor with little or no function in the landscape.
• 0-5% - Dead/Unstable = Dead or imminently ready to fail.

Twenty-four trees are in good condition, fourteen fair, four poor, five very poor, and one is dead (Chart 2). There are several trees in front of the “Public Storage” which have been topped and essentially destroyed including seven Canary Island pines.

Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - [email protected] Page of 3 12
Quantity
Packet Page 445
38478 Cedar Boulevard,
Newark, CA
Tree Inventory and Assessment June 21, 2022
Expected Impact Level
Impact level defines how a tree may be affected by construction activity and proximity to the tree, and is described as low, moderate, or high. The following scale defines the impact rating:
• Low = The construction activity will have little influence on the tree. • Moderate = The construction may cause future health or structural problems, and steps must be taken to protect the tree to reduce future problems.
• High = Tree structure and health will be compromised and removal is recommended, or other actions must be taken for the tree to remain. The tree is located in the building envelope.

Twenty-eight trees will be highly impacted and caused to be removed while the remaining twenty are not expected to be impacted by the proposed improvements. At least seven trees on the “Public Storage” site are to be retained but should be removed due to condition.

Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - [email protected] Page of 4 12
Quantity
Packet Page 446
38478 Cedar Boulevard,
Newark, CA
Tree Inventory and Assessment June 21, 2022
The images below indicates the locations of the trees assessed in this assignment (Image 1 and 2).

Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - [email protected] Page of 5 12 512 513 514 515 516 517 534 533 532 531 530 529 528527 526 525 524 523 522 521 519 518 535 536 537 538 539 540 546 545 544 543 542 541 IMAGE 1: TREE LOCATIONS ALONG CEDAR
Packet Page 447
38478 Cedar Boulevard,
Newark, CA
Tree Inventory and Assessment June 21, 2022
Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - [email protected] Page of 6 12 577 578 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 574 575 576 573 X X

X X X X X
IMAGE 2: TREES ALONG CEDAR IN FRONT OF PUBLIC

STORAGE
The “X”s east of the
utility pole indicate trees
that no longer exist but
are shown on the survey.

Packet Page 448
38478 Cedar Boulevard,
Newark, CA
Tree Inventory and Assessment June 21, 2022
Conclusion
The tree inventory contains all those located along Cedar Boulevard north and south sides between Smith Avenue to the west and the flood control drainage to the east, and in front of the “Public Storage”. The inventory contains 48 trees comprised of 6 different species with a little more than fifty percent being Canary Island pines. Twenty-four trees are in good condition, fourteen fair, four poor, five very poor, and one is dead. Twenty-eight trees will be highly impacted and caused to be removed while the remaining twenty are not expected to be impacted by the proposed improvements. There are several trees (at least seven) in front of the “Public Storage” that should be considered for removal but are inside that property boundary and not in the right-of way.

Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - [email protected] Page of 7 12
Packet Page 449
38478 Cedar Boulevard,
Newark, CA
Tree Inventory and Assessment June 21, 2022
Appendix A: Tree Inventory Summary
Table 1: Tree Inventory Summary
Tree Species I.D. # Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
~
Height
(ft.)
~ Canopy
Diameter
(ft.)
Condition Expected
Impact
Canary island pine (Pinus
canariensis)
512 19 65 35 Good Low
Canary island pine (Pinus
canariensis)
513 22 65 35 Good Low
Raywood ash (Fraxinus
oxycarpa ‘Raywood’)
514 10 35 25 Fair Low
silver dollar gum (Eucalyptus
polyanthemos)
515 25 35 35 Good Low
silver dollar gum (Eucalyptus
polyanthemos)
516 22 35 35 Good Low
Raywood ash (Fraxinus
oxycarpa ‘Raywood’)
517 14 25 20 Fair Low
Raywood ash (Fraxinus
oxycarpa ‘Raywood’)
518 8 20 15 Good Low
Hollywood juniper (Juniperus
chinensis ‘Torulosa’)
519 9 10 10 Fair Low
Hollywood juniper (Juniperus
chinensis ‘Torulosa’)
520 11 10 10 Fair Low
Raywood ash (Fraxinus
oxycarpa ‘Raywood’)
521 14 25 20 Fair Low
Raywood ash (Fraxinus
oxycarpa ‘Raywood’)
522 9 15 15 Fair High
Hollywood juniper (Juniperus
chinensis ‘Torulosa’)
523 8, 4, 6, 4, 4 10 10 Fair High
Canary island pine (Pinus
canariensis)
524 21 65 30 Good High
Canary island pine (Pinus
canariensis)
525 33 65 30 Good High
Canary island pine (Pinus
canariensis)
526 17 65 30 Good High
Hollywood juniper (Juniperus
chinensis ‘Torulosa’)
527 8 20 10 Fair High
Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - [email protected] Page of 8 12
Packet Page 450
38478 Cedar Boulevard,
Newark, CA
Tree Inventory and Assessment June 21, 2022
Hollywood juniper (Juniperus
chinensis ‘Torulosa’)
528 12 20 10 Fair High
Hollywood juniper (Juniperus
chinensis ‘Torulosa’)
529 8 20 10 Fair High
Canary island pine (Pinus
canariensis)
530 21 55 35 Good High
Canary island pine (Pinus
canariensis)
531 19 55 35 Good High
Canary island pine (Pinus
canariensis)
532 22 55 35 Good High
Hollywood juniper (Juniperus
chinensis ‘Torulosa’)
533 3 8 2 Poor High
Hollywood juniper (Juniperus
chinensis ‘Torulosa’)
534 4 10 6 Fair High
Hollywood juniper (Juniperus
chinensis ‘Torulosa’)
535 6 12 8 Fair High
Canary island pine (Pinus
canariensis)
536 22 55 35 Good High
Canary island pine (Pinus
canariensis)
537 29 55 35 Good High
Canary island pine (Pinus
canariensis)
538 28 55 35 Good High
Canary island pine (Pinus
canariensis)
539 27 55 35 Good High
Canary island pine (Pinus
canariensis)
540 28 55 35 Good High
Canary island pine (Pinus
canariensis)
541 14 55 35 Good High
Canary island pine (Pinus
canariensis)
542 14 25 20 Poor High
black acacia (Acacia
melanoxylon)
543 26 35 30 Fair High
Canary island pine (Pinus
canariensis)
544 21 55 35 Good High
Canary island pine (Pinus
canariensis)
545 35 65 55 Good High
Tree Species I.D. # Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
~
Height
(ft.)
~ Canopy
Diameter
(ft.)
Condition Expected
Impact
Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - [email protected] Page of 9 12
Packet Page 451
38478 Cedar Boulevard,
Newark, CA
Tree Inventory and Assessment June 21, 2022
Canary island pine (Pinus
canariensis)
546 22 55 35 Good High
Canary island pine (Pinus
canariensis)
566 19 45 30 Very poor Low
Canary island pine (Pinus
canariensis)
567 13 45 30 Very poor Low
Canary island pine (Pinus
canariensis)
568 18 45 30 Poor Low
red ironbark (Eucalyptus
sideroxylon)
569 20 45 30 Fair Low
Canary island pine (Pinus
canariensis)
570 16 45 30 Poor Low
Canary island pine (Pinus
canariensis)
571 21 45 30 Very poor Low
Canary island pine (Pinus
canariensis)
572 22 45 30 Very poor Low
Canary island pine (Pinus
canariensis)
573 21 45 30 Dead Low
red ironbark (Eucalyptus
sideroxylon)
574 28 45 30 Very poor High
red ironbark (Eucalyptus
sideroxylon)
575 32 65 35 Good High
red ironbark (Eucalyptus
sideroxylon)
576 22 65 35 Good High
Raywood ash (Fraxinus
oxycarpa ‘Raywood’)
577 11 35 30 Good Low
Raywood ash (Fraxinus
oxycarpa ‘Raywood’)
578 13 35 30 Good Low
Tree Species I.D. # Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
~
Height
(ft.)
~ Canopy
Diameter
(ft.)
Condition Expected
Impact
Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - [email protected] Page of 10 12
Packet Page 452
38478 Cedar Boulevard,
Newark, CA
Tree Inventory and Assessment June 21, 2022
Qualifications, Assumptions, and Limiting Conditions
Any legal description provided to the consultant is assumed to be correct. Any titles or ownership of properties are assumed to be good and marketable. All property is appraised or evaluated as though free and clear, under responsible ownership and competent management.

All property is presumed to be in conformance with applicable codes, ordinances, statutes, or other regulations.

Care has been taken to obtain information from reliable sources. However, the consultant cannot be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others.

The consultant shall not be required to give testimony or attend meetings, hearings, conferences, mediations, arbitration, or trials by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such services.

This report and any appraisal value expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant, and the consultant’s fee is not contingent upon the reporting of a specified appraisal value, a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event.

Sketches, drawings, and photographs in this report are intended for use as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale, and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys. The reproduction of information generated by architects, engineers, or other consultants on any sketches, drawings, or photographs is only for coordination and ease of reference.

Inclusion of said information with any drawings or other documents does not constitute a representation as to the sufficiency or accuracy of said information.

Unless otherwise expressed: a) this report covers only examined items and their condition at the time of inspection; and b) the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that structural problems or deficiencies of plants or property may not arise in the future.

Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - [email protected] Page of 11 12
Packet Page 453
38478 Cedar Boulevard,
Newark, CA
Tree Inventory and Assessment June 21, 2022
Certification of Performance
I Richard Gessner, Certify:

That I have personally inspected the tree(s) and/or the property referred to in this report, and have stated my findings accurately. The extent of the evaluation and/or appraisal is stated in the attached report and Terms of Assignment;
That I have no current or prospective interest in the vegetation or the property that is the subject of this report, and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved; That the analysis, opinions and conclusions stated herein are my own; That my analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared according to commonly accepted Arboricultural practices; That no one provided significant professional assistance to the consultant, except as indicated within the report.

That my compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that favors the cause of the client or any other party, nor upon the results of the assessment, the attainment of stipulated results, or the occurrence of any other subsequent events; I further certify that I am a Registered Consulting Arborist® with the American Society of Consulting Arborists, and that I acknowledge, accept and adhere to the ASCA Standards of Professional Practice. I am an International Society of Arboriculture Board Certified Master Arborist® and Tree Risk Assessor Qualified. I have been involved with the practice of Arboriculture and the care and study of trees since 1998.

Richard J. Gessner
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist® #496
ISA Board Certified Master Arborist® WE-4341B
Copyright
© Copyright 2022, Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC. Other than specific exception granted for copies made by the client for the express uses stated in this report, no parts of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, recording, or otherwise without the express, written permission of the author.

Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - [email protected] Page of 12 12
Packet Page 454
APPENDIX 3
Packet Page 455
Packet Page 456
Packet Page 457
Packet Page 458
Packet Page 459
Packet Page 460
Packet Page 461
Packet Page 462
Packet Page 463
Packet Page 464
Packet Page 465

Packet Page 466
Packet Page 467
Packet Page 468
Packet Page 469
Packet Page 470
Packet Page 471
Packet Page 472
Packet Page 473
Packet Page 474
Packet Page 475
Packet Page 476
Packet Page 477

P1. Other Identifier:

DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information
State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
*P2. Location:  Not for Publication  Unrestricted
*a. County Alameda and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad Date T ; R ;  of  of Sec ; B.M.
c. Address 38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard City Newark Zip 94560 d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone , mE/ mN e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, decimal degrees, etc., as appropriate) APN 92A-2375-2-6
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries)
The subject parcel is bounded by the Nimitz Freeway to the north, Cedar Court to the east, Central Avenue to the west, and Cedar Boulevard to the south. It currently features eight light industrial buildings, a vernacular office building, and multiple utilitarian accessory structures. Outside the parcel boundaries a storage facility and multifamily residential buildings sit on the northwest corner of the block, and commercial buildings on the southeast end of the block. The surrounding area consists of multi-family and single-family residential buildings. (See Continuation Sheet.)
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List
attributes and codes)
*P4. Resources Present:  Building
 Structure  Object  Site  District
 Element of District  Other
(Isolates, etc.)
P5b. Description of Photo: (view,
date, accession #)
The south facade of 38288 Cedar Blvd,
TreanorHL, 5/2022.
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Source: Historic  Prehistoric
 Both
1963-1985, permits
*P7. Owner and Address:

*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation,
and address)
TreanorHL
550 Montgomery, San Francisco, CA
*P9. Date Recorded: June 17, 2022
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
Intensive survey
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey
report and other sources, or enter "none.") TreanorHL, 38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, CA, Historic Resource Assessment, June 17, 2022
*Attachments: NONE Location Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record  Other (List):

P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.) Packet Page 478
*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 38288-38394 Cedar Boulevard *NRHP Status Code

DPR 523B (9/2013) *Required information
State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
(This space reserved for official comments.)
(Sketch Map with north arrow required.)
B1. Historic Name:

B2. Common Name:

B3. Original Use: Light industrial B4. Present Use: Light industrial *B5. Architectural Style: Utilitarian, vernacular
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) Constructed from 1963 to 1985. (See Continuation Sheet.) *B7. Moved?  No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features:

B9a. Architect: b. Builder:
*B10. Significance: Theme Area
Period of Significance. Property Type Applicable Criteria (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) The City of Newark encompasses land that was originally inhabited by the Ohlone people. The territory of the Ohlone people extended along the coast from the Golden Gate in the north to just beyond Carmel in the south, and as much as 60 miles inland, encompassing a lengthy coastline and several inland valleys. The Ohlone were hunter-gatherers and relied heavily on acorns and seafood.1
In the late 18th century, the Spanish Missionaries arrived and established the Mission system. Mission San Jose was the fourteenth Spanish settlement in California, but the first in the East Bay.2 The Spanish occupied the area from 1797 to 1836, and in this time forced the Ohlone people to convert to Catholicism and construct the Mission churches.3 The location of Mission San Jose and labor from the Ohlone people contributed to the Mission’s success; it had herds of cattle, horses, and sheep in the valleys and hills of the East Bay, and produced enough food to send to other Missions.4
(See Continuation Sheet.)
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *B12. References:

See Continuation Sheets.

B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: TreanorHL
*Date of Evaluation: June 17, 2022
Packet Page 479
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 38288-38394 Cedar Boulevard

*P3a. Description, Continued:

The subject properties with addresses (Google Earth, imagery date February 2021). 38288 Cedar Boulevard
The one-story double-height light industrial warehouse with an addition at 38288 Cedar Boulevard is rectangular in plan. The wood-frame building is clad in corrugated metal and has a moderately pitched gable roof. Two turbine vents punctuate the roof.

The south and north façades each have nearly full-height double sliding doors. Partially obstructed by a transport truck, the west façade appears to be comparatively plain. A shed-roof unit is attached to the east façade. This addition is rectangular in plan, spans the partial length of the main building, and is clad in corrugated metal. The structure has two single wood doors: one on the north façade and the other on the east façade. One aluminum-sash sliding window is also on the east façade. Three shipping containers sit nearby: one abuts the east façade, one by the north façade, and one to the northeast of the building.

The south and east façades of 38288 Cedar Boulevard.

Packet Page 480
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 38288-38394 Cedar Boulevard

38370 Cedar Boulevard
The structures at 38370 Cedar Boulevard include a light industrial building, a smaller vernacular building, and multiple shipping containers. Constructed in 1963, the one-story double-height wood-frame light industrial warehouse is rectangular in plan with a gable roof. The building, including the roof, is clad in corrugated metal. The south façade features full-height corrugated metal double sliding doors. The west façade has a single metal door on the north end but is otherwise plain. A wheeled metal container and mechanical system structures abut the west façade. The east façade was obscured by a large RV. Nearly full-height corrugated metal double sliding doors are on the north façade. A worn metal sign sits on the gable end. A simple wood door with wood trim is sheltered under a low pitched, corrugated metal-clad gabled porch with two posts and exposed rafters. Flanking the door are two aluminum-sash sliding windows.

The vernacular one-story wood-frame building to the southeast is rectangular in plan. The building is clad in vertical clapboard and capped with an asphalt-shingled hipped-roof with a wide eave overhang. The primary window type is aluminum-sash sliding. A single wood door is on the west façade.

The north façade of 38370 Cedar Boulevard.

The vernacular office building at 38370 Cedar Boulevard. 38424 Cedar Boulevard
Constructed in 1978, the one-story double-height wood-frame light industrial and commercial building at 38424 Cedar Boulevard is rectangular in plan and is clad entirely in corrugated metal. The building is capped by a low-pitched front gabled roof.

Packet Page 481
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 38288-38394 Cedar Boulevard

The south façade features a roll-up metal door, an off-center business sign, an opening with metal shutters and two single doors: a wide glazed metal door and a solid metal door. An off-center commercial storefront features an aluminum-sash multi-pane glazed door and four surrounding aluminum-sash fixed windows. The west façade is comparatively plain and has one square metal vent. The north façade has a nearly full-height metal roll-up door. The east façade is punctuated by two metal roll-up doors.

The north façade of 38424 Cedar Boulevard.
38456 Cedar Boulevard
Constructed in 1978, the one-story double-height light industrial building is rectangular in plan and clad in corrugated metal. It is capped by a low-pitched front gabled roof. The south façade has an off-centered nearly full-height roll-up metal door. Sheltered under two business signs are an aluminum-sash sliding window and an aluminum-jamb metal glazed door. The west façade is punctuated by a nearly full-height metal roll-up door, two single metal doors with metal casing, and an aluminum-sash two-pane sliding window behind security bars. The east façade is comparatively plain with mechanical tubing and four cylindrical vents. The north façade has a centered business sign and an addition which acts an entryway.

The clapboard-clad unit is capped with red barrel tiles and has a single wood door.

The south façade of 38456 Cedar Boulevard.
38472 Cedar Boulevard
Constructed in 1982, the one-story double-height light industrial and commercial building is clad in corrugated metal and rectangular in plan. The building is capped by a low-pitched front gabled roof. The south façade has one aluminum-sash sliding window, and an aluminum-sash commercial storefront with fixed windows and double-glazed doors sheltered under an awning. The east façade features four fullPacket Page 482 DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 38288-38394 Cedar Boulevard

height roll-up metal doors and two single metal doors. The north façade is blind. The west façade has a single solid metal door.

The south façade of 38472 Cedar Boulevard.
38486 Cedar Boulevard
Constructed in 1982, the one-story double-height light industrial building is rectangular in plan and clad in corrugated metal. The building is capped by a low-pitched front gabled roof. The south, north, and east façades are blind. A chain link fence runs against the east façade. The west façade has four nearly fullheight roll-up doors, and three metal solid doors. Two aluminum-sash sliding doors sit off-center of the façade.

The west façade of 38486 Cedar Boulevard.
38592 Cedar Boulevard
Completed in 1986, the one-story double-height light industrial building rectangular in plan and is clad in corrugated metal. The building is capped by a low-pitched front gabled roof. Both north and south façades feature four full-height roll-up metal doors. The south façade also has four solid metal doors with metal trim. The west façade has four multi-pane aluminum-sash sliding windows. The east façade is blind.

The south of 38592 Cedar Boulevard.
38594 Cedar Boulevard
Completed in 1986, the one-story double-height light industrial building is rectangular in plan and clad in Packet Page 483
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 38288-38394 Cedar Boulevard

corrugated metal. The building is capped by a low-pitched front gabled roof. The south, east, and west facades are blind. The north façade features a centered business sign and beneath are four nearly fullheight rolling metal doors, four solid single doors, an opening with metal shutters, and an aluminum-sash sliding window.

The north façade of 38594 Cedar Boulevard.
*B6. Construction History, Continued:

The area where the subject buildings are located was predominantly rural in the early 20th century. Aerial photographs from 1939 and the 1940s show large fields with houses and accessory structures scattered on the properties. In the late 1950s, suburban residential development started to appear to the north of subject parcels. Nimitz Freeway was constructed by 1966 and residential growth dominated the area to the north of the freeway. To the south, the subject parcel and its surroundings stayed mostly undeveloped except for a few buildings along the freeway; these buildings with large footprints appear to be industrial. The industrial building at 38288 Cedar Boulevard was constructed in 1963 and the building at and 38370 Cedar was moved to this location in 1964 during this period. The stretch of land immediately to the south of the freeway remained industrial and commercial while further south single-family residential tracks were constructed on vacant parcels in the 1970s and 1980s. The rest of the subject buildings at 38424- 38594 Cedar Boulevard were all built from 1978 to 1986.5 New residential development started to replace the industrial buildings along the freeway in the recent decades.

Below are the brief construction histories of the subject buildings.  38288 Cedar Boulevard: No records were available at the City of Newark Public Works Department for the initial construction this building. The building first appears on the 1966 aerial photograph. A building permit application for 38370 Cedar Avenue from October 1964 describes relocation of a one-story storage building to be mounted on piers at the adjacent property, so it is highly possible that this structure was relocated here in 1964.6  38370 Cedar Boulevard: The one-story structure with the gable roof was constructed in 1963 as a repair shop.7 The office with the hipped roof was constructed ca. 1980.8  38424 Cedar Boulevard: The structure was constructed in 1978 to be used for equipment manufacturing. The architect was noted as Curtis Lindstrom at 5106 Tenaya Drive, Newark.9  38456 Cedar Boulevard: The industrial building was completed in 1978. The building permit from October 1976 records Frank A. Freitas as the contractor, and Frank A. and Ella L. Freitas as owners.10
 38472 Cedar Boulevard: Constructed in 1982.11
Packet Page 484
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 38288-38394 Cedar Boulevard

 38486 Cedar Boulevard: Constructed in 1982.12
 38592 and 38594 Cedar Boulevard: Two warehouses were completed in 1986. The building permit from January 1985 records Frank A. Freitas as the contractor, and Frank A. and Ella L.

Freitas as owners.13
*B10. Significance, Continued:

When Mexico gained independence from Spain, governmental policies gradually became secularized, ending the Mission system. The Mexican government rewarded soldiers with land in present-day California, beginning the Rancho Era which lasted from 1836 to 1848. Newark fell within the borders of Rancho Potrero de los Cerritos and Mission San Jose. The land was used primarily for cattle, and much of daily activity revolved around an outdoor pastoral living.14 The end of the Mexican American War and the discovery of gold brought in an influx of people to the west, ushering in the American Settler Period (1848-1860). The pioneers bought, rented, or squatted on former Mission San Jose, eventually planting acres of grain and vegetables. The area transitioned from ranchland to agricultural land, and farmers produced enough to ship their stock around the Bay Area.

They built warehouses, landings, and wharfs to manage their exports. Accommodating gold miners, the Mission San Jose structure and adobe buildings were turned into restaurants, stores, lodging quarters, and saloons.15
While Santa Clara County and Contra Costa County formed in 1850, Alameda County was created later in 1955.16 The Washington Township, however, was founded in 1853, and was made up of eight towns:

Decoto, Alvarado (now Union City), Newark, Niles, Centerville, Irvington, Mission San Jose, and Warm Springs (now Fremont).17 Each town established its own schools, stores, post offices, and organizations, but were united in local government.18 In 1878, land was purchased by the Pacific Land Investment Company who named the area Newark, after a castle in Scotland.19 In its earliest days, Newark was an industrial town, determined by the construction of railroads and establishment of factories. The Carter Railroad was being built and provided jobs to many of the men in the area. The Central Hotel provided both jobs and temporary living accommodations for the railroad workers. The railway connected Newark to the City of Alameda, and the ferry lead across the bay into San Francisco.20 The marshland on which Newark was founded aided in the growth of salt companies, who established their factories near the town’s salt resources. The Graham Manufacturing Company, a metalworks Canadian company founded in 1877, moved to California in the late 19th century, and was part of Newark’s growth into an industrial town.21
In the mid- to late 19th century, grain farmland shifted to orchards and vineyards, but by 1900, a disease wiped out most of the vineyards in the East Bay.22 The Great Depression brought people from rural areas to Newark who were hopeful to gain employment from the industrial companies located in town.23 The population grew slightly, and residential areas were developed on orchard lands in the 1930s.24 Newark was part of the Washington Township until September 1955, when Newark became incorporated with a population of about 100. Newark formed a municipal government separate from any of the seven other towns in the Washington Township. Initially, the mayor was not an elected position and city council members rotated filling the position. Jim Balentine, the city’s first elected mayor, began his first term in 1972. City Hall was built in 1966 and construction for the Newark branch of the Alameda Public Library Packet Page 485
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 38288-38394 Cedar Boulevard

began soon after. Residential areas further developed in the 1960s. The city grew throughout the 1960s and 1970s and Newark’s suburbs thrived. Today Newark sits just outside of Silicon Valley, but several technology companies’ headquarters are based in the city, including Logitech, Futuris, and the Pacific Research Center.25
Architect/Builder
The permit for construction of the building at 38424 Cedar Boulevard notes Curtis Lindstrom as the architect. 38456, 38592 and 38594 Cedar Boulevard were built by contractor Frank A. Freitas who also owned the property. The research did not reveal any information about Lindstrom or Freitas.

Architectural Styles
The industrial buildings at 38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard are utilitarian structures without definitive architectural styles. The one-story office building at 38288 Cedar Boulevard is a modest vernacular structure.

Occupants
The subject buildings were constructed for and have been occupied by industrial uses. Lodi Door (1982- 1983) and Overhead Door Company (1986-1993) operated from 38424 Cedar Boulevard. The 38456 Cedar Boulevard property housed Lido Tow in 1984. 38472 Cedar Boulevard was occupied by Maaco Auto Body (1986). The buildings still house a number of businesses including a pavement company, used car dealership, and automobile/truck repair and supply shops.26 Current Historic Status
The subject parcel and buildings have not previously been identified on any local, state, or national historic resources inventory.

In general, buildings less than 45 years old can be considered historic resources only if they constitute an exceptional achievement in architecture or engineering or are of otherwise exceptional importance.

Constructed in the 1980s, the subject buildings at 38472, 38486, 38592, and 38594 Cedar Boulevard are 36 to 40 years old. Neither the visual survey nor archival research indicated that the buildings would meet the special criteria consideration required to be considered eligible for national, state, or local listing.

Significance Evaluation – National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) & California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) Evaluation27
Criterion A/1 – Association with significant events
The subject parcel at 38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard was initially developed in the 1960s, shortly after Newark became incorporated in 1955. The city grew throughout the 1960s and 1970s, and residential suburbs further developed to the north and south of Nimitz Freeway. The strip of land where the subject parcel is located featured industrial and commercial buildings which were developed in the second half of the 20th century. However, neither the parcel or the buildings are individually associated with the industrial, commercial or urban development of Newark; they followed an established trend and do not stand out among many that were built during the mid- to late 20th century. Therefore, the subject property does not appear eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR under Criterion A/1.

Packet Page 486
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 38288-38394 Cedar Boulevard

Criterion B/2 – Persons
No persons of known historical significance appear to have been associated with the subject property.

None of the owners or occupants have been identified as important to the history of Newark or California.

Therefore, the property does not appear eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR under Criterion B/2.

Criterion C/3 – Architecture and Construction
Constructed in the 1960s and 1970s, the one-story light industrial and vernacular buildings at 38288, 38370, 38424, and 38456 Cedar Boulevard are utilitarian in character and do not exhibit characteristics of an architectural style. They are of common construction and materials with no notable or special attributes, and the structures do not possess high artistic value. The associated architect Curtis Lindstrom and contractor Frank A. Freitas do not appear to be masters.

Constructed in the 1980s, the subject buildings at 38472, 38486, 38592, and 38594 Cedar Boulevard do not appear to meet the special criteria consideration required to be considered eligible for listing.

Therefore, the subject property does not appear eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR under Criterion C/3.

Criterion D/4 – Information Potential
Archival research provided no indication that the subject property has the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. The subject property does not appear eligible for listing on the on the NRHP or CRHR under Criterion D/4.

In conclusion, the subject property at 38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard does not appear individually eligible for listing on the National Register or the California Register as it does not have significance under any criteria.

Integrity
Since the property does not appear individually eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR, an integrity assessment was not undertaken.

City of Newark Significance Evaluation
According to the City of Newark’s Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 17.20.030), a resource qualifies as historic if it meets one or more of the following criteria.

A. Historical and cultural considerations:

1. One associated with the life or activities of a person significant in the development of institutions, activities or industries of Newark or Washington Township The property is not associated with any person significant in the development of institutions, activities or industries of Newark or Washington Township.

2. One associated with a major group or organization in the history of Newark or Washington Township
Packet Page 487
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 38288-38394 Cedar Boulevard

The property is not associated with any major groups or organizations in the history of Newark or Washington Township.

3. One associated with a significant historic event of Newark or Washington Township The property is not associated with a significant historic event of Newark or Washington Township.

4. One associated with a major recurring event in the history of Newark or Washington Township such as an annual celebration
The property is not associated with any major recurring events in the history of Newark or Washington Township.

5. One associated with a past or continuing institution which has contributed substantially to the life of the City
The property, which features multiple industrial buildings, is not associated with any past or continuing institutions which has contributed substantially to the life of the City.

B. Architectural and aesthetic considerations:

1. One of the few of its decade remaining in the City (one of six) and is unique or one of a few remaining examples in the City of a particular architectural style or period Constructed from the 1960s through the 1980s, the utilitarian industrial and vernacular buildings do not exhibit any characteristics of an architectural style. They are not among rare examples of their type, period, or style.

2. The work of a regionally or nationally famous architect Neither Curtis Lindstrom or Frank A. Freitas, who are associated with multiple buildings on site, appear regionally or nationally notable.

3. An architectural curiosity or picturesque work of particular artistic merit The buildings do not appear to be an architectural curiosity or picturesque work of particular artistic merit.

4. Contains original materials and/or workmanship of merit. Has architectural, structural, or artistic merit. An important or scarce example (one of six), associated with the architectural and aesthetic character of Newark or of an architecturally and aesthetically distinct or unique neighborhood
The buildings on the subject parcel are of common construction and materials with no notable or special workmanship. They do not possess any architectural, structural, or artistic merit. The utilitarian structures are not associated with the architectural and aesthetic character of a neighborhood or Newark.

The subject property at 38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard does not appear to qualify as historic since it does not meet any of the local criteria.

Overall, the subject parcel does not include any previously designated or potential historic resources. An evaluation of the property at 38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard in reference to the NRHP, CRHR, and City of Newark criteria indicates that the subject property, including multiple buildings on site, does not appear to possess sufficient historical significance for listing on the federal, state, or local inventories.

Packet Page 488
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 38288-38394 Cedar Boulevard

*B12. References (Endnotes):
1 Jones & Stokes, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, BART Warm Springs Extension (March 2003),

3.8-4.
2 Washington Township, https://museumoflocalhistory.org/exhibits/exhibit-washington-township/. 3 Frank Addiego, Images of America: Newark, (Charleston: Arcadia Publishing, 2015), 3; Country Club of Washington Township (Calif.), History of Washington Township, Alameda County, California, (Niles California, 1904), 114.
4 Phil Holmes, A Brief History of Washington Township, https://museumoflocalhistory.org/resources/a-brief-historyof-washington-township/, accessed May 25, 2022. 5 EDR, The EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package, SCDC 38478 Cedar Boulevard, May 19, 2015; City of Newark Public Works Department.
6 The EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package, SCDC 38478 Cedar Boulevard; City of Newark Public Works Department, Application Date 10/30/1964, Permit No. 7199. 7 Email from Matthew Amaral, Public Works Department, City of Newark, April 28, 2022; City of Newark Public Works Department, Application Date 6/25/1963, Permit No. 5602. 8 1979 and 1982 aerial photographs from The EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package, SCDC 38478 Cedar Boulevard. 9 Email from Matthew Amaral, Public Works Department, City of Newark, April 28, 2022; City of Newark Public Works Department, Application Date 3/16/1978, Permit No. 19995. 10 Email from Matthew Amaral, Public Works Department, City of Newark, April 28, 2022; City of Newark Public Works Department, Application Date 10/13/1976, Permit No. 18258. 11 Email from Matthew Amaral, Public Works Department, City of Newark, April 28, 2022. 12 Email from Matthew Amaral, Public Works Department, City of Newark, April 28, 2022. 13 Email from Matthew Amaral, Public Works Department, City of Newark, April 28, 2022; City of Newark Public Works Department, Application Date 1/21/1985, Permit No. 27781 and 27782. 14 Holmes, A Brief History of Washington Township.
15 Holmes, A Brief History of Washington Township.
16 Addiego, Images of America: Newark, 10.
17 Washington Township.
18 Washington Township.
19 Addiego, Images of America: Newark, 10-15.
20 City of Newark, “Newark History,” https://www.newark.org/visitors/about-newark/newark-history (accessed May 25, 2022).
21 Addiego, Images of America: Newark, 10-15.
22 Holmes, A Brief History of Washington Township.
23 Addiego, Images of America: Newark, 17.
24 Holmes, A Brief History of Washington Township.

Packet Page 489
DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
State of California  Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: 38288-38394 Cedar Boulevard

25 Addiego, Images of America: Newark.
26 Newspapers.com.
27 National Park Service, National Register Bulletin: How to apply the National Register criteria for evaluation, 75, https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/nrb15_2.htm (accessed April 26, 2017); California Office of Historic Preservation, California Register and National Register: A Comparison, Technical Assistance Series 6 (Sacramento, 2001), 1.
28 City of Newark, Code of Ordinances, Chapter 17.20.030 – Criteria, Ord. No. 503, § 1(Exh. A), 1-25-2018.

Packet Page 490

GEOTECHNICAL STUDY

PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
(UPDATED 9/8/2021)
38288-38594 CEDAR BOULEVARD

NEWARK, CALIFORNIA
SEPTEMBER 8, 2021
PROJECT PA20.1048.00
SUBMITTED TO:

Robson Homes
2185 The Alameda, Suite 150
San Jose, CA 95126
PREPARED BY:

Geo-Logic Associates
dba Pacific Geotechnical Engineering
1175 Branham Lane, #36222
San Jose, California 95118
(408) 778-2818
APPENDIX 4
Packet Page 491

GEOTECHNICAL STUDY

PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
38288-38594 CEDAR BOULEVARD

NEWARK, CALIFORNIA
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION........................................................................................................ 1

1.2 INFORMATION PROVIDED .................................................................................................. 1

1.3 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES.................................................................................... 2 2 SITE INVESTIGATION.......................................................................................................... 3

2.1 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION............................................................................................... 3

2.1.1 Exploratory Drill Holes............................................................................................ 3

2.1.2 Cone Penetration Test Probes................................................................................ 4

2.2 LABORATORY TESTING........................................................................................................ 4 3 FINDINGS........................................................................................................................... 5

3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS........................................................................................................ 5

3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................. 5

3.3 GROUNDWATER.................................................................................................................. 6

3.4 VARIATIONS IN SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS........................................................................ 7 4 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................ 8

4.1 EARTHQUAKE FAULTING..................................................................................................... 8

4.2 GROUND ACCELERATIONS .................................................................................................. 8

4.3 SEISMICITY .......................................................................................................................... 9

4.4 LIQUEFACTION.................................................................................................................... 9

4.5 LATERAL SPREADING......................................................................................................... 10

4.6 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS ......................................................................................... 11 5 CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION ......................................................................................13

5.1 GROUND RUPTURE ........................................................................................................... 13

5.2 SEISMIC SHAKING.............................................................................................................. 13

5.3 LIQUEFACTION.................................................................................................................. 13

5.4 LATERAL SPREADING......................................................................................................... 13

5.5 EXPANSION POTENTIAL OF SURFICIAL SOILS.................................................................... 13

5.6 SHALLOW GROUNDWATER .............................................................................................. 14

5.7 EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................... 14 6 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS ..............................................................................15

6.1 EARTHWORK ..................................................................................................................... 15

6.1.1 Site Preparation, Clearing and Stripping............................................................... 15

6.1.2 Excavation, Temporary Construction Slopes, Shoring and Dewatering ............... 15

6.1.3 Subgrade Preparation........................................................................................... 16

6.1.4 Materials for Fill.................................................................................................... 17

6.1.5 Engineered Fill Placement and Compaction......................................................... 17

6.1.6 Utility Trench Backfill ............................................................................................ 18

6.1.7 Considerations for Soil Moisture and Seepage Control........................................ 18 Packet Page 492

6.1.8 Wet Weather Construction................................................................................... 18

6.2 FOUNDATIONS .................................................................................................................. 19

6.2.1 General.................................................................................................................. 19

6.2.2 Post-tensioned Slabs (Buildings)........................................................................... 19

6.2.3 Conventional Footings (Retaining Walls, etc.)...................................................... 21

6.2.4 Drilled Pier Foundations ....................................................................................... 21

6.3 CONCRETE SLABS-ON-GRADE ........................................................................................... 22

6.4 RETAINING WALLS ............................................................................................................ 23

6.5 VEHICLE PAVEMENTS........................................................................................................ 24

6.6 SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE........................................................................... 25

6.7 STORMWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM................................................................................ 25 7 PLAN REVIEW, EARTHWORK AND FOUNDATION OBSERVATION.......................................27 8 LIMITATIONS ....................................................................................................................28 Figures
Figure 1 Site Plan – Existing Conditions
Figure 2 Site Plan – Proposed Development
Figure 3 Post-tensioned Slab Typical Section
Appendix A - Keys to Soil Classification, Drill Hole Logs, and CPT Plots Keys to Soil Classification (Fine and Coarse Grained Soils) Log of Exploratory Drill Holes (DH-1 through DH-8)
CPT Plots (CPT-1 through CPT-3)
Appendix B – Laboratory Test Data
Figure B-1 Atterberg Limits Summary Report
Figure B-2 Grain Size Test Results
Figures B-3 & B-4 Particle Size Analysis Test Reports
Figures B-5 & B-6 R-value Test Results
CERCO Analytical Report and Test Results
Appendix C – Results of Liquefaction Analyses
Appendix D – Results of Slope Stability Analyses
Packet Page 493
DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW ONLY Geotechnical Study
38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, California
Project PA20.1048.00 1
September 8, 2021
1 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our geotechnical study for a proposed residential development on an approximately 7.75-acre property with addresses 38288 through 38594 Cedar Boulevard in Newark, California. The Assessor Parcel Number of the property is 92A-2375-2-6. The parcel is referenced as the “property,” “site,” or “project area” in this report. The approximate location of the project site is shown on the Vicinity Map included with Figures 1 and 2 of this report. Figure 1 shows a layout of the existing site conditions. Figure 2 shows a layout of the currently proposed development.

This report presents our findings, conclusions, and geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of the project. These findings, conclusions, and recommendations are based on information collected and reviewed during this investigation. The conclusions and recommendations in this report should not be extrapolated to other areas or used for other projects without our review.

1.1 Project Description
The property is occupied by miscellaneous businesses with buildings surrounded by at-grade asphalt concrete pavements. The proposed development will include demolition of the existing structures and improvements, followed by construction of residential units (single-family residences and duets). Associated improvements will include on-site roadways, underground utilities, and landscaping. The proposed residential buildings will be two- and three-story high, wood-framed structures. No basements are planned for the residential units.

Bioretention basins for on-site stormwater treatment and retention are proposed for this project. Each bioretention basin will consist of 18 inches of biotreatment soil mix underlain by 12 inches of Class 2 Permeable material.

Our review of the preliminary grading and drainage plans prepared by Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar (RJA), project civil engineer, dated July 29, 2021, indicates that site grading will involve cuts and fills of about 1 to 3 feet thick to construct the building pads and to achieve design grades.

The above project descriptions are based on information provided to us. If the actual project differs from those described above, Geo-Logic Associates (GLA) should be contacted to review our findings, conclusions, and recommendations and present any necessary modifications to address the different project development schemes.

1.2 Information Provided
For this investigation, Robson Homes provided us with the following. • A drawing titled “Existing Conditions, Lands of Lebon and Freitas, City of Newark, Alameda County, California,” prepared by RJA, dated September 12, 2018. This drawing Packet Page 494
DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW ONLY Geotechnical Study
38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, California
Project PA20.1048.00 2
September 8, 2021
shows a layout of the existing buildings and underground utilities. • A set of drawings dated July 29, 2021, for submittal to City of Newark , including civil engineering, architectural, landscape, joint trench, and tentative tract maps.

1.3 Purpose and Scope of Services
The purpose of this geotechnical study was to explore subsurface conditions at the project site and to provide geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of the proposed improvements. The following work was performed.

1. Performed a site reconnaissance to observe site surface conditions and to mark locations of our exploration.

2. Reviewed available geologic and geotechnical information pertinent to the site.

3. Obtained two drilling permits from Alameda County Water District, one for exploratory borings and one for Cone Penetration Testing.

4. Notified Underground Service Alert (USA) for underground utility clearance and coordination of our drilling with Robson Homes.

5. Subcontracted with a private underground services locator to check the proposed exploration locations for presence of underground utilities.

6. Explored subsurface conditions by means of eight exploratory drill holes and three cone penetration test (CPT) probes to depths between approximately 20 and 50 feet below ground surface.

7. Collected two bulk samples of the near-surface soil.

8. Performed laboratory tests on selected soil samples from the drill holes and on the bulk samples to measure pertinent engineering properties of the samples.

9. Performed engineering analysis on the field and laboratory data.

10. Prepared a geotechnical study report.

11. Reviewed comments from the City of Newark and their geotechnical peer reviewer.

12. Prepared this updated geotechnical study report.

Packet Page 495
DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW ONLY Geotechnical Study
38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, California
Project PA20.1048.00 3
September 8, 2021
2 SITE INVESTIGATION
This investigation consists of a site reconnaissance and a subsurface exploration program. The site reconnaissance was to observe existing site surface conditions. The subsurface exploration program was to explore earth conditions at the project site. The observed surface and subsurface site conditions are discussed in Section 3 of this report.

2.1 Subsurface Exploration
Our geotechnical subsurface exploration program included eight exploratory drill holes (DH-1 through DH-8) and three CPT probes (CPT-1 through CPT-3). The exploratory drill holes and CPT probes were located in the field by referencing to existing site features and pacing; therefore, their locations are approximate. These approximate exploration locations are shown on Figures 1 and 2 of this report. The drill holes and CPT probes were backfilled in accordance with Alameda County Water District guidelines after completion of drilling and testing.

2.1.1 Exploratory Drill Holes
The eight exploratory drill holes were advanced on November 4 and 5, 2020, using a truck-mounted Mobile B-53 drilling rig equipped with 8-inch diameter hollow-stem augers. The depth of exploration ranged between approximately 20 and 50 feet below ground surface (bgs).

In the field, our personnel visually classified the materials encountered and maintained a log of each drill hole.

Soil samples were obtained using a 2-inch outside diameter (O.D.; 1.4-inch inside diameter, I.D.) split-barrel sampler (also called a Standard Penetration Test sampler) and a 3-inch O.D. (2½-inch I.D.) split-barrel sampler. Soil samples were obtained by driving the sampler up to 18 inches into the earth material using a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler was recorded for each 6-inch penetration interval. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 inches, or the penetration interval indicated on the log when harder material was encountered, is shown as blows per foot (blow count) on the drill hole logs. The samplers in DH-2 and DH-5, the two 50-foot deep holes, were driven with an automatic hammer and the samplers in the remaining drill holes were driven with a safety hammer on a wire winch.

In the field, our personnel visually classified the materials encountered and maintained a log of each drill hole. Visual classification of soils encountered in our drill holes was made in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2487 and D 2488). The results of our laboratory tests were used to refine our field classifications. Two Keys to Soil Classification, one for fine grained soils and one for coarse grained soils, are included in Appendix A, together with our drill hole logs.

Packet Page 496
DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW ONLY Geotechnical Study
38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, California
Project PA20.1048.00 4
September 8, 2021

2.1.2 Cone Penetration Test Probes
The three CPT probes were performed by Middle Earth Geo Testing on November 4, 2020, to a depth of approximately 50 feet bgs. CPT involves pushing a small diameter steel probe (15 cm2 cross-sectional area cone was used for this project) into the ground using a hydraulic jack attached to a truck-mounted rig. The tip of the probe is instrumented and takes almost continuous measurements (roughly every 1 inch) of tip resistance, side friction, and pore water pressure. Graphic presentations of the CPT data are included in Appendix A of this report.

2.2 Laboratory Testing
Geotechnical laboratory testing was conducted on selected soil samples collected from our drill holes. These tests included moisture content, dry density, Atterberg limits, sieve analysis, hydrometer, and percentage passing a No. 200 sieve. An R-value test was performed on each of the two bulk samples collected from the site. The laboratory test results are presented on the drill hole logs at the corresponding sample depths. Graphic presentations of the results of the Atterberg limits, sieve analysis, hydrometer, and R-value tests are presented on separate sheets in Appendix B
In addition to geotechnical testing, three selected soil sample were sent to CERCO Analytical for corrosivity analysis. A report from CERCO Analytical with their corrosivity test results is included in Appendix B.

Packet Page 497
DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW ONLY Geotechnical Study
38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, California
Project PA20.1048.00 5
September 8, 2021
3 FINDINGS

3.1 Surface Conditions
The rectangular-shaped property is bordered by Highway 880 on the north and northeast, Cedar Boulevard on the south and southwest, commercial developments on the northwest, and an Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (ACFCWCD) channel on the southeast. The property is occupied by miscellaneous commercial and industrial business, with buildings mostly surrounded by asphalt concrete pavements. At 38288 Cedar Boulevard, much of the lot is unpaved.

We understand from the current property owner that the north/northeast portion of the property along Highway 880 was once occupied by a paved street. Old street pavements and underground utilities should be expected in the old street areas.

The ACFCWCD channel is about 10 feet in depth and both banks are lined with Gabion type retaining structures. The top of the western channel bank is about 20 to 25 feet from the eastern property line of the subject project.

3.2 Subsurface Conditions
Subsurface soils encountered in our drill holes and CPT probes can be generalized as alluvium.

In drill holes DH-1 through DH-6, a pavement section consisting of roughly 2 to 3 inches of asphalt concrete over roughly 4 to 6 inches of base rock was encountered at ground surface.

In DH-1, subsurface soils below the pavement section consist of very stiff clay of intermediate plasticity to a depth of about 12 feet bgs and medium dense poorly graded sand to clayey sand to the maximum explored depth of about 20 feet bgs.

In DH-2, subsurface soils below the pavement section consist of stiff to very stiff clay of intermediate plasticity to a depth of about 17.5 feet bgs, medium dense poorly graded sand to a depth of about 19.5 feet bgs, medium dense to dense clayey sand to a depth of about 27 feet bgs, stiff sandy clay to a depth of about 37 feet bgs, firm clay with sand to a depth of about 42 feet bgs, medium dense to very dense clayey sand to the maximum explored depth of about 49 feet bgs.

In DH-3, subsurface soils below the pavement section consist of very stiff clay of intermediate plasticity to a depth of about 4.5 feet bgs, very stiff sandy clay to a depth of about 9.7 feet bgs, medium dense poorly graded sand to clayey sand to a depth of about 15.5 feet bgs, and very stiff clay to the maximum explored depth of about 21.5 feet bgs.

In DH-4, subsurface soils below the pavement section consist of very stiff to hard clay of intermediate plasticity to a depth of about 7 feet bgs, medium dense clayey sand to the depth of about 12 feet bgs, and very stiff clay to the maximum explored depth of about 20 feet bgs.

Packet Page 498
DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW ONLY Geotechnical Study
38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, California
Project PA20.1048.00 6
September 8, 2021
In DH-5, subsurface soils below the pavement section consist of hard clay of intermediate plasticity to a depth of about 7 feet bgs, medium dense poorly graded sand to clayey sand to a depth of about 12 feet bgs, firm to stiff clay to a depth of about 17 feet bgs, firm to stiff clay with sand to a depth of about 22 feet bgs, medium dense clayey sand to a depth of about 37 feet bgs, firm to stiff clay to the maximum explored depth of about 50 feet bgs.

In DH-6, subsurface soils below the pavement section consist of hard clay of intermediate plasticity to a depth of about 7 feet bgs, medium dense clayey sand to a depth of about 12 feet bgs, and very stiff clay to the maximum explored depth of about 20 feet bgs.

In DH-7, no pavement section was encountered at ground surface. Subsurface soils consist of hard clay of intermediate plasticity to a depth of about 7 feet bgs, and medium dense poorly graded sand with clay to the maximum explored depth of about 20 feet bgs.

In DH-8, no pavement section was encountered at ground surface. Subsurface soils consist of very stiff to hard clay of intermediate plasticity to a depth of about 3 feet bgs, hard sandy clay to a depth of about 7 feet bgs, medium dense clayey sand to a depth of about 12 feet bgs, and stiff clay with sand to the maximum explored depth of about 20 feet bgs.

In CPT-1, the interpreted soil behavior types consist of silty clay to clay to a depth of about 4 feet bgs, silty sand to sandy silt to a depth of about 12½ feet bgs, silty clay to clay to a depth of about 28½ feet bgs, silty sand to sandy silt to a depth of about 31 feet bgs, silty clay to clay to a depth of about 47 feet bgs, and clay sand to silty sand to the maximum explored depth of about 50 feet bgs.

In CPT-2, the interpreted soil behavior types consist of silty clay to clay to a depth of about 13 feet bgs, silty sand to sandy silt to a depth of about 15 feet bgs, silty clay to clay to a depth of about 27½ feet bgs, silty sand to sandy silt to a depth of about 31 feet bgs, and silty clay to clay to the maximum explored depth of about 50 feet bgs.

In CPT-3, the interpreted soil behavior types consist of silty clay to clay to a depth of about 12 feet bgs, silty sand to sandy silt to a depth of about 14 feet bgs, silty clay to clay to a depth of about 23 feet bgs, silty sand to sandy silt to a depth of about 32 feet bgs, and silty clay to clay to the maximum explored depth of about 50 feet bgs.

3.3 Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered in all eight drill holes and three CPTs, as shallow as 10 to 11 feet bgs, at the time of our investigation. Because the drill holes and CPT probes were backfilled soon after completion of drilling and testing, long-term stabilized groundwater level was not established.

Our review of Plate 1.2, “Historical liquefaction sites, depth to historically high ground water, Packet Page 499
DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW ONLY Geotechnical Study
38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, California
Project PA20.1048.00 7
September 8, 2021
and locations of boreholes used in this study, Newark 7.5-Minute quadrangle, California,” Seismic Hazard Zone Report 090, California Geologic Survey, 2003, indicates that historically high groundwater level at the site was about 10 feet.

It should be noted that fluctuations in the groundwater level may occur due to seasonal variations in rainfall and temperature, water level in the adjacent creek, pumping from wells, regional groundwater recharge program, irrigation, or other factors that were not evident at the time of our investigation.

3.4 Variations in Subsurface Conditions
Our interpretations of soil and groundwater conditions, as described in this report, are based on information obtained during this study. Our conclusions and recommendations are based on these interpretations. Please realize the site has undergone different phases of development and grading. Therefore, it is likely that undisclosed variations in subsurface conditions exist at the site, particularly old foundations, abandoned utilities and localized areas of deep and loose fill.

Careful observations should be made during construction to verify our interpretations. Should variations from our interpretations be found, we should be notified to evaluate whether any revisions should be made to our recommendations.

Packet Page 500
DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW ONLY Geotechnical Study
38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, California
Project PA20.1048.00 8
September 8, 2021
4 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS

4.1 Earthquake Faulting
The Greater San Francisco Bay Area is seismically dominated by the active San Andreas Fault system, the tectonic boundary between the northward moving Pacific Plate (west of the fault) and the North American Plate (east of the fault). This movement is distributed across a complex system of generally strike-slip, right-lateral, and subparallel faults.

Potential sources of significant earthquake ground shaking at the site include several active and potentially active faults in the Greater San Francisco Bay area, as well as faults farther afield.

The faults were first compiled on the State’s Fault Activity Map (Jennings, 1974; Jennings and Bryant, 2010). This map has now been integrated into the US Geological Survey’s Quaternary Fault and Fold Database and made available as a .kmz “drape” over Google Earth terrain files.

The distance to a seismic source (fault) is defined by the NGA relationships as the closest distance to the seismogenic zone, be it in the subsurface or at the surface; distances may therefore differ from distances measured on the ground surface. The distances shown on the table below are for reference only, as they are horizontal distances from the site to the surface trace of the seismic source, and not necessarily the closest distance to a (dipping) seismogenic zone. These distances were measured using the US Geological Survey’s Quaternary Fault and Fold Database, with major faults listed in approximate order of distance from the site; not all sources are listed in the summary table below.

Table 4.1-1: Distance and Orientation to Nearby Faults
Fault Name Approximate Distance Orientation from Site
Hayward (southern section) 4 km Northeast
Calaveras (northern section) 11 km Northeast
San Andreas (Peninsula section) 25.5 km Southwest
San Gregorio 41.4 km Southwest

4.2 Ground Accelerations
According to the 2019 California Building Code (CBC) and American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Standard 7-16, the spectral response acceleration at any period can be taken as the lesser of the spectral response accelerations from the probabilistic and deterministic ground motion approaches. The U.S. Seismic Design Maps tool available at the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) website was used for this purpose to retrieve seismic design parameter values for design of buildings at the subject site. Two levels of ground motions are considered in the Application: Risk-targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) and Design Earthquake (DE), with both probabilistic and deterministic values defined in terms of maximum-direction rather than geometric-mean, horizontal spectral acceleration (Sa). The probabilistic MCER spectral response accelerations are represented by a 5 percent damped Packet Page 501
DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW ONLY Geotechnical Study
38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, California
Project PA20.1048.00 9
September 8, 2021
acceleration response spectrum having a 1 percent probability of collapse within a 50-year period and in the direction of the maximum horizontal response. The probabilistic Design Earthquake (DE) Sa value at any period can be taken as two-thirds of the MCER Sa value at the same period.

Using the Seismic Design Maps application at the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) website, a site Class D, and the latitude and longitude of the site (latitude

37.5330426º N, longitude -122.0098198º W), the calculated geometric mean peak ground acceleration adjusted for site class effects (PGAM) for the MCEG (Geometric Mean Maximum Considered Earthquake) is 0.84g.

4.3 Seismicity
The Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities’ (WGCEP) estimates of the probabilities of major earthquakes are now in their sixth iteration, with the greatest changes in approach being the inclusion of multifold rupture scenarios, in the progressive consideration of more potential seismic sources, the possibility of earthquakes on unrecognized faults, and the inclusion of the notion of fault “readiness”. Current estimates (WGCEP, 2014) for the San Francisco region indicate a 72% probability of a large (magnitude 6.7 or greater) earthquake in the San Francisco Bay area as a whole over the 30-year period beginning in 2014; this overall probability is greater than the previous (WGCEP, 2007) probability of 63%, due mainly to the inclusion of multi-fault rupture scenarios. The estimate for the Calaveras fault alone is 14.4% (revised up from the 7% presented by WGCEP, 2007); for the (northern) San Andreas fault alone, 27.4% (revised upward from the WGCEP (2007) value of 21%); and for the Hayward fault,

45.3% (revised upward from the WGCEP (2007) value of 31%).

4.4 Liquefaction
Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated granular soils, and certain fine-grained soils, lose their strength due to the build-up of excess pore water pressure during cyclic loading, such as that induced by earthquakes. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are saturated, clean, loose, fine-grained sands and non-plastic silts. Certain gravels, plastic silts, and clays are also susceptible to liquefaction. The primary factors affecting soil liquefaction include:
1) intensity and duration of seismic shaking; 2) soil type; 3) relative density of granular soils; 4) moisture content and plasticity of fine-grained soils; 5) overburden pressure; and 6) depth to ground water.

Our review of the California Geological Survey (CGS) Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation indicates the project area is located in a liquefaction hazard zone.

CPT-1, CPT-2, and CPT-3 were used in a site-specific liquefaction assessment, with computer program CLiq V.2.1.6.11 from GeoLogismiki Geotechnical Software. Our liquefaction assessment was based on a PGA value of 0.84g, earthquake moment magnitude of 7.5, and a groundwater level of 10 feet bgs. The results of our analysis suggest that some of the Packet Page 502
DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW ONLY Geotechnical Study
38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, California
Project PA20.1048.00 10
September 8, 2021
underlying soils may liquefy when subject to shaking by the design earthquake, as shown in the table below.

Table 4.4-1: Potential Liquefaction Zones and Estimated Total Settlements CPT Potential Liquefaction Zones (feet)* Estimated Settlements (inches) CPT-1 10-12.3; 29-30.7 1.6
CPT-2 13.5-14.4; 28.0-30.5; 41.5-42.2 1.5
CPT-3 10.8-11; 12.3-12.6; 20-20.3; 24.1-25.4; 26.9-31.7 2.1 * very thin sand lenses not included
The estimated liquefaction-induced ground settlement is on the order of 1½ to 2¼ inches. The estimated Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI) ranges between 6.8 and 10.8. For LPI between 5 and 15, the risk of liquefaction is high. The results of our liquefaction analysis are presented in Appendix C.

CGS Special Publication 117A “Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California” mentions that structural mitigation may be acceptable where liquefaction-related displacement of less than 1 foot horizontal and less than 4 inches vertical are predicted.

Table 6 of SP 117A “Recommended Liquefaction Mitigation Techniques (Modified from Mitchell, 1995 and Hayward Baker, 1997)” lists post-tensioned slab as one of the options under the “Structural” category. We have discussed the use of post-tensioned slab foundations for the proposed structures with the project structural engineer and we understand that the posttensioned slabs can be designed to mitigate the potential liquefaction-induced settlements.

Refer to the “Recommendations” section of this report for recommended design parameters.

Project design should consider the potential liquefaction-induced settlements in surface drainage, gravity flow utilities, pipe connections, etc.

4.5 Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is horizontal movement of soil toward a free face, such as a creek bank, typically associated with liquefaction. Liquefaction-induced lateral spreading can also occur on mild slopes (flatter than 5%) underlain by loose sands and a shallow groundwater table. If liquefaction occurs, the unsaturated overburden soil can slide as intact blocks over the lower, liquefied deposit, creating fissures and scarps. The potential for lateral spreading in general mirrors the potential for liquefaction, and the depth of the liquefiable soil layers with respect to the creek banks.

The property is bordered by an Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (ACFCWCD) channel on the southeast. This channel is about 10 feet in depth and both banks are lined with Gabion type retaining structures. The top of the western channel bank is about 20 to 25 feet from the eastern property line of the subject project, and about 38 to 42 feet horizontally from the proposed houses along the eastern property boundary.

Packet Page 503
DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW ONLY Geotechnical Study
38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, California
Project PA20.1048.00 11
September 8, 2021
To evaluate the stability of the channel bank, we performed a static and pseudo-static slope stability analysis using the computer program SLOPE/W. The soil properties used in our analysis were developed using our drill hole and CPT data and are shown in Table 4.5-1 below. A seismic coefficient of 0.25 was used in our analysis.

Table 4.5-1: Soil Properties for Slope Stability Analysis Depth Below
Ground Surface
(feet)
Soil
Static Analysis Pseudo-static Analysis
Cohesion
(psf)
Friction Angle
(degrees)
Cohesion
(psf)
Friction Angle
(degrees)
0 – 4.5 Clay 1700 0 1700 0

4.5 – 10
(1) Silty Sand to Sandy Silt 0 34 0 34
10 – 12.3 Silty Sand to Sandy Silt 0 34 800(2) 0

12.3 - 23 Clay 1700 0 1700 0
23 - 23.8 Sand to Silty Sand 0 34 800(2) 0

23.8 - 28.5 Clay 1700 0 1700 0

28.5 - 31 Silty Sand to Sandy Silt 0 34 800(2) 0
31- 47 Clay 1700 0 1700 0
47 - 50 Sand to Silty Sand 0 34 800(2) 0
Notes:

1. Groundwater at 10 feet below ground surface.

2. Estimated residual shear strength for liquefiable soils based on CPT-1.

The results of our analysis indicates a static factor of safety of 5.6 and pseudo-static factors of safety of 2.8 under a global search and 2.4 when the failure plane was forced to go through the potentially liquefiable sand layer between 10 and 12.3 feet bgs. Based on these results, it appears the potential for lateral spreading to affect the project site is low. The results of our slope stability analysis are presented in Appendix D.

4.6 Seismic Design Parameters
Design of the proposed structures should comply with design for structures located in seismically active areas. Structures should be designed in accordance with the requirements of governing jurisdictions and applicable building codes. GLA evaluated ASCE 7-16 seismic design parameters for the site using the SEAOC U.S. Design Maps application. The table below lists the seismic design parameters for the site. Note that, in accordance with Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16, a ground motion hazard analysis is required because the Mapped Spectral Acceleration at

1.0-second Period (S1) value for the site is greater than or equal to 0.2 g, unless the exceptions in Section 11.4.8 are met. This should be verified by the project structural engineer.

Packet Page 504
DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW ONLY Geotechnical Study
38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, California
Project PA20.1048.00 12
September 8, 2021
Table 4.5-1: Seismic Design Parameters for Buildings Based on 2019 CBC & ASCE 7-16 Seismic Design Parameter Value
Site Class D
Site Coefficient, Fa 1.0
Site Coefficient, Fv 1.7
Mapped Spectral Acceleration at 0.2-second Period, Ss 1.825 g Mapped Spectral Acceleration at 1.0-second Period, S1 0.695 g Spectral Acceleration at 0.2-second Period Adjusted for Site Class, SMS 1.825 g Spectral Acceleration at 1.0-second Period Adjusted for Site Class, SM1 1.18 g Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2-second Period, SDS 1.217 g Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1.0-second Period, SD1 0.787 g Long-period Transition Period, TL 12 sec.

Note: The site would be Site Class F because it is underlain by potentially liquefiable soils. But if the fundamental period of vibration of the proposed structures is equal to or less than 0.5 second, the Site Class can be determined by assuming there is no liquefaction (ASCE 7-16 Section 20.3.1). Therefore, Site Class D was selected for this project. If the fundamental period of vibration of the proposed structures is larger than

0.5 second as determined by the project structural engineer, GLA should be contacted for a site-specific seismic response analysis.

Packet Page 505
DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW ONLY Geotechnical Study
38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, California
Project PA20.1048.00 13
September 8, 2021
5 CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION
Based on our geotechnical evaluation, it is our opinion the project site may be developed as discussed in this report, provided our geotechnical recommendations are incorporated in the design and construction of the project. Our opinions, conclusions, and recommendations are based on our understanding of the proposed development, data review, properties of soils encountered in subsurface exploration, laboratory test results, and engineering analyses.

Geotechnical considerations for this project are discussed below.

5.1 Ground Rupture
The project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Because no active or potentially active faults are known to cross the site, it is reasonable to conclude that the risk of fault rupture through the project site is low.

5.2 Seismic Shaking
The project site is located in an area of high seismicity. Based on general knowledge of the site seismicity, it should be anticipated that, during their useful life, the proposed structures will be subject to at least one severe earthquake (magnitude 7 to 8+) that could cause considerable ground shaking at the site. It is also anticipated that the site will periodically experience small to moderate magnitude earthquakes.

5.3 Liquefaction
The results of our liquefaction analysis indicate that some of the subsurface soils are prone to liquefaction when subject to seismic shaking. The estimated liquefaction-induced total ground settlements are on the order of 1½ to 2¼ inches. The potential differential settlements would be on the order of 1 inch. Based on our discussion with the project structural engineer, the post-tensioned slab foundations can be designed to accommodate the potential settlements from building loads and liquefaction.

5.4 Lateral Spreading
As discussed in Section 4.5 above, the results of our stability analysis indicates a static factor of safety of 5.6 and pseudo-static factors of safety of 2.8 under a global search and 2.4 when the failure plane was forced to go through the potentially liquefiable sand layer between 10 and

12.3 feet bgs. Based on these results, it appears the potential for lateral spreading to effect the project is low.

5.5 Expansion Potential of Surficial Soils
The results of two Atterberg limits tests performed on near-surface soil samples collected in our drill holes indicate the soil has an intermediate plasticity which generally corresponds to a Packet Page 506
DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW ONLY Geotechnical Study
38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, California
Project PA20.1048.00 14
September 8, 2021
moderate to high expansion potential.

Expansive soils are characterized by their ability to undergo significant volume change (shrink or swell) due to variations in moisture content. Changes in soil moisture content can result from rainfall, landscape irrigation, perched groundwater, drought or other factors. Changes in soil moisture may result in unacceptable settlement or heave of structures, concrete slabs and pavements supported on these materials. Depending on the extent and location below finished subgrade, these soils could have a detrimental effect on the proposed construction.

To reduce its potential impact on the proposed structures, the upper 30 inches of soil below design grade in the proposed building and concrete slab-on-grade areas should be moisture conditioned with controlled compaction per the “Geotechnical Recommendations” section of this report. The post-tensioned slab foundations for the proposed structures should be designed using the recommended parameters in this report to accommodate the potential effect of soil expansion.

5.6 Shallow Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered at 10 to 11 feet bgs at the site (see Section 3.3 of this report).

Typically, groundwater levels fluctuate between the dry summer and wet winter months.

Design and construction of underground improvements should consider the relatively shallow groundwater level at the site. Groundwater can reduce stability of excavation side-walls, impede construction, and induce buoyancy force on buried pipes. Soils below groundwater table will be wet and require drying before the material can be used as fill.

Excavations extending below groundwater will require dewatering and special considerations so construction can proceed in a "dry" condition. Refer to the “Recommendations” section of this report.

5.7 Existing Improvements
Existing improvements at the site include miscellaneous structures, underground utilities, chain link fences, and isolated trees. Prior to construction, the existing structures and improvements should be removed and the resulting excavations should be properly backfilled with engineered fill under the observation and testing of the project Geotechnical Engineer.

Packet Page 507
DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW ONLY Geotechnical Study
38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, California
Project PA20.1048.00 15
September 8, 2021
6 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Earthwork

6.1.1 Site Preparation, Clearing and Stripping
Prior to grading, construction areas should be cleared of all structures and foundations, obstructions, deleterious materials, abandoned or designated utility lines, designated trees, and other below grade obstacles encountered during the clearing operation. The northern portion of the site was once occupied by a street and utilities are expected to remain under the street.

Tree stumps should be grubbed. Roots with diameter of about 1 inch or larger or length of about 3 feet or longer should be removed. Depressions, excavations, and holes that extend below the planned finish grades should be cleaned and backfilled with engineered fill compacted to the requirements given under the section of "Engineered Fill Placement and Compaction."
After clearing, vegetated areas should be stripped to sufficient depth to remove vegetation and organic-laden topsoil. Stripped material may be stockpiled for use in landscape areas if approved by the project landscape architect; otherwise, it should be removed from the site.

For planning purposes, an estimated stripping depth of 1 to 3 inches may be assumed in unpaved areas. The actual stripping depth should be determined in the field by the Geotechnical Engineer at the time of construction.

6.1.2 Excavation, Temporary Construction Slopes, Shoring and Dewatering Excavations for this project are expected to include demolition excavations, cuts to achieve design grades, over-excavations to remove loose and/or disturbed soils, trenching to construct new underground utilities, and foundation excavations. Excavation walls in clayey soil and less than 5 feet in height should be able to stand near vertical with minimal bracing, provided proper moisture content in the soil is maintained. Granular (sand and gravel) soils, typically have little or no cohesion, will require more extensive bracing or laying back because they are prone to sudden collapse. Excavations and temporary construction slopes should be constructed in accordance with the current CAL-OSHA safety standards and local jurisdiction.

The stability and safety of excavations, braced or unbraced, is the responsibility of the contractor. Care should be exercised when excavating in the proximity of existing structures and improvements.

Contractors are responsible for the design, installation, maintenance, and removal of temporary shoring and bracing systems. The presence of existing structures, pavements, and underground utilities must be incorporated in the design of the shoring and bracing systems.

The relatively shallow groundwater level should be considered in the design and construction of excavations. Excavations extending below groundwater will require dewatering. Dewatering should lower the groundwater level to at least 2 feet below the bottom of the excavations. The Packet Page 508
DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW ONLY Geotechnical Study
38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, California
Project PA20.1048.00 16
September 8, 2021
design, installation, permitting, maintenance and removal of the dewatering system are the responsibility of the contractor. Wet and soft soils, if encountered in the bottom of the excavations, should be over-excavated and replaced with ¾-inch by No. 4, clean, crushed rock to create a stable working surface. The depth of over-excavations should be a function of the depth of wet and soft soils. A geotextile fabric may be necessary to help stabilize the wet and soft soil subgrade.

Trench excavations adjacent to existing or proposed foundations should be above an imaginary plane having an inclination of 1½:1 (horizontal to vertical) extending down from the bottom edge of the foundations.

6.1.3 Subgrade Preparation
After site clearing and stripping, the soil subgrades should be prepared as recommended below.

Building and concrete slab-on-grade areas: Soils in building and concrete slab-on-grade areas should be over-excavated to at least 18 inches below design pad grade, but not less than 12 inches below existing grade. The soil surfaces exposed by over-excavation should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture-conditioned, and compacted in accordance with the recommendations given in the "Engineered Fill Placement and Compaction" section below. In structure areas to receive concrete slabs-on-grade or foundations, subgrade preparation should extend a minimum of 5 feet horizontally beyond the limits of the proposed structures and any adjoining flatwork, unless it is restricted by existing improvements.

Pavement areas: Soils in pavement areas should be over-excavated to at least 12 inches below existing ground surface. The soil surfaces exposed by over-excavation should be scarified to a depth of 8 inches, moisture-conditioned, and compacted in accordance with the recommendations given in the "Engineered Fill Placement and Compaction" section below. Subgrade preparation should extend a minimum of 3 feet beyond the back of the curbs or pavements.

Prepared soil subgrades should be non-yielding when proof-rolled by a fully loaded water truck or similar weight equipment. Moisture conditioning of subgrade soils should consist of adding water if the soils are too dry and allowing the soils to dry if the soils are too wet. After the subgrades are properly prepared, the areas may be raised to design grades by placement of engineered fill.

Wet soils should be anticipated during and after rainy months. Where encountered, unstable, wet or soft soil will require processing before compaction can be achieved. If construction schedule does not allow for air-drying, other means such as lime or cement treatment of the soil or excavation and replacement with suitable material may be considered. Geotextile fabrics may also be used to help stabilize the subgrade. The method to be used should be determined at the time of construction based on the actual site conditions. We recommend Packet Page 509
DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW ONLY Geotechnical Study
38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, California
Project PA20.1048.00 17
September 8, 2021
obtaining unit prices for subgrade stabilization during the construction bid process.

6.1.4 Materials for Fill
In general, on-site soils with an organic content of less than 3 percent by weight, free of deleterious materials or hazardous substances, and meeting the gradation requirements below may be used as engineered fill except where special material is required. The existing asphalt concrete, if properly pulverized to meet the gradation requirements below, and the existing aggregate base may also be used as general engineered fill.

Engineered fill material should not contain rocks or lumps larger than 3 inches in greatest dimension, should not contain more than 15 percent of the material larger than 1½ inches, and should contain at least 20 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. In addition to these requirements, import fill, including “non-expansive” fill, should have a low expansion potential as indicated by Plasticity Index of 15 or less (per ASTM D4318), or Expansion Index of less than 20 (per ASTM D4829).

All fills should be approved by the project Geotechnical Engineer prior to delivery to the site. At least 5 working days prior to importing to the site, a representative sample of the proposed import fill should be delivered to our laboratory for evaluation. Import fills should be tested and approved for residential use per the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) guidelines.

6.1.5 Engineered Fill Placement and Compaction
Engineered fill should be placed in horizontal lifts each not exceeding 8 inches in thickness, moisture conditioned to the required moisture content, and mechanically compacted to the recommendations below. Relative compaction or compaction is defined as the in-place dry density of the compacted soil divided by the laboratory maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557, latest edition, expressed as a percentage. Moisture conditioning of soils should consist of adding water to the soils if they are too dry and allowing the soils to dry if they are too wet.

Engineered fills consisting of expansive soils should be compacted to between 87 and 92 percent relative compaction at moisture content between 3 and 6 percent above the laboratory optimum value. Engineered fills consisting of soils of low expansion potential, including “non-expansive” fill, should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction with moisture content between about 1 and 3 percent above the laboratory optimum value. In pavement areas, the upper 8 inches of subgrade soil should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction. Aggregate base in vehicle pavement areas should be compacted at slightly above the optimum moisture content to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction.

Packet Page 510
DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW ONLY Geotechnical Study
38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, California
Project PA20.1048.00 18
September 8, 2021

6.1.6 Utility Trench Backfill
Backfilling of utility trenches in public right-of-way and street areas should comply with requirements of City of Newark and relevant utility agencies.

Backfilling of utility trenches in private areas may consist of pipe bedding extending from the bottom of the trench to about 1 foot above the top of pipe and backfill material above. Pipe bedding may consist of free-draining sand (less than 5% passing a No. 200 sieve), lean concrete or sand cement slurry. Sand, if used as bedding, should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction.

Above the pipe bedding, utility trenches should be backfilled per requirements of City of Newark or relevant utility agencies. Trench backfill above the pipe bedding should be compacted to the requirements given in the section of “Engineered Fill Placement and Compaction.” The backfill material should be placed in lifts not exceeding about 6 inches in uncompacted thickness. Thinner lifts may be necessary to achieve the recommended level of compaction of the backfill due to equipment limitations. Compaction should be performed by mechanical means only. Water jetting or flooding to attain compaction of backfill should not be permitted.

6.1.7 Considerations for Soil Moisture and Seepage Control Subgrade soil and engineered fill should be compacted at moisture content meeting our recommendations. Consideration should be given to reducing the potential for water infiltration from the exterior to under the buildings through utility lines crossing the building perimeter. In utility lines crossing beneath perimeter foundations, permeable backfill should be terminated at least 1 foot outside of the perimeter foundation. Impermeable material, such as concrete or clay soil, should be used for the entire trench depth to act as a seepage cutoff.

Where concrete slabs or pavements abut against landscaped areas, the base rock layer and subgrade soil should be protected against saturation. Water if allowed to seep into the subgrade soil or pavement section could reduce the service life of the improvements. Methods that may be considered to reduce infiltration of water include: 1) subdrains installed behind curbs and slabs in landscape areas; 2) vertical cut-offs, such as a deepened curb section, or equivalent, extending at least 2 inches into the subgrade soil; and 3) use of a drip or controlled irrigation system for landscape watering.

6.1.8 Wet Weather Construction
If site grading and construction is to be performed during the winter rainy months, the owner and contractors should be fully aware of the potential impact of wet weather. Rainstorms can cause delay to construction and damage to previously completed work by saturating compacted pads or subgrades, or flooding excavations.

Packet Page 511
DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW ONLY Geotechnical Study
38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, California
Project PA20.1048.00 19
September 8, 2021
Earthwork during rainy months will require extra effort and caution by the contractors. The contractors are responsible for protecting their work to avoid damage by rainwater. Standing pools of water should be pumped out immediately. Construction during wet weather conditions should be addressed in the project construction bid documents and/or specifications. We recommend the contractors submit a wet weather construction plan outlining procedures they will employ to protect their work and to minimize damage to their work by rainstorms.

6.2 Foundations

6.2.1 General
The Geotechnical Engineer should review the foundation plans and details before construction and observe the foundation excavations during construction to determine if the foundation excavations extend into suitable bearing material. Prior to placement of concrete, foundation excavations should be cleaned of loose soils. If unsuitable soils are encountered in the foundation excavations, the soils should be removed as recommended by our Geotechnical Engineer and replaced with approved material such as compacted engineered fill or lean concrete.

Foundation excavations should not be allowed to dry before placement of concrete. If visible cracks appear in the foundation excavations, the excavations should be thoroughly moisture conditioned beginning at least 2 days prior to placement of concrete to close all cracks. It is also important that the base of the foundation excavations not be allowed to become excessively wet, resulting in soft soils. Water should not be allowed to pond in the bottom of the excavations. Areas that become water damaged should be over-excavated to a firm base.

The foundation excavations should be monitored by our representative for compliance with appropriate moisture control and to confirm the adequacy of the bearing materials.

To maintain the desired support, the bottom of foundations and other structural improvements (e.g. curbs, sidewalks, etc.) adjacent to below-ground improvements, including utility trenches and bio-retention facilities, should be below an imaginary plane having an inclination of 1.5 horizontal to 1 vertical, extending upward from the bottom edge of the adjacent buried improvements.

6.2.2 Post-tensioned Slabs (Buildings)
The proposed residential structures may be supported on post-tensioned (PT) slab foundations bearing on properly moisture-conditioned and compacted on-site soil. Preparation of soil subgrade, moisture conditioning, and compaction of soil and engineered fill should be as recommended in the “Earthwork” section of this report. At least one week prior to slab construction, the moisture content of the subgrade soil should be evaluated. If the soil’s moisture content is lower than the recommended value of at least 3 percent above the laboratory optimum moisture content, water should be added to bring the soil’s moisture Packet Page 512
DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW ONLY Geotechnical Study
38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, California
Project PA20.1048.00 20
September 8, 2021
content to above the recommended value.

The following parameters may be used with the 2004 PTI “Design of Post-Tensioned Slabs-onGround, Third Edition” manual for design of the PT slabs. Per request of the structural engineer, two sets of parameters are provided – scenario 1 based on potential effects from on-site expansive soils and scenario 2 based on potential effects of liquefaction-induced settlements. These parameters are based on ASCE 7-16 Section 12.13.9.2.1.1 which indicates that “for sites with expansive soils, movements from both expansive soils and liquefied soils need not be considered concurrently.”
Table 6.2-1: Parameters for Design of Post-tensioned Slabs Constructed on Native Expansive Soil Parameters Scenario 1 – effects from expansive
soil
Scenario 2 – effects from liquefactioninduced settlements em (center lift) 8.5 feet 8.5 feet
em (edge lift) 5 feet 8.5 feet
ym (center lift) 0.85 inch 1.1 inch
ym (edge lift) 2.3 inch 1.1 inch
Allowable soil bearing pressure = 1,500 psf for dead plus live loads, with a one-third increase when including transient loads, such as wind or seismic A deepened edge, minimum 6 inches wide, should be constructed along the perimeter of the PT slabs. The deepened edge should extend to at least 18 inches below the bottom of the PT slabs (see Figure 3). The deepened edge can help reduce moisture infiltration to under the PT slabs.

Where interior building grades are higher than the exterior grades, the perimeter foundation elements should be designed to resist the lateral soil pressure and surcharge loads acting on the foundations. The bottom of the perimeter foundations should extend at least 18 inches below the lowest finish grades, excluding landscaping soils which are typically not compacted and should not be considered for structural support.

The PT slabs may be constructed on 1 to 2 inches of sand over a 15-mil visqueen vapor barrier over compacted subgrade soil provided a lower water-cement ratio (0.45 to 0.50) is used to help reduce the permeability of the concrete and, hence, vapor transmission through the PT slabs. Sand has been used for protection of the vapor barrier during construction and to allow dissipation of concrete mix water during curing. The use of sand, or equivalent material, should be determined by the project structural engineer or architect.

Settlements under building loads are expected to be primarily elastic. Post construction total and differential settlements of the PT slabs under non-seismic conditions are anticipated to be less than 1 and ½ inch, respectively. Refer to the “Liquefaction” section of this report for estimated liquefaction-induced ground settlement.

Packet Page 513
DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW ONLY Geotechnical Study
38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, California
Project PA20.1048.00 21
September 8, 2021

6.2.3 Conventional Footings (Retaining Walls, etc.)
Footings, continuous and isolated, may be used to support site landscaping retaining walls, anticipated to be less than about 3 feet in exposed height. The perimeter sound walls which may retain up to about 2 feet of soil may be supported on conventional footings or driller piers (see below). Footings should bear on undisturbed native soil and/or properly compacted engineered fill. Preparation of soil subgrade, moisture conditioning, and compaction of soil and engineered fill should be as recommended in the “Earthwork” section of this report.

Footings may be designed for a net allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot due to dead plus live loads, with a one-third increase when including transient loads such as wind or seismic. The footing bottom should extend at least 18 inches below pad grade or lowest adjacent finish grade, whichever provides a deeper embedment. Footings should be at least 12 inches wide. Footings should be reinforced as determined by the project Structural Engineer.

Resistance to lateral loads may be developed from a combination of friction between the bottom of foundations and the supporting subgrade, and by passive resistance acting against the vertical sides of the foundations. Footings bearing on native soil or engineered fill may be designed using an ultimate friction coefficient of 0.3 between the foundations and supporting subgrade, and an ultimate passive resistance of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf, equivalent fluid weight) acting against the embedded sides of the foundations. The passive pressure can be assumed to act starting at the top of the lowest adjacent grade in paved areas. In unpaved areas, the passive pressure can be assumed to act starting at a depth of 1 foot below grade. It should be noted that the passive resistance value discussed above is only applicable where the concrete is placed directly against undisturbed soil or engineered fills. Voids created by the use of forms should be backfilled with property compacted engineered fill or with concrete.

Total post-construction settlement of the foundations under non-seismic conditions is anticipated to be up to about 1 inch, with up to about ½ inch of differential settlement over a distance of about 30 feet.

6.2.4 Drilled Pier Foundations
Drilled, cast-in-place, reinforced concrete piers may be considered for support of the proposed perimeter sound walls which may retain up to 2 feet of soil. Piers should be designed to derive their vertical supporting capacity from “skin friction” between the pier shafts and the surrounding earth materials. Piers should have a diameter of 12 inches or greater. Center to center spacing of the piers should be a minimum of 3 pier diameters. Reinforcement in the piers should be determined by the structural engineer.

Recommended allowable skin friction values for design of drilled piers are shown in Table 6.2-2 below. These values are for dead plus live vertical loads, and may be increased by one-third Packet Page 514
DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW ONLY Geotechnical Study
38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, California
Project PA20.1048.00 22
September 8, 2021
when including transient loads, such as wind or seismic. End bearing capacity of the piers should be ignored.

Resistance to lateral loads may be calculated based on passive soil pressure acting against the piers. The values in Table 6.2-2 may be assumed to act on 2 times the pier diameter, for level ground surface in front of the piers in the direction of load application. The upper 1 foot of soil should be ignored in the calculation of passive pressure. It should be noted that passive resistance is only applicable where the concrete is placed directly against undisturbed soil or engineered fill.

Table 6.2-2: Recommended Adhesion Values for Drilled Piers Depth (feet) Allowable Skin Friction (psf) Ultimate Passive Value (psf/ft) 0 - 7 500 300
7 – 12 300 175
10 – 20 400 175
The presence of groundwater should be considered in the design and construction of the foundation piers. If piers extend below groundwater level, concrete should be placed by the “tremie” method to replace the water in the pier holes. The presence of granular soils should also be considered in the design and construction of drilled piers.

6.3 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade
The interior building slabs will be the PT slabs.

Exterior concrete slabs-on-grade for this project will be limited to driveways and exterior flatwork. Concrete for driveways should be at least 6 inches thick and concrete for exterior walks and patios should be at least 4 inches thick. The concrete slabs should be constructed on a 4-inch minimum thick section of Class 2 Aggregate Base over properly prepared subgrade soil as recommended in the “Earthwork” section of this report. At least one week prior to slab construction, the moisture content of the subgrade soil should be evaluated. If the soil’s moisture content is lower than the recommended value of at least 3 percent above the laboratory optimum moisture content, water should be added to bring the soil’s moisture content to above the recommended value. Design of reinforcement, joint spacing, etc. is the responsibility of the design engineer.

Exterior concrete slabs-on-grade should be cast free from adjacent foundations or other nonheaving edge restraints. This may be accomplished by using a strip of 1/2-inch asphaltimpregnated felt divider material between the slab edges and the adjacent structure. Frequent construction or control joints should be provided in all concrete slabs where cracking is objectionable. Continuous reinforcing or dowels at the construction and control joints will also aid in reducing uneven slab movements.

Packet Page 515
DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW ONLY Geotechnical Study
38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, California
Project PA20.1048.00 23
September 8, 2021

6.4 Retaining Walls
Retaining walls for this project are anticipated to be landscaping walls with exposed height up to about 3 feet. The proposed perimeter sound walls may also retain soil about 2 feet thick.

Retaining walls should be designed to resist lateral earth pressure and surcharge forces acting on the walls. Lateral pressures will depend on the degree of movement the walls are allowed (or desired), the type of backfill, the magnitude of external loads, and subsurface drainage provisions.

For static loading conditions, the walls may be designed using at-rest or active soil pressure.

At-rest soil pressure should be used for walls where movement at the top of walls is restrained or undesirable. Wall movements could cause settlement of backfill and structures supported on the backfill. Active soil pressure may be used for retaining walls where the top of walls is free to deflect and resulting movement of the backfill is acceptable. The at-rest and active soil pressures given below are for level backfill surface and do not include hydrostatic pressure caused by water behind the walls.

Table 6.4-1: Recommended Lateral Soil Pressures for Retaining Walls Condition Lateral Soil Pressure (Equivalent Fluid Weight) for Level Backfill Active 45 pcf
At-rest 55 pcf
Note: To develop active soil pressures, wall movements of about 0.005H to 0.01H may be necessary for cohesive soils, with up to 0.005H for cohesionless soils.

Pressures due to static external loads should be added to the soil pressures recommended above in the wall design. For uniform vertical load at the ground surface, the additional lateral pressure on the walls should be calculated as a uniform pressure equal to the magnitude of the vertical load multiplied by a factor. For level backfill slope, the factor is 0.38 for active soil condition and 0.5 for at-rest soil condition. For other slope inclinations and other types of surcharge loads, such as vehicle loads, point loads, strip loads, consult our office for specific recommendations.

Foundations for retaining walls may consist of footings or drilled piers designed using the recommendations in the “Foundations” Section of this report.

To achieve a drained backfill condition, a subsurface drain should be installed behind each wall extending from the wall bottom to about 1 foot below finished grade. The drain should consist of a 12-inch minimum wide blanket of drainage material consisting of either Class 2 Permeable material (Caltrans Standard Specifications, Section 68) or clean, 1/2 to 3/4-inch maximum size crushed rock or gravel. If crushed rock or gravel is used, it should be encapsulated in a geotextile filter fabric, such as Mirafi 140N or equivalent. Filter fabric is optional if Class 2 Permeable material is used. The top 1 foot below finish grade should be backfilled with compacted clayey soil to reduce infiltration of surface water.

Packet Page 516
DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW ONLY Geotechnical Study
38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, California
Project PA20.1048.00 24
September 8, 2021
A 4-inch minimum diameter, perforated, schedule 40 PVC (or equivalent) pipe should be installed (with perforations facing down) along the base of each wall on a 2-inch thick bed of drain rock, regardless whether drain rock or pre-fabricated drainage panel is used. The pipes should be sloped to drain by gravity to a proper collection system and be discharged at a proper outlet as designed by the project Civil Engineer.

Backfill against retaining walls should be compacted as discussed in the “Earthwork” Section of this report. Over-compaction should be avoided because increased compaction effort can result in lateral pressures significantly higher than those recommended above. Backfill placed within 3 feet of the walls should be compacted with hand-operated equipment.

6.5 Vehicle Pavements
Vehicle pavements for this project will include interior streets, primarily serving automobiles and light pickup trucks, with occasional heavy vehicles, such as delivery and garbage trucks. If the pavements are constructed prior to completion of construction, the pavements will be subject to construction traffic including heavy delivery and concrete trucks.

R-values of 6 and 8 were measured on the two bulk soil samples collected at the site. For design purposes, an R-value of 5 was used to calculate the pavement sections tabulated below using the Caltrans pavement section design procedures.

We understand from the City of Newark that residential interior streets should be designed for a traffic index of at least 5.0, with minimum asphalt concrete thickness of 4 inches. The table below presents our recommended minimum flexible pavement sections for traffic indices between 5.0 and 6.5.

Table 6.5-1: Recommended Minimum Flexible Pavement Section

DESIGN TRAFFIC
INDEX

HOT MIX ASPHALT
(inches)
CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASE
(inches)
TOTAL
(inches)

5.0 4.0 8.0 12.0

5.5 4.0 9.5 13.5

6.0 4.0 11.5 15.5

6.5 4.0 13.5 17.5

6.5 4.5 12.5 17.0
Pavement sections should be constructed on soil subgrades that have been prepared as outlined in the “Earthwork” section of this report. The upper 8 inches of soil subgrade in pavement areas should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction. The full section of aggregate base and aggregate subbase should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction. Evaluation of relative compaction should be based on ASTM D1557, latest edition. The Class 2 Aggregate Base material should conform to Section 26 of the Packet Page 517
DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW ONLY Geotechnical Study
38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, California
Project PA20.1048.00 25
September 8, 2021
Caltrans Standard Specifications and the Class 2 Aggregate Subbase material should conform to Section 25 of the Caltrans Standard Specifications.

6.6 Surface and Subsurface Drainage
Engineering design of grading and drainage at the site is the responsibility of the project Civil Engineer. We suggest the following for consideration by the project Civil Engineer, as appropriate.

Sufficient surface drainage should be provided to direct water away from buildings, foundations, concrete slabs-on-grade and pavements, and towards suitable collection and discharge facilities. Ponding of surface water should be avoided by establishing positive drainage away from all improvements.

6.7 Stormwater Treatment System
Bioretention basins for on-site stormwater treatment and retention are proposed for this project. The bioretention basins will consist of an 18-inch thick layer of bio-treatment soil mix (BSM) underlain by a 12-inch thick layer of Caltrans Class 2 Permeable material. We recommend the following guidelines be incorporated in the planning and design of the bioretention system.
• Underground vaults, bioretention basins, pipes, etc. should be constructed above an imaginary plane extending down at an inclination of 1.5:1 (horizontal:vertical) from the bottom edge or corner of nearby foundations. This may require deepening of the nearby foundations.
• Bioretention basins should be constructed above an imaginary plane extending down at an inclination of 1.5:1 (horizontal:vertical) from the bottom edge of nearby exterior flatwork or pavements. If this minimum set back is not met, the following should be considered.
o Line the sides of the bioretention basins with an impermeable barrier to reduce lateral migration of water.
o Install one or more layers of geogrids in the soil adjacent to the bioretention basins for added lateral support. If the vertical distance between the bottom of the bioretention basins and the adjacent finish grade (H) is 5 feet or less, one layer of geogrid at least 6 feet wide should be installed at mid-height (H/2). If H is greater than 5 feet, additional layers of geogrids should be installed at not more than 2 feet vertical spacing. The length and elevation of multi geogrid layers should be determined by the Geotechnical Engineer after review of the basin design.

Packet Page 518
DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW ONLY Geotechnical Study
38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, California
Project PA20.1048.00 26
September 8, 2021
o Construct concrete curbs for pavements. The concrete curbs should extend below the bottom of the bioretention basins and should be designed to resist the lateral soil pressure recommended in this report.

Packet Page 519
DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW ONLY Geotechnical Study
38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, California
Project PA20.1048.00 27
September 8, 2021
7 PLAN REVIEW, EARTHWORK AND FOUNDATION OBSERVATION
Post-report geotechnical services by Geo-Logic Associates (GLA), typically consisting of preconstruction design consultations and reviews and construction observation and testing services, are necessary for GLA to confirm the recommendations contained in this report. This report is based on limited sampling and investigation, and by those constraints may not have discovered local anomalies or other varying conditions that may exist on the project site.

Therefore, this report is only preliminary until GLA can confirm that actual conditions in the ground conform to those anticipated in the report. Accordingly, as an integral part of this report, GLA recommends post-report, construction related geotechnical services to assist the project team during design and construction of the project. GLA requires that it perform these services if it is to remain as the project Geotechnical Engineer-of-record.

During design, GLA can provide consultation and supplemental recommendations to assist the project team in design and value engineering, especially if the project design has been modified after completion of our report. It is impossible for us to anticipate every design scenario and use of construction materials during preparation of our report. Therefore, retaining GLA to provide post-report consultation will help address design changes, answer questions and evaluate alternatives proposed by the project designers and contractors.

Prior to issuing project plans and specifications for construction bidding purposes, GLA should review the grading, drainage and foundation plans and the project specifications to determine if the intent of our recommendations has been incorporated in these documents. We have found that such a review process will help reduce the likelihood of misinterpretation of our recommendations which may cause construction delay and additional cost.

Construction phase services can include, among other things, the observation and testing during site clearing, stripping, excavation, mass grading, subgrade preparation, fill placement and compaction, backfill compaction, foundation construction and pavement construction activities.

Geo-Logic Associates would be pleased to provide cost proposals for follow-up geotechnical services. Post-report geotechnical services may include additional field and laboratory services.

Packet Page 520
DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW ONLY Geotechnical Study
38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, California
Project PA20.1048.00 28
September 8, 2021
8 LIMITATIONS
In preparing the findings and professional opinions presented in this report, Geo-Logic Associates (GLA) has endeavored to follow generally accepted principles and practices of the engineering geologic and geotechnical engineering professions in the area and at the time our services were performed. No warranty, either express or implied, is provided.

The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based, in part, on information that has been provided to us. In the event that the general development concept or general location and type of structures are modified, our conclusions and recommendations shall not be considered valid unless we are retained to review such changes and to make any necessary additions or changes to our recommendations. To remain as the project Geotechnical Engineer-of-record, GLA must be retained to provide geotechnical services as discussed under the Post-report Geotechnical Services section of this report.

Subsurface exploration is necessarily confined to selected locations and conditions may, and often do, vary between these locations. Should conditions different from those described in this report be encountered during project development, GLA should be consulted to review the conditions and determine whether our recommendations are still valid. Additional exploration, testing, and analysis may be required for such evaluation.

Should persons concerned with this project observe geotechnical features or conditions at the site or surrounding areas which are different from those described in this report, those observations should be reported immediately to GLA for evaluation.

It is important that the information in this report be made known to the design professionals involved with the project, that our recommendations be incorporated into project drawings and documents, and that the recommendations be carried out during construction by the contractor and subcontractors. It is not the responsibility of GLA to notify the design professionals and the project contractors and subcontractors.

The findings, conclusions, and recommendations in this report are applicable only to the specific project development on this specific site. These data should not be used for other projects, sites, or purposes unless they are reviewed by GLA or a qualified geotechnical professional.

Report prepared by,
Geo-Logic Associates

DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW ONLY
Chalerm (Beeson) Liang
GE 2031
Fs/csl
Copies: Robson Homes, Dominic Boitano
Packet Page 521

PROJECT
PA20.1048
FIGURE
1 SITE PLAN (EXISTING CONDITIONS)
38288-38594 CEDAR BOULEVARD

NEWARK, CALIFORNIA
16055 Caputo Drive, Suite D
Morgan Hill, California 95037
Phone (408) 778-2818
Fax (408) 779-6879
Revision:

Checked By:

Date:

Drafted By:

Legend
DH-8 Number & approximate location of exploratory drill hole CPT-3 Number & approximate location of cone penetration test probe B-2 Number & approximate location of bulk sample
Base
GoogleEarth
APPROXIMATE SCALE (feet)
0 80
VICINITY MAP – no scale
Site
DH-1
DH-3 DH-2
DH-5 DH-4
DH-7 DH-6
DH-8
CPT-2
CPT-3
B-1 CPT-1
B-2
Packet Page 522

PROJECT
PA20.1048
FIGURE
2 SITE PLAN (PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT)
38288-38594 CEDAR BOULEVARD

NEWARK, CALIFORNIA
16055 Caputo Drive, Suite D
Morgan Hill, California 95037
Phone (408) 778-2818
Fax (408) 779-6879
Revision:

Checked By:

Date:

Drafted By:

Legend
DH-8 Number & approximate location of exploratory drill hole CPT-3 Number & approximate location of cone penetration test probe B-2 Number & approximate location of bulk sample
Base
Planned Development Permit, 38478 Cedar Boulevard, City of Newark, Alameda County, California, prepared by Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar, dated July 29, 2021 APPROXIMATE SCALE (feet)
0 80
Site
VICINITY MAP – no scale
DH-8
CPT-2 DH-7
DH-5
B-2
CPT-3
DH-4 DH-1
CPT-1
 DH-2 DH-6 DH-3
B-1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA I-880
Packet Page 523

PROJECT
PA19.1048
FIGURE
3 POST-TENSIONED SLAB

TYPICAL SECTION
38288-38594 CEDAR BOULEVARD

NEWARK, CALIFORNIA
16055 Caputo Drive, Suite D
Morgan Hill, California 95037
Phone (408) 778-2818
Fax. (408) 779-6879
Compiled by:

Reviewed by:

Date:

Revision:

Foundation Embedment for Post-tensioned Slabs with Differential Grades Post-tensioned slab
See detail above for
post-tensioned slab
subgrade preparation
Footing (if required by
structural engineer)
Perimeter thickened edge
designed to retain soil behind
Exterior finish grade,
slope to drain
18 inch minimum embedment to
bottom of thickened edge or
required footing
Schematic Only – Not to Scale
Note:

1. Refer to geotechnical report for detailed recommendations.

Subgrade Preparation and Thickened Edge for Post-tensioned Slab Foundations Exterior finish grade, slope to drain
Post-tensioned (PT) Slab, thickness per structural design 18-inch min. below
bottom of PT slab
6-in. min. wide
thickened edge
Undisturbed on-site soil
Moisture-conditioned, and
compacted on-site or import soil
Packet Page 524

APPENDIX A

KEYS TO SOIL CLASSIFICATION

DRILL HOLE LOGS,
AND

CONE PENETRATION TEST PLOTS
Packet Page 525

KEY TO SOIL CLASSIFICATION - FINE GRAINED SOILS
(50% OR MORE IS SMALLER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE)
(modified from ASTM D2487 to include fine grained soils with intermediate plasticity)

MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP

SYMBOLS GROUP NAMES

SILTS AND
CLAYS
(Liquid Limit
less than 35)
Low
Plasticity
Inorganic PI < 4 or plots
below “A” line ML Silt, Silt with Sand or Gravel, Sandy or Gravelly Silt, Sandy or Gravelly Silt with Sand or Gravel Inorganic PI > 7 or plots on
or above “A” line CL
Lean Clay, Lean Clay with Sand or Gravel, Sandy or
Gravelly Lean Clay, Sandy or Gravelly Lean Clay with Sand or Gravel
Inorganic PI between 4
and 7 CL-ML Silty Clay, Silty Clay with Sand or Gravel, Sandy or Gravelly Silty Clay, Sandy or Gravelly Silty Clay with Sand or Gravel Organic See footnote 3 OL Organic Silt (below “A” Line) or Organic Clay (on or above “A” Line) (1,2)

SILTS AND
CLAYS
(35 ≤ Liquid
Limit < 50)
Intermediate
Plasticity
Inorganic PI < 4 or plots
below “A” line MI Silt, Silt with Sand or Gravel, Sandy or Gravelly Silt, Sandy or Gravelly Silt with Sand or Gravel Inorganic PI > 7 or plots on
or above “A” line CI Clay, Clay with Sand or Gravel, Sandy or Gravelly Clay, Sandy or Gravelly Clay with Sand or Gravel Organic See footnote 3 OI Organic Silt (below “A” Line) or Organic Clay (on or above “A” Line) (1,2)

SILTS AND
CLAYS
(Liquid Limit
50 or
greater)
High
Plasticity
Inorganic PI plots below
“A” line MH
Elastic Silt, Elastic Silt with Sand or Gravel, Sandy or Gravelly Elastic Silt, Sandy or Gravelly Elastic Silt with Sand or Gravel
Inorganic PI plots on or
above “A” line CH Fat Clay, Fat Clay with Sand or Gravel, Sandy or Gravelly Fat Clay, Sandy or Gravelly Fat Clay with Sand or Gravel Organic See note 3 below OH Organic Silt (below “A” Line) or Organic Clay (on or above “A” Line) (1,2)

1. If soil contains 15% to 29% plus No. 200 material, include “with sand” or “with gravel” to group name, whichever is predominant.

2. If soil contains ≥30% plus No. 200 material, include “sandy” or “gravelly” to group name, whichever is predominant. If soil contains ≥15% of sand or gravel sized material, add “with sand” or “with gravel” to group name.

3. Ratio of liquid limit of oven dried sample to liquid limit of not dried sample is less than 0.75.

CONSISTENCY

UNCONFINED

SHEAR STRENGTH
(KSF)

STANDARD

PENETRATION
(BLOWS/FOOT) Plasticity Chart
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Plasticity Index
Liquid Limit
"U" Line "A" Line
CH or OH
MH or OH CI
or
OI
MI
or
OI
CL
or OL
CL-ML
ML or OL
VERY SOFT < 0.25 < 2
SOFT 0.25 – 0.5 2 – 4
FIRM 0.5 – 1.0 5 – 8
STIFF 1.0 – 2.0 9 – 15
VERY STIFF 2.0 – 4.0 16 – 30
HARD > 4.0 > 30

MOISTURE CRITERIA
Dry Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the
touch
Moist Damp, but no visible water
Wet Visible free water, usually soil is below the
water table

GEO-LOGIC ASSOCIATES
Packet Page 526
KEY TO SOIL CLASSIFICATION – COARSE GRAINED SOILS
(MORE THAN 50% IS LARGER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE)
(modified from ASTM D2487 to include fines with intermediate plasticity)

MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP
SYMBOLS GROUP NAMES1

GRAVELS
(more than
50% of
coarse
fraction is
larger than
No. 4 sieve
size)
Gravels
with less
than 5%
fines
Cu ≥ 4 and
1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3 GW Well Graded Gravel, Well Graded Gravel with Sand Cu < 4 and/or
1 > Cc > 3 GP Poorly Graded Gravel, Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand Gravels
with 5% to
12% fines
ML, MI or MH
fines
GW-GM Well Graded Gravel with Silt, Well Graded Gravel with Silt and Sand
GP-GM Poorly Graded Gravel with Silt, Poorly Graded Gravel with Silt and Sand
CL, CI or CH
fines
GW-GC Well Graded Gravel with Clay, Well Graded Gravel with Clay and Sand
GP-GC Poorly Graded Gravel with Clay, Poorly Graded Gravel with Clay and Sand
Gravels
with more
than 12%
fines
ML, MI or MH
fines GM Silty Gravel, Silty Gravel with Sand
CL, CI or CH
fines GC Clayey Gravel, Clayey Gravel with Sand
CL-ML fines GC-GM Silty Clayey Gravel; Silty, Clayey Gravel with Sand SANDS
(50% or
more of
coarse
fraction is
smaller than
No. 4 sieve
size)
Sands with
less than
5% fines
Cu ≥ 6 and
1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3 SW Well Graded Sand, Well Graded Sand with Gravel Cu < 6 and/or
1 > Cc > 3 SP Poorly Graded Sand, Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel Sands with
5% to 12%
fines
ML, MI or MH
fines
SW-SM Well Graded Sand with Silt, Well Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel
SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel
CL, CI or CH
fines
SW-SC Well Graded Sand with Clay, Well Graded Sand with Clay and Gravel
SP-SC Poorly Graded Sand with Clay, Poorly Graded Sand with Clay and Gravel
Sands with
more than
12% fines
ML, MI or MH
fines SM Silty Sand, Silty Sand with Gravel
CL, CI or CH
fines SC Clayey Sand, Clayey Sand with Gravel
CL-ML fines SC-SM Silty, Clayey Sand; Silty, Clayey Sand with Gravel

US STANDARD SIEVES 3 Inch ¾ Inch No. 4 No. 10 No. 40 No. 200

COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE

COBBLES & BOULDERS GRAVELS SANDS SILTS AND CLAYS

RELATIVE DENSITY
(SANDS AND GRAVELS)

STANDARD

PENETRATION
(BLOWS/FOOT)

1. Add “with sand” to group name if material contains 15% or greater of sand-sized particle. Add “with gravel” to group name if material contains 15% or greater of gravel-sized particle.

Very Loose 0 - 4
Loose 5 – 10 MOISTURE CRITERIA
Medium Dense 11 – 30 Dry Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch Dense 31 - 50 Moist Damp, but no visible water
Very Dense 50+ Wet Visible free water, usually soi is below the water table

GEO-LOGIC ASSOCIATES
Packet Page 527
DATE: DH- 1
PROJECT NUMBER:

LOGGED BY:

HOLE ELEVATION:

D = 3" OD, 2½" ID Split-spoon
X = 2½" OD, 2" ID Split-spoon
I = Standard Penetrometer (2" OD SPT)
S = Slough in sample

SOIL TYPE
DEPTH
(ft)
SAMPLE

BLOWS PER
FOOT

POCKET PEN
(tsf)
% PASSING
#200 SIEVE
LIQUID
LIMIT
WATER

CONTENT

PLASTICITY
INDEX

DRY DENSITY
(pcf)

FAILURE
STRAIN (%)

UNCONFINED

COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH (psf)
CI
S
D
D
S
D
D 3.25 19 109
S
D
D 18 111
SPSC/
SC
S
D
D 17 111
S
D
D
PAGE:
11/4/2020 LOG OF EXPLORATORY DRILL HOLE
PROJECT NAME: 38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, CA PA20.1048 DRILL RIG: Mobile B-53R FS
HOLE DIAMETER: 8-inch hollow stem auger
28 ---
SAMPLER: GROUND WATER DEPTH: Initial: 11 ft
Final: 11 ft
3 4

DESCRIPTION OF

EARTH MATERIALS
Pavement Section (±3" AC over ±4" AB)
1 2
29 5
22 10
11 8
9 light brown
6 7
27 15
12 13
16 17
14 20 BOTTOM OF HOLE = 20 Feet
GEO-LOGIC ASSOCIATES 1 of 1
18 19 medium dense to dense 32
POORY GRADED SAND with CLAY to CLAYEY
SAND: Brown, moist, medium dense; mostly fine
to medium sand
CLAY: Brown, moist, very stiff
Packet Page 528
DATE: DH- 2
PROJECT NUMBER:

LOGGED BY:

HOLE ELEVATION:

D = 3" OD, 2½" ID Split-spoon
X = 2½" OD, 2" ID Split-spoon
I = Standard Penetrometer (2" OD SPT)
S = Slough in sample

SOIL TYPE
DEPTH
(ft)
SAMPLE

BLOWS PER
FOOT

POCKET PEN
(tsf)
% PASSING
#200 SIEVE
LIQUID
LIMIT
WATER

CONTENT

PLASTICITY
INDEX

DRY DENSITY
(pcf)

FAILURE
STRAIN (%)

UNCONFINED

COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH (psf)
CI
S
D
D 1.25 18 111
S
D
D 1.5 17 115
S
D
D 1.0 25 100
S
D
D 1.75 19 113
SP
S
D
SC D 43 106
PAGE:
16 10
3 43
6 9
7 8
11/4/2020 LOG OF EXPLORATORY DRILL HOLE
PROJECT NAME: 38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, CA
Initial:
4 dark gray brown
41 5
PA20.1048
DRILL RIG: Mobile B-53R, automatic hammer FS
2 HOLE DIAMETER: 8-inch hollow stem auger ---
SAMPLER: GROUND WATER DEPTH: 18 ft
Final: 39.5 ft

DESCRIPTION OF

EARTH MATERIALS
Pavement Section (±2.5" AC over ±4" AB)
1 37
13 gray, wet, stiff
14 medium gray brown, moist, stiff to very stiff
11 12
16 17
15 20
GEO-LOGIC ASSOCIATES 1 of 3
18 19
32 POORLY GRADED SAND: Gray, wet, medium
dense to dense; mostly fine sand
CLAYEY SAND: see next page
CLAY: Dark brown, moist, stiff to very stiff
Packet Page 529
DATE: DH- 2
PROJECT NUMBER:

LOGGED BY:

HOLE ELEVATION:

D = 3" OD, 2½" ID Split-spoon
X = 2½" OD, 2" ID Split-spoon
I = Standard Penetrometer (2" OD SPT)
S = Slough in sample

SOIL TYPE
DEPTH
(ft)
SAMPLE

BLOWS PER
FOOT

POCKET PEN
(tsf)
% PASSING
#200 SIEVE
LIQUID
LIMIT
WATER

CONTENT

PLASTICITY
INDEX

DRY DENSITY
(pcf)

FAILURE
STRAIN (%)

UNCONFINED

COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH (psf)
SC
S
I
I 18 25
CI
S
I
I 67 31
S
I
I 42 34 20
CI
S
I
I 24
PAGE:
37 10
18 4
---
SAMPLER: GROUND WATER DEPTH: Initial: 18 ft
Final: 39.5 ft
11/4/2020 LOG OF EXPLORATORY DRILL HOLE
PROJECT NAME: 38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, CA PA20.1048 DRILL RIG: Mobile B-53R, automatic hammer FS

DESCRIPTION OF

EARTH MATERIALS
21 22
HOLE DIAMETER: 8-inch hollow stem auger
25 26
23 24 dense
29 30
27 28
33 34
31 32
37 38
35 36
GEO-LOGIC ASSOCIATES 2 of 3
39 40
SANDY CLAY: Gray, wet, stiff; with mostly fine
sand
CLAY with SAND: Gray, moist to wet, firm; with
mostly fine sand
CLAYEY SAND: Brown, wet, medium dense to
dense; mostly fine sand
Packet Page 530
DATE: DH- 2
PROJECT NUMBER:

LOGGED BY:

HOLE ELEVATION:

D = 3" OD, 2½" ID Split-spoon
X = 2½" OD, 2" ID Split-spoon
I = Standard Penetrometer (2" OD SPT)
S = Slough in sample

SOIL TYPE
DEPTH
(ft)
SAMPLE

BLOWS PER
FOOT

POCKET PEN
(tsf)
% PASSING
#200 SIEVE
LIQUID
LIMIT
WATER

CONTENT

PLASTICITY
INDEX

DRY DENSITY
(pcf)

FAILURE
STRAIN (%)

UNCONFINED

COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH (psf)
CI
SC
S
I
I 44 26
SC
I 50/6" 19 14
PAGE:
17 11/4/2020 LOG OF EXPLORATORY DRILL HOLE
PROJECT NAME: 38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, CA PA20.1048 SAMPLER: GROUND WATER DEPTH: Initial: 18 ft
Final: 39.5 ft
DRILL RIG: Mobile B-53R, automatic hammer FS
HOLE DIAMETER: 8-inch hollow stem auger ---
43 44

DESCRIPTION OF

EARTH MATERIALS
CLAY with SAND (continued)
41 42
47 48
45 46
GEO-LOGIC ASSOCIATES 3 of 3
59 60
57 58
51 52
49 50
55 56
53 54
BOTTOM OF HOLE = 49 Feet
CLAYEY SAND: Gray, wet, medium dense; mostly
CLAYEY SAND: Gray, moist to wet, very dense;
fine to coarse sand; with fine gravel
Packet Page 531
DATE: DH- 3
PROJECT NUMBER:

LOGGED BY:

HOLE ELEVATION:

D = 3" OD, 2½" ID Split-spoon
X = 2½" OD, 2" ID Split-spoon
I = Standard Penetrometer (2" OD SPT)
S = Slough in sample

SOIL TYPE
DEPTH
(ft)
SAMPLE

BLOWS PER
FOOT

POCKET PEN
(tsf)
% PASSING
#200 SIEVE
LIQUID
LIMIT
WATER

CONTENT

PLASTICITY
INDEX

DRY DENSITY
(pcf)

FAILURE
STRAIN (%)

UNCONFINED

COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH (psf)
CI
S
D
D 3.5 15 117
S
D 3.0
CI D 16 115
S
D 2.5
D 12 101
SPSC/
SC
S
D
D (no sample recovery)
S
CI D
D
S
D
D (no sample recovery)
PAGE:
25 ---
SAMPLER: GROUND WATER DEPTH: Initial: ---
Final: 11.5 ft
Pavement Section (±2" AC over ±6" AB)
1 2 33
6 7
11/4/2020 LOG OF EXPLORATORY DRILL HOLE
PROJECT NAME: 38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, CA PA20.1048 DRILL RIG: Mobile B-53R FS

DESCRIPTION OF

EARTH MATERIALS
HOLE DIAMETER: 8-inch hollow stem auger
3 4
light brown
5 10
11 8
9 16
15 12
13 16
17 14
20 GEO-LOGIC ASSOCIATES 1 of 2
18 19
28 21
22 POORLY GRADED SAND with CLAY to CLAYEY
SAND: Gray, moist, medium dense; mostly fine
sand
SANDY CLAY: Light brown, moist, very stiff; with
CLAY: Dark brown, moist, very stiff
CLAY: Brown, moist, very stiff
Packet Page 532
DATE: DH- 3
PROJECT NUMBER:

LOGGED BY:

HOLE ELEVATION:

D = 3" OD, 2½" ID Split-spoon
X = 2½" OD, 2" ID Split-spoon
I = Standard Penetrometer (2" OD SPT)
S = Slough in sample

SOIL TYPE
DEPTH
(ft)
SAMPLE

BLOWS PER
FOOT

POCKET PEN
(tsf)
% PASSING
#200 SIEVE
LIQUID
LIMIT
WATER

CONTENT

PLASTICITY
INDEX

DRY DENSITY
(pcf)

FAILURE
STRAIN (%)

UNCONFINED

COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH (psf)
CI S
I
I
PAGE:
16 11/4/2020 LOG OF EXPLORATORY DRILL HOLE
---
SAMPLER: GROUND WATER DEPTH: Initial: ---
Final: 11.5 ft
PROJECT NAME: 38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, CA PA20.1048 DRILL RIG: Mobile B-53R FS

DESCRIPTION OF

EARTH MATERIALS
CLAY (continued): wet
21 22
HOLE DIAMETER: 8-inch hollow stem auger
25 26
23 24
29 30
27 28
33 34
31 32
37 38
35 36
GEO-LOGIC ASSOCIATES 2 of 2
39 40
BOTTOM OF HOLE = 21.5 Feet
Packet Page 533
DATE: DH- 4
PROJECT NUMBER:

LOGGED BY:

HOLE ELEVATION:

D = 3" OD, 2½" ID Split-spoon
X = 2½" OD, 2" ID Split-spoon
I = Standard Penetrometer (2" OD SPT)
S = Slough in sample

SOIL TYPE
DEPTH
(ft)
SAMPLE

BLOWS PER
FOOT

POCKET PEN
(tsf)
% PASSING
#200 SIEVE
LIQUID
LIMIT
WATER

CONTENT

PLASTICITY
INDEX

DRY DENSITY
(pcf)

FAILURE
STRAIN (%)

UNCONFINED

COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH (psf)
CL/
CI S
D
D 85 35 19 20 111
S
D
D 4.5 15 116
SC
S
D
D 28 9 92
CI
S
D
D
S
D
D
PAGE:
37 ---
SAMPLER: GROUND WATER DEPTH: Initial: ---
Final: 11 ft
11/4/2020 LOG OF EXPLORATORY DRILL HOLE
PROJECT NAME: 38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, CA PA20.1048 DRILL RIG: Mobile B-53R FS
HOLE DIAMETER: 8-inch hollow stem auger
3 4

DESCRIPTION OF

EARTH MATERIALS
Pavement Section (±2" AC over ±4" AB)
1 2
43 hard
5 21
10 11
8 9
6 7
25 15
12 13
16 17
14 20 BOTTOM OF HOLE = 20 Feet
GEO-LOGIC ASSOCIATES 1 of 1
18 with some fine sand 19
19 CLAYEY SAND: Brown, moist, medium dense;
mostly fine sand
CLAY: Brown, moist, stiff to very stiff
LEAN CLAY to CLAY: Dark brown, moist, very stiff
to hard
Packet Page 534
DATE: DH- 5
PROJECT NUMBER:

LOGGED BY:

HOLE ELEVATION:

D = 3" OD, 2½" ID Split-spoon
X = 2½" OD, 2" ID Split-spoon
I = Standard Penetrometer (2" OD SPT)
S = Slough in sample

SOIL TYPE
DEPTH
(ft)
SAMPLE

BLOWS PER
FOOT

POCKET PEN
(tsf)
% PASSING
#200 SIEVE
LIQUID
LIMIT
WATER

CONTENT

PLASTICITY
INDEX

DRY DENSITY
(pcf)

FAILURE
STRAIN (%)

UNCONFINED

COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH (psf)
CI
S
D 4.5
D 4.5+ 14 111
S
D
D 4.5+ 7 126
SPSC/
SC
S
D
D 10 110
CI
S
D
D 1.25 15 119
CI
S
D
D 1.25 24 102
PAGE:
11/5/2020 LOG OF EXPLORATORY DRILL HOLE
PROJECT NAME: 38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, CA
3 4
brown 22
5 12
10 PA20.1048
DRILL RIG: Mobile B-53R, automatic hammer FS
HOLE DIAMETER: 8-inch hollow stem auger
20 ---
SAMPLER: GROUND WATER DEPTH: Initial: ---
Final: 32 ft

DESCRIPTION OF

EARTH MATERIALS
Pavement Section (±2.5" AC over ±5" AB)
1 2
11 8
9 6
7 6
15 12
13 16
17 14
20 GEO-LOGIC ASSOCIATES 1 of 3
18 19
9 POORLY GRADED SAND with CLAY to CLAYEY
SAND: Brown, moist, medium dense; fine to
medium sand
CLAY: Brown, moist, firm to stiff
CLAY with SAND: Brown, moist, firm to stiff;
with mostly fine sand
CLAY: Gray brown, moist, hard
Packet Page 535
DATE: DH- 5
PROJECT NUMBER:

LOGGED BY:

HOLE ELEVATION:

D = 3" OD, 2½" ID Split-spoon
X = 2½" OD, 2" ID Split-spoon
I = Standard Penetrometer (2" OD SPT)
S = Slough in sample

SOIL TYPE
DEPTH
(ft)
SAMPLE

BLOWS PER
FOOT

POCKET PEN
(tsf)
% PASSING
#200 SIEVE
LIQUID
LIMIT
WATER

CONTENT

PLASTICITY
INDEX

DRY DENSITY
(pcf)

FAILURE
STRAIN (%)

UNCONFINED

COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH (psf)
CI
SC
S
D
D 32 24 95
S
I
I 26 23
S
I
I 34 24
CI
S
I
I 41 32 19
PAGE:
12 8
7 11
11/5/2020 LOG OF EXPLORATORY DRILL HOLE
---
SAMPLER: GROUND WATER DEPTH: Initial: ---
Final: 32 ft
PROJECT NAME: 38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, CA PA20.1048 DRILL RIG: Mobile B-53R, automatic hammer FS

DESCRIPTION OF

EARTH MATERIALS
CLAY with SAND (continued)
21 22
HOLE DIAMETER: 8-inch hollow stem auger
25 26
23 24
29 gray, mostly fine to medium sand
30 27
28 33
34 31
32 37
38 35
36 GEO-LOGIC ASSOCIATES 2 of 3
39 40
CLAYEY SAND: Brown, wet, medium dense;
mostly fine sand
CLAY: Gray, moist to wet, firm to stiff
Packet Page 536
DATE: DH- 5
PROJECT NUMBER:

LOGGED BY:

HOLE ELEVATION:

D = 3" OD, 2½" ID Split-spoon
X = 2½" OD, 2" ID Split-spoon
I = Standard Penetrometer (2" OD SPT)
S = Slough in sample

SOIL TYPE
DEPTH
(ft)
SAMPLE

BLOWS PER
FOOT

POCKET PEN
(tsf)
% PASSING
#200 SIEVE
LIQUID
LIMIT
WATER

CONTENT

PLASTICITY
INDEX

DRY DENSITY
(pcf)

FAILURE
STRAIN (%)

UNCONFINED

COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH (psf)
CI
S
I
I 20
S
I
I 23
PAGE:
17 19
11/5/2020 LOG OF EXPLORATORY DRILL HOLE
PROJECT NAME: 38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, CA PA20.1048 SAMPLER: GROUND WATER DEPTH: Initial: ---
Final: 32 ft
DRILL RIG: Mobile B-53R, automatic hammer FS
HOLE DIAMETER: 8-inch hollow stem auger ---
43 44 stiff

DESCRIPTION OF

EARTH MATERIALS
CLAY (continued)
41 42
47 48
45 46
51 52
49 50
55 56
53 54
GEO-LOGIC ASSOCIATES 3 of 3
59 60
57 58
BOTTOM OF HOLE = 50 Feet
Packet Page 537
DATE: DH- 6
PROJECT NUMBER:

LOGGED BY:

HOLE ELEVATION:

D = 3" OD, 2½" ID Split-spoon
X = 2½" OD, 2" ID Split-spoon
I = Standard Penetrometer (2" OD SPT)
S = Slough in sample

SOIL TYPE
DEPTH
(ft)
SAMPLE

BLOWS PER
FOOT

POCKET PEN
(tsf)
% PASSING
#200 SIEVE
LIQUID
LIMIT
WATER

CONTENT

PLASTICITY
INDEX

DRY DENSITY
(pcf)

FAILURE
STRAIN (%)

UNCONFINED

COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH (psf)
CI
S
D
D 4.5+ 16 113
S
D
D 4.5+ 15 116
SC
S
D
D 24 11 94
CI
S
D
D
S
D
D
PAGE:
34 ---
SAMPLER: GROUND WATER DEPTH: Initial: ---
Final: 12 ft
11/5/2020 LOG OF EXPLORATORY DRILL HOLE
PROJECT NAME: 38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, CA PA20.1048 DRILL RIG: Mobile B-53R FS
HOLE DIAMETER: 8-inch hollow stem auger
3 4

DESCRIPTION OF

EARTH MATERIALS
Pavement Section (±2" AC over ±5" AB)
1 2
35 brown
5 17
10 11
8 9
6 7
17 15
12 13
16 17
14 20 BOTTOM OF HOLE = 20 Feet
GEO-LOGIC ASSOCIATES 1 of 1
18 19
25 CLAYEY SAND: Gray, moist, medium dense;
mostly fine sand
CLAY: Dark brown, moist, hard
CLAY: Brown, wet, very stiff
Packet Page 538
DATE: DH- 7
PROJECT NUMBER:

LOGGED BY:

HOLE ELEVATION:

D = 3" OD, 2½" ID Split-spoon
X = 2½" OD, 2" ID Split-spoon
I = Standard Penetrometer (2" OD SPT)
S = Slough in sample

SOIL TYPE
DEPTH
(ft)
SAMPLE

BLOWS PER
FOOT

POCKET PEN
(tsf)
% PASSING
#200 SIEVE
LIQUID
LIMIT
WATER

CONTENT

PLASTICITY
INDEX

DRY DENSITY
(pcf)

FAILURE
STRAIN (%)

UNCONFINED

COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH (psf)
CI
S
D
D 90 39 14 24 112
S
D
D 4.5+ 12 117
SPSC
S
D
D 15 106
S
D
D 11 20 99
S
D
D
PAGE:
8 15
12 13
23 FS
1 2
Final:
---
10 9
11 17
20 19
11 ft
12 ft
Initial:
18 11/5/2020
PROJECT NAME:

DRILL RIG: Mobile B-53R
38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, CA
HOLE DIAMETER: 8-inch hollow stem auger

LOG OF EXPLORATORY DRILL HOLE

DESCRIPTION OF

EARTH MATERIALS
GROUND WATER DEPTH:

PA20.1048
SAMPLER:
3 5
4 6
7 35
light brown
BOTTOM OF HOLE = 20 Feet

GEO-LOGIC ASSOCIATES
16 50
16 gray
14 18
1 of 1
POORLY GRADED SAND with CLAY: Brown,
moist, medium dense; mostly fine to medium
sand
CLAY: Dark brown, moist, hard
Packet Page 539
DATE: DH- 8
PROJECT NUMBER:

LOGGED BY:

HOLE ELEVATION:

D = 3" OD, 2½" ID Split-spoon
X = 2½" OD, 2" ID Split-spoon
I = Standard Penetrometer (2" OD SPT)
S = Slough in sample

SOIL TYPE
DEPTH
(ft)
SAMPLE

BLOWS PER
FOOT

POCKET PEN
(tsf)
% PASSING
#200 SIEVE
LIQUID
LIMIT
WATER

CONTENT

PLASTICITY
INDEX

DRY DENSITY
(pcf)

FAILURE
STRAIN (%)

UNCONFINED

COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH (psf)
CI
S
D
D 3.3 19 110
CI
S
D
D 4.5+ 15 114
SC
S
D
D 21 104
CI
S
D
D 1.1 25 99
S
D
D 1.1
PAGE:
---
SAMPLER: GROUND WATER DEPTH: Initial: 12 ft
Final: 11 ft 7 in
11/5/2020 LOG OF EXPLORATORY DRILL HOLE
PROJECT NAME: 38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, CA PA20.1048 DRILL RIG: Mobile B-53R FS

DESCRIPTION OF

EARTH MATERIALS
1 2
HOLE DIAMETER: 8-inch hollow stem auger
30 3
4 36
5 8
9 6
7 12
13 16
10 11
16 17
14 15
20 BOTTOM OF HOLE = 20 Feet
GEO-LOGIC ASSOCIATES 1 of 1
18 19
9 24
CLAYEY SAND: Brown, moist, medium dense;
mostly fine sand
SANDY CLAY: Medium to light brown, moist,
hard
CLAY with SAND: Medium brown, moist, stiff
CLAY: Dark brown, moist, very stiff to hard
Packet Page 540
Geo-Logic Associates
Project 38478 Cedar Boulevard Operator JM-ZG Filename SDF(237).cptJob Number PA20.1048.00 Cone Number DDG1530 GPSHole Number CPT-01 Date and Time 11/4/2020 1:33:07 PM Maximum Depth 50.69 ftEST GW Depth During Test 11.00 ft Net Area Ratio .8Cone Size 15cm squared Soil Behavior Referance *Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 0 5
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
0 400
TIP
TSF 0 5

FRICTION
TSF 0 7
Fs/Qt
% 0 80
SPT N
0 12
1 - sensitive fine grained 2 - organic material 3 - clay 4 - silty clay to clay 5 - clayey silt to silty clay 6 - sandy silt to clayey silt 7 - silty sand to sandy silt 8 - sand to silty sand 9 - sand 10 - gravelly sand to sand 11 - very stiff fine grained (*)12 - sand to clayey sand (*)

CPT DATA
DEPTH
(ft)
SOIL

BEHAVIOR
TYPE
Packet Page 541
Geo-Logic Associates
Project 38478 Cedar Boulevard Operator JM-ZG Filename SDF(238).cptJob Number PA20.1048.00 Cone Number DDG1530 GPSHole Number CPT-02 Date and Time 11/4/2020 3:06:10 PM Maximum Depth 50.52 ftEST GW Depth During Test 9.70 ft Net Area Ratio .8Cone Size 15cm squared Soil Behavior Referance *Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 0 5
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
0 400
TIP
TSF 0 5

FRICTION
TSF 0 7
Fs/Qt
% 0 80
SPT N
0 12
1 - sensitive fine grained 2 - organic material 3 - clay 4 - silty clay to clay 5 - clayey silt to silty clay 6 - sandy silt to clayey silt 7 - silty sand to sandy silt 8 - sand to silty sand 9 - sand 10 - gravelly sand to sand 11 - very stiff fine grained (*)12 - sand to clayey sand (*)

CPT DATA
DEPTH
(ft)
SOIL

BEHAVIOR
TYPE
Packet Page 542
Geo-Logic Associates
Project 38478 Cedar Boulevard Operator JM-ZG Filename SDF(236).cptJob Number PA20.1048.00 Cone Number DDG1530 GPSHole Number CPT-03 Date and Time 11/4/2020 11:58:55 AM Maximum Depth 50.69 ftEST GW Depth During Test 11.80 ft Net Area Ratio .8Cone Size 15cm squared Soil Behavior Referance *Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 0 5
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
0 400
TIP
TSF 0 5

FRICTION
TSF 0 7
Fs/Qt
% 0 80
SPT N
0 12
1 - sensitive fine grained 2 - organic material 3 - clay 4 - silty clay to clay 5 - clayey silt to silty clay 6 - sandy silt to clayey silt 7 - silty sand to sandy silt 8 - sand to silty sand 9 - sand 10 - gravelly sand to sand 11 - very stiff fine grained (*)12 - sand to clayey sand (*)

CPT DATA
DEPTH
(ft)
SOIL

BEHAVIOR
TYPE
Packet Page 543

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Packet Page 544

ATTERBERG LIMITS
Summary Report
ASTM D-4318
Client : Project No: Lab Log No.:

Robson Homes LLC
Project Name: Report Date:
38478 Cedar Blvd.

LIQUID PLASTIC PLASTIC

LSN LIMIT LIMIT INDEX
4701A  DH-2 @ 34-35' 42 22 20
4701B  DH-4 @ 2-2.5' 35 15 20
4701C + DH-5 @ 39-40' 41 22 19
4701D x DH-7 @ 2-2.5' 39 15 24
This testing is based upon accepted industry practice as well as the test method listed. These results apply only to the samples supplied and tested for the above referenced job.

L : Labexcel \ Projects \ Client \ Robson Homes LL \ PA20.1048.00 \ 4701-PI-Base.xls Print Date: Entered By: Reviewed By: LLN:

DCN: PI-rp (rev. 9/18/12) PP RZS
SAMPLE

IDENTIFICATION
PA20.1048.00
SAMPLE
dark brown lean clay (CL)
4701
December 10, 2020
4701
12/10/20
SYMBOL
* = based on visual classification. No sieve performed.

DESCRIPTION
* gray lean clay
dark brown lean clay (CL)
* gray lean clay
0 10
20 30
40 50
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

PLASTIC INDEX (PI)

LIQUID LIMIT (LL)

PLASTICITY CHART

CL - ML
ML or OL
MH or OH
CL or OL
CH or OH
U - Line
A - Line
Packet Page 545

48.5 SAMPLE 0

US STANDARD SIEVES

COARSE MEDIUM FINE
B-2

SIEVE NUMBER
COARSE

16.5% 21.2% 62.3%
SQUARE OPENING (in)
FINE

HYDROMETER
GEO-LOGIC ASSOCIATES Figure
REMARKS:

COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT & CLAY
2 DEPTH (ft) 11/25/2020
SOURCE/QUARRY:

DESCRIPTION OF SOIL:

DATE OF TEST
Clayey Sand with Gravel
DRILL HOLE No.
---

GRAIN SIZE TEST RESULTS
PROJECT NAME 38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard PROJECT No. PA20.1048 3 1½ 3/8 4 3/4 10 20 40 100 200
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100% 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT

PERCENT COARSER BY WEIGHT
GRAIN SIZE (mm)
RevOct20070
Packet Page 546

PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
Test Report
ASTM D-6913 / D-7928, (replacing D-422)
Method A: (+/-1%)
Client : Project No: Lab Sample No:

ROBSON HOMES LLC PA20.1048.00 4701B
Project Name: Report Date:
38478 CEDAR BLVD.

COARSE
Description
Size Passing, mm D60 = D10 = 5 micron (%) = 43
Coefficient of Curvature, Cc: Coefficient of Uniformity, Cu: N/A Fineness Modulus = 0.07 Note: * Percentages are +/- 0.1% based on computer rounding as allowed by ASTM D-6026-01 Section 5.2.3.

This testing is based upon accepted industry practice as well as the test method listed. These results apply only to the samples supplied and tested for the above referenced job.

L : Labexcel \ Projects \ Client \ Client Name \ 4701 \ 4701B-ma Print Date: Entered By: Reviewed By: LSN:

DCN: MA-rp (rev. 6/27/12) 12/10/20 PP RZS 4701B

HYDROMETER
% Gravel % Sand
N/A

0.0 15.3 84.7
% Silt - Clay
December 10, 2020
GRAVEL
MEDIUM
SAND
COARSE

SILT AND CLAY
US STANDARD SIEVE SIZE No.

FINE

US SIEVE SIZE, INCHES
FINE

BOULDERS COBBLES

0.02 Symbol
DH-4 @ 2-2.5' dark brown lean clay (CL)
N/A
D30 = 0.00
Sample ID
6" 3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" 4 10 20 30 40 50 100 200
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
1000.00 100.00 10.00 1.00 0.10 0.01 0.00
Percent Retained
Percent Passing
Particle Diameter, mm
Packet Page 547

PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
Test Report
ASTM D-6913 / D-7928, (replacing D-422)
Method B:(+/-0.1%)
Client : Project No: Lab Sample No:

ROBSON HOMES LLC PA20.1048.00 4701D
Project Name: Report Date:
38478 CEDAR BLVD.

COARSE
Description
Size Passing, mm D60 = D10 = 5 micron (%) = 46
Coefficient of Curvature, Cc: Coefficient of Uniformity, Cu: N/A Fineness Modulus = 0.04 Note: * Percentages are +/- 0.1% based on computer rounding as allowed by ASTM D-6026-01 Section 5.2.3.

This testing is based upon accepted industry practice as well as the test method listed. These results apply only to the samples supplied and tested for the above referenced job.

L : Labexcel \ Projects \ Client \ Client Name \ 4701 \ 4701D-ma Print Date: Entered By: Reviewed By: LSN:

DCN: MA-rp (rev. 6/27/12) 12/10/20 PP RZS 4701D

HYDROMETER
% Gravel % Sand
N/A

0.0 10.4 89.6
% Silt - Clay
December 10, 2020
GRAVEL
MEDIUM
SAND
COARSE

SILT AND CLAY
US STANDARD SIEVE SIZE No.

FINE

US SIEVE SIZE, INCHES
FINE

BOULDERS COBBLES

0.02 Symbol
DH-7 @ 2-2.5' dark brown lean clay (CL)
N/A
D30 = 0.00
Sample ID
6" 3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" 4 10 20 30 40 50 100 200
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
1000.00 100.00 10.00 1.00 0.10 0.01 0.00
Percent Retained
Percent Passing
Particle Diameter, mm
Packet Page 548
'R' VALUE CA 301
Project # PA20.1048 Date: 11/12/20 By: LD
Sample : Bulk #2 Soil Type: Brown, Silty Clay

TEST SPECIMEN A B C D
Compactor Air Pressure psi 100 60 75
Initial Moisture Content % 7.6 7.6 7.6
Water Added ml 80 120 100
Moisture at Compaction % 14.8 18.4 16.6
Sample & Mold Weight gms 3210 3162 3189
Mold Weight gms 2103 2092 2100
Net Sample Weight gms 1107 1070 1089
Sample Height in. 2.445 2.48 2.48
Dry Density pcf 119.5 110.5 114.1
Pressure lbs 9360 3430 6050
Exudation Pressure psi 745 273 482
Expansion Dial x 0.0001 100 1 48
Expansion Pressure psf 433 4 208
Ph at 1000lbs psi 35 65 50
Ph at 2000lbs psi 96 143 119
Displacement turns 3.18 4.5 3.92
R' Value 34 6 18
Corrected 'R' Value 34 6 18

FINAL 'R' VALUE
By Exudation Pressure (@ 300 psi): 8
By Epansion Pressure : 13
TI = 5
Packet Page 549
'R' VALUE CA 301
Project # PA20.1048 Date: 11/12/20 By: LD
Sample : Bulk #1 Soil Type: Brown, Silty Clay

TEST SPECIMEN A B C D
Compactor Air Pressure psi 200 70 50
Initial Moisture Content % 6.7 6.7 6.7
Water Added ml 80 120 150
Moisture at Compaction % 13.8 17.4 20.0
Sample & Mold Weight gms 3248 3168 3152
Mold Weight gms 2114 2075 2098
Net Sample Weight gms 1134 1093 1054
Sample Height in. 2.49 2.51 2.53
Dry Density pcf 121.2 112.4 105.2
Pressure lbs 9475 5260 3085
Exudation Pressure psi 754 419 246
Expansion Dial x 0.0001 118 20 0
Expansion Pressure psf 511 87 0
Ph at 1000lbs psi 28 60 68
Ph at 2000lbs psi 87 130 145
Displacement turns 3.05 4.72 5.06
R' Value 41 11 5
Corrected 'R' Value 41 11 5

FINAL 'R' VALUE
By Exudation Pressure (@ 300 psi): 6
By Epansion Pressure : 14
TI = 5
Packet Page 550
Packet Page 551
Packet Page 552

APPENDIX C

RESULTS OF LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES
Packet Page 553

LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT
Input parameters and analysis data
NCEER (1998)
NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value

7.50 0.84
.

G.W.T. (in-situ):

G.W.T. (earthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

Project title : 38288-38594 Cedar Blvd. Location : Newark, CA GeoLogismiki
Geotechnical Engineers
Merarhias 56
http://www.geologismiki.gr
CPT file : CPT-01

10.00 ft

10.00 ft
3 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Clay like behavior
applied:

Limit depth applied:

Limit depth:

MSF method:

Sands only
No
N/A
Method based
Summary of liquefaction potential
CLiq v.2.1.6.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 12/22/2020, 11:22:04 AM Project file: E:\1A_Beeson\1_Active Projects\PA20.1048.00 38478 Cedar Blvd Newark\Engineering\CLiq\CLiq.Cedar.clq 1 Packet Page 554
This software is licensed to: Geo-Logic Associates CPT name: CPT-01 CPT basic interpretation plots (normalized)
CLiq v.2.1.6.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 12/22/2020, 11:22:04 AM 3 Project file: E:\1A_Beeson\1_Active Projects\PA20.1048.00 38478 Cedar Blvd Newark\Engineering\CLiq\CLiq.Cedar.clq SBTn legend

1. Sensitive fine grained

2. Organic material

3. Clay to silty clay

4. Clayey silt to silty
clay 5. Silty sand to sandy silt

6. Clean sand to silty sand

7. Gravely sand to sand

8. Very stiff sand to
clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grained
Input parameters and analysis data
NCEER (1998)
NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value

7.50 0.84

10.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

Use fill:

Fill height:

10.00 ft
3 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Sands only
No
N/A
Packet Page 555
This software is licensed to: Geo-Logic Associates CPT name: CPT-01 Liquefaction analysis overall plots
CLiq v.2.1.6.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 12/22/2020, 11:22:04 AM 5 Project file: E:\1A_Beeson\1_Active Projects\PA20.1048.00 38478 Cedar Blvd Newark\Engineering\CLiq\CLiq.Cedar.clq Input parameters and analysis data F.S. color scheme LPI color scheme NCEER (1998)
NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value

7.50 0.84

10.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

Use fill:

Fill height:

10.00 ft
3 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Sands only
No
N/A
Almost certain it will liquefy
Very likely to liquefy
Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely
Unlike to liquefy
Almost certain it will not liquefy
Very high risk
High risk
Low risk
Packet Page 556

LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT
Input parameters and analysis data
NCEER (1998)
NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value

7.50 0.84
.

G.W.T. (in-situ):

G.W.T. (earthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

Project title : 38288-38594 Cedar Blvd. Location : Newark, CA GeoLogismiki
Geotechnical Engineers
Merarhias 56
http://www.geologismiki.gr
CPT file : CPT-02

10.00 ft

10.00 ft
3 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Clay like behavior
applied:

Limit depth applied:

Limit depth:

MSF method:

Sands only
No
N/A
Method based
Summary of liquefaction potential
CLiq v.2.1.6.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 12/22/2020, 11:23:44 AM Project file: E:\1A_Beeson\1_Active Projects\PA20.1048.00 38478 Cedar Blvd Newark\Engineering\CLiq\CLiq.Cedar.clq 1 Packet Page 557
This software is licensed to: Geo-Logic Associates CPT name: CPT-02 CPT basic interpretation plots (normalized)
CLiq v.2.1.6.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 12/22/2020, 11:23:44 AM 3 Project file: E:\1A_Beeson\1_Active Projects\PA20.1048.00 38478 Cedar Blvd Newark\Engineering\CLiq\CLiq.Cedar.clq SBTn legend

1. Sensitive fine grained

2. Organic material

3. Clay to silty clay

4. Clayey silt to silty
clay 5. Silty sand to sandy silt

6. Clean sand to silty sand

7. Gravely sand to sand

8. Very stiff sand to
clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grained
Input parameters and analysis data
NCEER (1998)
NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value

7.50 0.84

10.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

Use fill:

Fill height:

10.00 ft
3 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Sands only
No
N/A
Packet Page 558
This software is licensed to: Geo-Logic Associates CPT name: CPT-02 Liquefaction analysis overall plots
CLiq v.2.1.6.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 12/22/2020, 11:23:44 AM 5 Project file: E:\1A_Beeson\1_Active Projects\PA20.1048.00 38478 Cedar Blvd Newark\Engineering\CLiq\CLiq.Cedar.clq Input parameters and analysis data F.S. color scheme LPI color scheme NCEER (1998)
NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value

7.50 0.84

10.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

Use fill:

Fill height:

10.00 ft
3 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Sands only
No
N/A
Almost certain it will liquefy
Very likely to liquefy
Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely
Unlike to liquefy
Almost certain it will not liquefy
Very high risk
High risk
Low risk
Packet Page 559

LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT
Input parameters and analysis data
NCEER (1998)
NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value

7.50 0.84
.

G.W.T. (in-situ):

G.W.T. (earthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

Project title : 38288-38594 Cedar Blvd. Location : Newark, CA GeoLogismiki
Geotechnical Engineers
Merarhias 56
http://www.geologismiki.gr
CPT file : CPT-03

10.00 ft

10.00 ft
3 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Clay like behavior
applied:

Limit depth applied:

Limit depth:

MSF method:

Sands only
No
N/A
Method based
Summary of liquefaction potential
CLiq v.2.1.6.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 12/22/2020, 11:24:24 AM Project file: E:\1A_Beeson\1_Active Projects\PA20.1048.00 38478 Cedar Blvd Newark\Engineering\CLiq\CLiq.Cedar.clq 1 Packet Page 560
This software is licensed to: Geo-Logic Associates CPT name: CPT-03 CPT basic interpretation plots (normalized)
CLiq v.2.1.6.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 12/22/2020, 11:24:24 AM 3 Project file: E:\1A_Beeson\1_Active Projects\PA20.1048.00 38478 Cedar Blvd Newark\Engineering\CLiq\CLiq.Cedar.clq SBTn legend

1. Sensitive fine grained

2. Organic material

3. Clay to silty clay

4. Clayey silt to silty
clay 5. Silty sand to sandy silt

6. Clean sand to silty sand

7. Gravely sand to sand

8. Very stiff sand to
clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grained
Input parameters and analysis data
NCEER (1998)
NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value

7.50 0.84

10.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

Use fill:

Fill height:

10.00 ft
3 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Sands only
No
N/A
Packet Page 561
This software is licensed to: Geo-Logic Associates CPT name: CPT-03 Liquefaction analysis overall plots
CLiq v.2.1.6.7 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 12/22/2020, 11:24:24 AM 5 Project file: E:\1A_Beeson\1_Active Projects\PA20.1048.00 38478 Cedar Blvd Newark\Engineering\CLiq\CLiq.Cedar.clq Input parameters and analysis data F.S. color scheme LPI color scheme NCEER (1998)
NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value

7.50 0.84

10.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

Use fill:

Fill height:

10.00 ft
3 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Sands only
No
N/A
Almost certain it will liquefy
Very likely to liquefy
Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely
Unlike to liquefy
Almost certain it will not liquefy
Very high risk
High risk
Low risk
Packet Page 562

APPENDIX D

RESULTS OF SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
Packet Page 563

5.6 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-50-40-30-20-10
0 10
Color Name Material Model Unit
Weight (pcf)
Effective Cohesion(psf)
EffectiveFriction Angle (°)
Cohesion(psf)
Gabion Wall High Strength 140Silty Clay to Clay
Undrained (Phi=0) 128 1,700
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt
Mohr-Coulomb 131 0 34
09/07/2021Cedar Blvd Stability_01.gsz
1:130
Horz Seismic Coef.: 0
Cedar Blvd Slope Stability Description: Static
Packet Page 564

2.8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-50-40-30-20-10
0 10
Color Name Material Model Unit
Weight (pcf)
Effective Cohesion(psf)
EffectiveFriction Angle (°)
Cohesion(psf)
Gabion Wall High Strength 140Silty Clay to Clay Undrained (Phi=0) 128 1,700Silty Sand to Sandy Silt Mohr-Coulomb 131 0 34
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt (Below GW)
Undrained (Phi=0) 131 850
09/07/2021Cedar Blvd Stability_01_seismic.gsz
1:130
Horz Seismic Coef.: 0.25
Cedar Blvd Slope Stability Description: Seismic
Packet Page 565

2.4 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-50-40-30-20-10
0 10
Color Name Material Model Unit
Weight (pcf)
Effective Cohesion(psf)
EffectiveFriction Angle (°)
Cohesion(psf)
Gabion Wall High Strength 140Silty Clay to Clay Undrained (Phi=0) 128 1,700Silty Sand to Sandy Silt Mohr-Coulomb 131 0 34
Silty Sand to Sandy Silt (Below GW)
Undrained (Phi=0) 131 850
09/07/2021Cedar Blvd Stability_02_seismic.gsz
1:130
Horz Seismic Coef.: 0.25
Cedar Blvd Slope Stability Description: Seismic
Packet Page 566

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
38288-38594 CEDAR BOULEVARD

NEWARK, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:

Robson Homes, LLC
Prepared By:

Ramboll US Consulting, Inc.

Emeryville, California
Date
June 20, 2022
Project Number
1690019273
APPENDIX 5
Packet Page 567

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Environmental Professional Statement Ramboll

SIGNATURES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL STATEMENT
We declare that, to the best of our professional knowledge and beliefs, we meet the definition of Environmental Professionals as defined in §312.10 of 40 CFR 312.

We have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history and setting of the subject property. We have developed and performed the all appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312. ___________________________________
Anne W. Gates, P.E.

Senior Managing Consultant

D R A F T
___________________________________
Jason Kane, P.E.

Senior Managing Consultant
Ramboll US Consulting, Inc.
2200 Powell Street, Suite 700
Emeryville, California
Packet Page 568

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Contents Ramboll

CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

1.1 38288 Cedar Boulevard (shown in green on Figure 1) 1

1.2 38370 Cedar Boulevard (shown in yellow and red on Figure 1) 1

1.3 Remaining Portion of the Site (shown in blue on Figure 1) 2

1.4 Proposed Redevelopment 3

1.5 Findings, Opinions, and Conclusions 3

2. INTRODUCTION 5

2.1 Purpose 5

2.2 Scope of the Assessment 5

2.3 Significant Assumptions 7

2.4 Reliance and General Limitations 7

3. SITE DESCRIPTION 9

3.1 Site Setting 9

3.2 Current Use of Property 12

3.3 Current Uses of Adjoining Properties 14

4. REVIEW OF PUBLIC RECORDS AND OTHER INFORMATION SOURCES 16

4.1 Environmental Regulatory Database Review 16

4.2 Historical Uses of the Site and Surrounding Area 19

4.3 Review of Local and State Agency Information 21

4.4 Previous Environmental Assessments and Activities 26

4.5 Environmental Lien Record Search 36

4.6 User-Provided Information 36

5. SITE RECONNAISSANCE 37

5.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions 37

5.2 General Site Setting and Observations 37

6. FINDINGS, OPINION, AND CONCLUSIONS 45

6.1 Findings, Opinions, and Conclusions 45

6.2 Analysis of Data Gaps 46

7. ASTM DEFINITIONS 47
Packet Page 569

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Contents Ramboll

FIGURES
Figure 1: Site Layout and Regulatory Oversight
Figure 2: Proposed Site Redevelopment Map
Figure 3: Site Layout and Vicinity Map
Figure 4a: Sample Location Map
Figure 4b: Sample Location Map – Western Portion of the Site TABLES
Table 1: Metals in Soil Samples
Table 2: Organochlorine Pesticides Detected in Soil Samples Table 3: Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil Samples
Table 4: Volatile Organic Compounds in Soil Samples
Table 5: Volatile Organic Compounds in Soil Vapor Samples Table 6: VOCs and TPH in Groundwater Samples
Table 7: Summary of Groundwater Elevations

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Site Photographs
Appendix B: Environmental Database Report
Appendix C: Historical Research Documentation
C.1: Topographic Maps
C.2: Aerial Photographs
C.3: Abstract of City Directories
C.4: Historical Fire Insurance Maps
Appendix D: Previous Environmental Reports
Appendix E: Environmental Lien Search Report
Appendix F: Qualifications of Environmental Professionals Packet Page 570

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Summary of Conclusions 1 Ramboll

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On behalf of Robson Homes, LLC (“Robson Homes”), Ramboll US Consulting, Inc. (Ramboll; formerly Ramboll Environ US Corporation [Ramboll Environ] and ENVIRON International Corporation [ENVIRON]) performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM International’s Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process E1527-21 (the “ASTM Standard”) of the buildings located at 38288 – 38594 Cedar Boulevard in Newark, California, Alameda County, California (the “site” or “subject site”).

For purposes of discussion in this Phase 1, the site is divided into three areas as shown on Figure 1:

1. 38288 Cedar Boulevard (shown in green on Figure 1);

2. 38370 Cedar Boulevard (shown in yellow on Figure 1) and the portion of where former underground storage tanks (USTs) were located (shown in red on Figure 1); and,

3. The remaining portion of the site including the eastern portion of 38370 Cedar Boulevard (shown in blue in Figure 1) and 38424, 38456, 38472, 38486, 38592, and 38594 Cedar Boulevard.

1.1 38288 Cedar Boulevard (shown in green on Figure 1)
A small portion of 38288 Cedar Boulevard, approximately 500 square feet in extent, is the subject of an open Leaking Underground Fuel Tank (LUFT) case (Alameda County Water District [ACWD] No.

TT0623; San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board [SFRWQCB] No. 01-3514) that is in the process of obtaining case closure. The LUFT case at 38288 Cedar Boulevard pertains to the removal of a 2,000-gallon gasoline UST and a 1,000-gallon gasoline UST in 1989 from an area south of the garage structure. The location of the former USTs at 38288 Cedar Boulevard is shown on Figure 1.

Ramboll conducted multiple subsurface investigations at 38288 Cedar Boulevard between 2015 and 2020 to evaluate soil, soil gas, and groundwater conditions at and in the vicinity of the former USTs.

Based on the results of the subsurface investigations, Ramboll recommended to ACWD that no further investigation or remediation was required at 38288 Cedar Boulevard. ACWD concurred with Ramboll’s recommendation and issued a public notice of the case closure with a 60-day public comment period.

The public comment period for the case closure at 38288 Cedar Boulevard was completed on May 9, 2022 with no public comments received. On June 2, 2022, ACWD issued a letter stating that case closure will be granted once monitoring wells MW-8 and MW-9 in the vicinity of the former USTs at 38288 Cedar Boulevard are destroyed and a final Case Closure Summary documenting the monitoring well destructions is submitted to ACWD and SFRWQCB for review and approval. The monitoring wells destructions at 38288 Cedar Boulevard is scheduled for July 2022. Formal case closure at 38288 Cedar Boulevard from ACWD and SFRWQCB is anticipated in August 2022.

1.2 38370 Cedar Boulevard (shown in yellow and red on Figure 1) 38370 Cedar Boulevard is shown in yellow on Figure 1 and contains an approximately 2,500 square foot area (shown in red on Figure 1) which corresponds to an open LUFT case (ACWD No. TT0590; SFRWQCB No. 01-2452) where groundwater remediation is currently being implemented. The LUFT case at 38370 Cedar Boulevard pertains to the removal of one 8,000-gallon diesel UST, one 5,000- gallon diesel UST, three 1,000-gallon gasoline USTs, and one 550-gallon gasoline UST in 1989 from an area west of the garage structure. For over 30 years, extensive subsurface investigations and Packet Page 571

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Summary of Conclusions 2 Ramboll
groundwater monitoring have been conducted at 38370 Cedar Boulevard, including the installation and sampling of groundwater monitoring wells located within the footprint of the former USTs and immediately downgradient, upgradient, and crossgradient of the former USTs. The results of these subsurface investigations confirm that the impacts from the former USTs to groundwater at 38370 Cedar Boulevard is limited primarily to the former UST area (shown in red on Figure 1) and no migration has occurred since groundwater monitoring activities began in 1989. Only the upper shallow aquifer, where the saturated thickness ranges between approximately 11 to 34 feet below ground surface (bgs), has been impacted and the lateral extent is limited to an approximately 2,500- square feet area, as shown in red on Figure 1.

Three remediation programs have been conducted at the former UST area at 38370 Cedar Boulevard.

In 1989, approximately 100 cubic yards petroleum impacted soil was excavated from the base of the former UST excavation area and stockpiled on site. The soil stockpiles were aerated in accordance with Bay Area Air Quality Management District regulations for an unspecified duration. Following aeration, two four-point composite confirmation samples were collected from the soil stockpile and analyzed for gasoline-related constituents. The reported concentrations were slightly above laboratory reporting limits, respectively, and the soil was reused as backfill in the UST excavation pit.

In April 2021, following approval by the ACWD, an in-situ chemical oxidation (ISCO) groundwater injection program was conducted to promote rapid destruction of chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) such as total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPH-g), TPH as diesel (TPH-d), benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and/or xylene (BTEX), and methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) in soil and groundwater. Post-injection groundwater monitoring indicated concentrations of TPH-g and benzene had increased in the location of the former USTs. The increased COPC concentrations are likely the result of the destruction of organic soil material adhered to residual fuel product that had historically leaked from the former USTs. The destruction of the organic soil material released the residual fuel product into the groundwater, thereby increasing the groundwater concentrations of the COPCs.

In December 2021, following approval by ACWD, a groundwater extraction and treatment system was installed to further remediate COPCs in groundwater at 38370 Cedar Boulevard. To date, over 250,000 gallons of groundwater have been extracted from EW-1, treated, and discharged to the sanitary sewer. The groundwater extraction and treatment system is currently proposed to operate through June 2022 at which point the monitoring wells at and in the vicinity of the former USTs at 38370 Cedar will be sampled. The groundwater sampling results will be compared to historical concentrations to evaluate whether or not additional remediation (such as additional groundwater extraction or ISCO injection) is warranted. If the operation of the groundwater extraction and treatment successfully reduced COPCs in groundwater, the groundwater sampling results will be presented to ACWD and SFRWQCB with the intent of obtaining low threat closure of the open LUFT case at 38370 Cedar Boulevard.

1.3 Remaining Portion of the Site (shown in blue on Figure 1) This portion of the site is the remaining portion of the site (herein referred to as the “central and eastern portion of the site”) including the eastern portion of 38370 Cedar Boulevard and 38424, 38456, 38472, 38486, 38592, and 38594 Cedar Boulevard. Since 2015, under oversight of the ACWD and SFRWQCB, Ramboll has conducted soil, soil vapor, and groundwater sampling across the central and eastern portion of the site, including the installation and sampling of six soil borings for the collection of shallow soil samples, four temporary soil vapor wells, four permanent soil vapor wells, and three groundwater monitoring wells on the eastern portion of 38370 Cedar Boulevard. No Packet Page 572

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Summary of Conclusions 3 Ramboll
significant evidence of impacts to the subsurface have been identified as a result of operations on the central and eastern portions of the site and soil vapor samples collected in June 2022 from soil vapor wells located on this portion of the site did not detect any chemicals above ESLs for unrestricted residential land use. This portion of the site is under review by the SFRWQCB to confirm that, based on the findings of Ramboll’s subsurface investigations to date, no further action with respect to investigation or remediation is needed on this portion of the site.

1.4 Proposed Redevelopment
Robson Homes is currently in contract to purchase the site from Freitas Family Properties to redevelop the site for residential use. The proposed redevelopment (Figure 2) includes the construction of approximately 120 single-family homes across the site with new streets and greenways. The subsurface investigations conducted at the site by Ramboll since 2015 were performed to determine if the site is acceptable for unrestricted residential redevelopment. Based on the findings from these subsurface investigations (and as discussed in more detail below), the site is acceptable for unrestricted residential land use except for in the small approximately 2,500 square foot area (shown in red on Figure 1), where groundwater remediation is currently being implemented. It is anticipated that once groundwater remediation and mitigation has been completed in this small area (e.g., low threat closure is granted by SFRWQCB), this small area of the site will also be acceptable for unrestricted residential land use.

1.5 Findings, Opinions, and Conclusions
The objective of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was to identify recognized environmental conditions (RECs), as defined in the ASTM Standard. RECs are defined in the ASTM Standard as:
“The presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment.

A list of key definitions presented in the ASTM Standard is provided in Section 7 at the end of this report. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, the ASTM standard are described in Section 6.2.

Ramboll identified the following REC, as defined by ASTM (see Chapter 2.0), in connection with unrestricted residential use of the property:
• 38370 Cedar Boulevard (shown in yellow on Figure 1). As discussed above in Section 1.2, this portion of the site is an open LUFT case (ACWD No. TT0590; SFRWQCB No. 01-2452) where groundwater remediation is currently being implemented. The LUFT case at 38370 Cedar Boulevard pertains to the removal of one 8,000-gallon diesel UST, one 5,000-gallon diesel UST, three 1,000-gallon gasoline USTs, and one 550-gallon gasoline UST in 1989 from an area west of the garage structure. Subsurface investigations and monitoring confirm that the impacts from the former USTs to groundwater at 38370 Cedar Boulevard are limited primarily to the former UST area and no migration has occurred since groundwater monitoring activities began in 1989. Only the upper shallow aquifer has been impacted to a maximum depth of approximately 34 feet bgs and the lateral extent is limited to an approximately 2,500-square feet area, as shown in red on Figure 1.

Packet Page 573

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Summary of Conclusions 4 Ramboll
There are no other RECs associated with unrestricted residential use of the property.

Packet Page 574

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Introduction 5 Ramboll

2. INTRODUCTION

2.1 Purpose
Ramboll was retained by Robson Homes to perform a Phase I ESA of the site. Ramboll’s assessment was conducted in connection with the purchase of the subject site by Robson Homes. The purpose of the assessment was to identify RECs, which are defined in the ASTM Standard as:
“The presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. De minimis conditions are not recognized environmental conditions.”

2.2 Scope of the Assessment
Ramboll completed the following tasks, consistent with the ASTM Standard, during its Phase I ESA of the property:
• Visits to the subject site by Jason Kane of Ramboll on May 19 and June 18, 2015, and by Tommy Winger of Ramboll on April 22 and April 26, 2022, to observe the features of the subject site and to identify the uses and conditions specified in the ASTM Standard. During the site visits, Ramboll observed the adjoining properties from the subject site or adjacent public thoroughfares.

Photographs taken during the site visits are presented in Appendix A. • Interviews on May 19 and June 18, 2015, and on April 22 and April 26, 2022, with Frank Freitas, who co-owns the subject site through Freitas Family Trust. The subject site has been owned by the Freitas family since approximately 1959. Mr. Freitas is herein referred to as the “site owner”.

The site owner interviewed by Ramboll was identified as having good knowledge of the current and historical uses and physical characteristics of the subject site. • A review of information contained in federal and state environmental databases, as obtained from the sources noted below:
- A radius report prepared by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) on April 12, 2022 for the subject site and off-site properties in the vicinity of the subject site. A copy of the EDR radius report is included as Appendix B. The databases and the radius searched for each database were selected in accordance with the ASTM Standard and are identified in the EDR database report. The dates of the most recent updates of the environmental databases are also listed in the database report.
- The United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) Envirofacts database, which provides site information contained in multiple USEPA regulatory databases. - The USEPA’s Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) database, which provides information on sites’ enforcement and compliance history. - The State of California’s Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Geotracker online database and the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Envirostor online database.

Packet Page 575

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Introduction 6 Ramboll
• A review of the EDR Environmental Lien Search Report dated May 19, 2015 to identify environmental liens or activity use limitations (AULs) imposed by judicial authorities with respect to the property.
• A review of standard historical sources (included as Appendix C) and local agency inquiries, as defined in the ASTM Standard. The following resources were reviewed:
- Readily available historical sources, including (where available) historical topographic maps and aerial photographs, city directories, and Sanborn Maps, to develop a history of the previous uses of the subject site and surrounding area. - Historical and site-specific information obtained from the following local agencies: Alameda County Assessor’s Office (Assessor), Alameda County Water District (ACWD), Newark Fire Prevention Bureau (Fire Department), the Newark Public Works, Building Department (Building Department), and the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health (ACDEH).

Ramboll also requested files from the Alameda County Fire Department and the Newark Public Works, Engineering Department and were told by representatives of each agency that historical files are no longer maintained by either agency. - In 2015, a telephone interview was conducted with a representative of the ACDEH regarding historical records available for the site. Ramboll was informed that records were found for the property and could be provided through a file review, which Ramboll performed. - A review of microfiche files was performed by Ramboll on May 19, 2015 at the Fire Department and Building Department.
• A review of physical setting sources, as defined in the ASTM Standard, including:
- The current USGS 7.5-minute topographic map that shows the area on which the subject site is located.
- Geologic, hydrogeologic, or hydrologic sources as provided in the EDR report. • Multiple visits to the subject site between 2015 and 2022 for collection of environmental samples. • A review of information included in the Site Characterization Report, Revision 1, 38288 – 38594 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, California, dated April 21, 2020 (herein referred to as the “2020 Ramboll Investigation Report”. The 2020 Ramboll Investigation Report was submitted to Alameda County Water District (ACWD) and is provided in Appendix D. • A review of information included in the Additional Investigation and Closure Report, 38288 – 38594 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, California, dated September 21, 2021 (herein referred to as the “2021 Ramboll Investigation Report”. The 2021 Ramboll Investigation Report was submitted to Alameda County Water District (ACWD) and is provided in Appendix D. • A review of information included in the Remedial Action Work Plan – Revision 1, 38370 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, California, prepared by Ramboll, dated March 26, 2021 (herein referred to as the “Remedial Action Work Plan”). The Remedial Action Work Plan was proposed remediation of petroleum hydrocarbons in soil and groundwater in the UST area of 38370 Cedar Boulevard using ISCO, was submitted to and approved by ACWD, and was implemented in April 2021 and is ongoing.
• A review of information included in the Geotechnical Study, Proposed Redevelopment, 38288- 38594 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, California, prepared by Geo-logic Associates, dated September 8, 2021.

Packet Page 576

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Introduction 7 Ramboll
• A review of any information provided by the user of this assessment, including information consistent with Appendix X3 of the ASTM Standard. Pertinent information, if any, is discussed in the appropriate sections of this report.

This Phase I ESA was conducted in accordance with the methodology specified in ASTM Standard E1527-21, as agreed upon by Ramboll and Robson Homes in the proposal for this assignment.

The scope of work for this assignment was expanded to include an evaluation of certain additional considerations that are not included within the ASTM Standard, which included a screening-level review of ACMs0F
1 in site buildings, flood plains, wetlands, asbestos-containing materials, radon, and lead-based paint. Any other areas referred to as non-scope considerations by the ASTM Standard not listed above were outside the scope of this assessment.1F 2 2.3 Significant Assumptions
In conducting this review, no significant assumptions were made, except for the following:
• Historical groundwater flow directions at the subject site varied in all directions but most frequently ranged between the southwest and southeast. Site-wide groundwater monitoring conducted in December 2020 calculated the groundwater flow direction to be to the south. In evaluating potential impacts to the subject site from off-site sources, those off-site facilities not located adjacent to or within one-quarter mile up-gradient of the subject site are not considered to represent a significant concern to the subject site. This interpretation is based on the assumption that a hazardous material released to the subsurface generally does not migrate laterally within the unsaturated soil for a significant distance, although a hazardous material can migrate in the groundwater in a generally down-gradient direction.

2.4 Reliance and General Limitations
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Robson Homes, LLC and affiliated entities including Santa Clara Development Company, Sun Lakes Construction Company of California, and Vesta Real Estate Company Inc., and such other persons or entities whose reliance is explicitly authorized in writing by Ramboll.

Under the ASTM Standard, this report is considered current until October 23, 2022, a period of 180 days from the date of the most recent site inspection on April 26, 2022. The conclusions presented in this report represent Ramboll’s best professional judgment based upon the information available and conditions existing as of the date of this report. In performing its assignment, Ramboll must rely upon publicly available information, information provided by the client, and information provided by third parties. Accordingly, the conclusions in this report are valid only to the extent that the information 1 Ramboll’s review of ACMs in building materials did not include a formal asbestos survey in conformance with established protocols (as outlined in 40 CFR §763), applicable state or local regulations, or industry standards, and any comments in this report regarding the condition of building materials represent only Ramboll’s observations at the time of the site visit and are not intended to be consistent with definitions regarding ACM condition in the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) or in other federal or state asbestos regulations or industry standards.
2 The ASTM Standard considers per-/polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and other emerging contaminants as nonscope considerations; however, for the purposes of this assessment, Ramboll considered PFAS within the context of the Phase I ESA.

Packet Page 577

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Introduction 8 Ramboll
provided to Ramboll was accurate and complete. This review is not intended as legal advice, nor is it an exhaustive review of site conditions or facility compliance.

The scope of work for this assessment did not include an asbestos survey or inspection of site structures. According to federal OSHA regulations (29 CFR §1910.1001) and the Model Accreditation Plan (MAP; 40 CFR Part 763, Subpart E, Appendix C), the inspection, testing, evaluation, and/or sampling of suspect asbestos-containing materials must be conducted by an accredited inspector; these activities were not performed as part of this environmental review. Comments in this report regarding the condition of building materials at the subject site, including presumed or suspect ACM, represent only Ramboll’s observations at the time of the site visit and are not intended to be consistent with definitions regarding ACM condition in the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) or in other federal or state asbestos regulations or industry standards.

Other issues considered outside the scope of the ASTM Standard and this review include radon, leadbased paint, lead in drinking water, wetlands, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in building materials, cultural and historic resources, ecological resources, endangered species, and high voltage power lines.

Packet Page 578

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Site Description 9 Ramboll

3. SITE DESCRIPTION

3.1 Site Setting
The subject site is located in Newark, Alameda County, California and is approximately 7.8-acres in area. According to the Alameda County Assessor’s Office, the APNs for the subject site are 92A-2375- 2-6 and 92A-2375-22-1. The subject site is located approximately 1 mile east of the City of Newark Civic Center.

For purposes of discussion in this Phase 1, the site is divided into three areas as shown on Figure 1:

1. 38288 Cedar Boulevard (shown in green on Figure 1);

2. 38370 Cedar Boulevard (shown in yellow on Figure 1) and the portion of where former underground storage tanks (USTs) were located (shown in red on Figure 1); and,

3. The remaining portion of the site including the eastern portion of 38370 Cedar Boulevard (shown in blue in Figure 1) and 38424, 38456, 38472, 38486, 38592, and 38594 Cedar Boulevard.

The subject site is developed with six warehouses occupied by various businesses, two garage structures used for the maintenance of trucks and construction equipment, and a small, one-story building used as an office (Figure 2). The warehouse structures are surrounded by asphalt paved driveways and parking areas and the garage structures are surrounded by asphalt and compacted gravel. Concrete driveways connect the southwestern boundary of the subject site to Cedar Boulevard. There are no on-site surface water bodies.

Table A provides an overview of physical setting and utility information for the subject site.

Table A: Physical Setting and Utility Information
Conditions Source Description
Topography
Elevation (above
mean sea level)
USGS topographic
map; Google
Earth
Ranging from approximately 30 to 34 feet across the subject site.

Topographic
Gradient
USGS topographic
map; visual
observations
Relatively flat across the subject site. Regional topography slopes gently downward to the southwest toward San Francisco Bay.

Packet Page 579

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Site Description 10 Ramboll
Table A: Physical Setting and Utility Information
Conditions Source Description
Hydrology
Surface Water
Runoff
Visual
observations; site
owner
Storm water from roofs and paved areas at the subject site flows along the surface towards Cedar Boulevard along the southwestern boundary of the subject site where it enters the gutters on Cedar Boulevard. The gutters on Cedar Boulevard feed into the municipal storm water system. The storm water inlets located in the vicinity of the 38592 and 38594 Cedar Boulevard warehouses likely discharge to the flood control channel located adjacent to the southeastern portion of the site.

Nearest Surface
Water Body to the
Site
USGS topographic
map; visual
observations
An engineered flood control channel (Zone 5, Line B) owned and operated by the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is located adjacent to the southeastern portion of the subject site. The flood channel was dry during the site visits. Plummer Creek, located 0.6 mile to the northwest of the subject site, drains to San Francisco Bay, located approximately 4.0 miles southwest of the subject site.

Flood Plain FEMA*; site owner Site owner reported flooding during large precipitation events along the northern portion of the site adjacent to Interstate-880, specifically on the 38288 and 38370 Cedar Boulevard portions of the site. The Site owner also reported small, localized puddles after large precipitation events due to the subject site’s relatively flat topography. The subject site is not located within a 500-year flood zone. The engineered flood control channel located adjacent to the southeastern portion of the subject site is located within a 100-year flood zone and the residential neighborhood located adjacent to the northeastern portion of the subject site across Interstate-880 is located within a 500-year flood zone.

Wetlands NWI* There are no federally-designated wetlands on-site. The engineered flood control channel located adjacent to the southeastern portion of the subject site is registered in the National Wetland Inventory. The salt ponds located in Mowry Slough, approximately 1.1 miles to the southwest of the subject site, are located within federally-designated wetland areas.

Geology and Hydrogeology
Presumed
Direction of
Shallow
Groundwater Flow
2021 Ramboll
Investigation
Report
Groundwater monitoring conducted at the subject site in December 2020 calculated the groundwater flow direction to be to the south.

Historical groundwater flow directions at the subject site varied in all directions but were most frequently to the southwest, south and southeast.

Packet Page 580

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Site Description 11 Ramboll
Table A: Physical Setting and Utility Information
Conditions Source Description
Depth to
Groundwater
2021 Ramboll
Investigation
Report; historical
groundwater
monitoring events
between 2001 and
2008.

Groundwater measurements of on-site monitoring wells collected in December 2020 reported depth to groundwater at the subject site ranges between approximately 10 and 12 feet bgs. Historical groundwater measurements of on-site monitoring wells, collected between 2001 and 2007, and between 2015 and 2021, reported depth to groundwater at the subject site ranged between approximately 7 and 12 feet bgs.

On-site Wells Site personnel;
site owner.

There are 11 on-site monitoring wells (MW-1, MW-3 through MW-12) and 1 on-site groundwater extraction well (EW-1). See Figure 4a.

Nearest
Groundwater
Supply Wells
EDR database
report
There are 151 state-registered wells and one federally-registered well present within 1 mile of the subject site; the federally-registered well is not registered as public water supply well. ACWD well 5S/1W-06H004 is located approximately 750 feet to the south (downgradient) of the site.

Geologic
Conditions
Boring logs
generated during
Ramboll
monitoring well
installations
between 2015 and
2020, EW-1 well
installation in
2019, and a deep
grab groundwater
boring installed in
2020.

Shallow lithology encountered during well installations was generally consistent across the subject site. Gravelly fill and road base was observed between ground surface and approximately 1.5 feet bgs and underlain by a shallow fine-grained unit consisting of silt and sandy silts to approximately 9 feet bgs. Saturated soil and the equilibrated water table were observed in the middle coarse-grained unit consisting of sand and sand with silt with depths ranging from approximately 9 feet bgs to between 15 and 19.5 feet bgs. A deeper fine-grained unit consisting of silts and clays was observed from between approximately 15 and 19.5 feet bgs to monitoring well total borehole depths, which ranged between approximately 20 and 22 feet bgs.

In deeper borings (EW-1 and SBNA-1), a coarse-grained unit consisting of saturated sand and silty sand was observed from approximately 22 to 25 feet bgs down to 34 feet bgs, where fine grained clays and silts comprising the Newark Aquitard was observed. The Newark Aquitard is approximately 20 feet thick at the site and coarse-grained gravelly sands comprising the Newark Aquifer were first observed at a depth of 57 feet bgs. Upon drilling into the Newark Aquifer, the water table equilibrated at a depth of approximately 25 feet bgs.

Site Utility Information
Electricity Supplier Site owner Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) Natural Gas
Supplier
Site owner PG&E
Use of Fuel Oil for
Building Heat
Site owner No current or former use of fuel oil reported.

Water Supplier Site owner Alameda County Water District Packet Page 581

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Site Description 12 Ramboll
Table A: Physical Setting and Utility Information
Conditions Source Description
Sanitary Sewer Site owner Union Sanitary District
Septic Systems Site owner The site owner reported a wooden septic tank formerly utilized by the subject site is located off-site underneath what is now Cedar Boulevard.

Notes:

FEMA = Federal Emergency Management Agency; NCSS = National Cooperative Soil Survey; NWI = National Wetlands Inventory
* - Source was provided in the EDR database report.

3.2 Current Use of Property
The building units are currently rented and occupied by commercial and individual tenants for various uses and businesses. Table B lists the current occupants and discusses the current uses of the subject site.

Table B: Current Site Occupants and Uses
Address Occupant(s) Current Use(s)
38288 Cedar
Boulevard (shown
in green on Figure
1)
Viviano Trucking
Inc.
38288 Cedar Boulevard is developed with a garage structure used for the repair of semi-trailer trucks. Semi-trailer trucks and personal automobiles are also parked in the central portion and along the perimeter at 38288 Cedar Boulevard. The northern portion of 38288 Cedar Boulevard appears to have been used for the dumping of construction- and landscape-related debris. On the northwestern side of the garage structure, a travel trailer is apparently used as a residence.
38370 Cedar
Boulevard (shown
in yellow on Figure
1)
Fremont Paving 38370 Cedar Boulevard is developed with a garage structure and a onestory office structure. The garage is used by Fremont Paving for the maintenance of company equipment and vehicles. The office is used by Fremont Paving for administrative work. The perimeter of 38370 Cedar Boulevard is used to park heavy equipment and trucks that are both operable and non-operable. In the northeastern corner of 38370 Cedar Boulevard, one permanent covered awning is constructed to house asphalt spreaders. According to the site owner, the asphalt spreaders are cleaned with diesel fuel and rinsate from the cleaning process is collected on plastic tarps that are placed underneath the asphalt spreaders. The diesel rinsate is then allowed to evaporate.

Packet Page 582

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Site Description 13 Ramboll
Table B: Current Site Occupants and Uses
Address Occupant(s) Current Use(s)
Central and Eastern Portion of the Site (shown in blue on Figure 1) 38424 Cedar
Boulevard
Applied Air Filters 38424 Cedar Boulevard is developed with a warehouse structure used by Applied Air Filters to fabricate aluminum housing for commercial and industrial air filters. Applied Air Filters also operates a side business of repairing, servicing, and restoring GMC Motorhomes. Multiple GMC Motorhomes are parked on the asphalt paved driveways surrounding the 38424 Cedar Boulevard warehouse. In the rear of the property (adjacent to Interstate-880), multiple wood pallets store motorhome, car, and machine parts as well as various out‐of‐service automotive diagnostic machines and computers. In addition, used carbon filters are stored in 55-gallon plastic drums located on wooden pallets in the rear of the property.
38456 Cedar
Boulevard
(A) California
Camper Repair;
(B) Bracho Marble
and Granite
38456 Cedar Boulevard is developed with a warehouse structure.

California Camper Repair occupies the southern half (Unit A) of the warehouse and uses the space for the body repair and painting of and after-market additions to travel trailers and motorhomes. A large paint booth is located centrally in the tenant space.

Bracho Marble and Granite occupies the northern half of the warehouse (Unit B) and uses the space for the cutting and fabrication of marble and granite countertops. Slabs of granite and marble are stored outdoor in the vicinity of the tenant space.
38472 Cedar
Boulevard
(A) Zipin Out Auto
Services;
(B) MT Smog
38472 Cedar Boulevard is developed with a warehouse structure.

Zipin Out Auto Services occupies the southern portion (Unit A) of the warehouse and uses the space for automobile repairs. A temporary paint booth consisting of a modified inflatable children’s “bounce house” is located in the northern section of Unit A.

MT Smog occupies the northern portion (Unit B) of the warehouse and uses the space for smog testing.
38486 Cedar
Boulevard
(A) Eurobahn Motor
Sports;
(B) Freitas Family
personal storage
38486 Cedar Boulevard is developed with a warehouse structure.

Eurobahn Motorsports occupies the southern half (Unit A) of the warehouse and uses the space for the repair and restoration of automobiles.

The Freitas Family, owners of the subject site since approximately 1959, use the northern half (Unit B) of the warehouse for the storage of personal property including boats, automobiles, motorhomes, furniture, and other household goods. Various non-operational automobiles and parts are stored adjacent to the northeast of the 38486 Cedar Boulevard warehouse.

Packet Page 583

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Site Description 14 Ramboll
Table B: Current Site Occupants and Uses
Address Occupant(s) Current Use(s)
38592 Cedar
Boulevard
(A) Autoland Car
Sales;
(B) Jinn Speed;
(C) Illumeaesthetic
38592 Cedar Boulevard is developed with a warehouse structure separated into three tenant spaces (Units A through C, from west to east).

Autoland Car Sales (Unit A) operates an office for the sale of pre-owned vehicles.

Jinn Speed (Unit B) operates an aftermarket automobile modification shop and sells aftermarket and original equipment manufacturer (OEM) automobile parts.

Illumeaesthetic (Unit C) operates a custom automobile body part and custom aftermarket cosmetic manufacturing business. Multiple 3-D printers are located in the western section of unit C. Multiple automobiles, both operational and non-operational, are parked outside adjacent to the 38592 Cedar Boulevard warehouse including between the 38592 and 38594 Cedar Boulevard warehouses.
38594 Cedar
Boulevard
(A) Golden State
Auto Collision;
(B) Yama Auto
Brokers Inc.
38594 Cedar Boulevard is developed with a warehouse structure separated into two tenant spaces. The western half (Unit A) of the warehouse is occupied by Golden State Auto Collision who uses the space for the body repair and painting of automobiles. One paint booth is located in Unit A.

The eastern half of the warehouse is used by a pre-owned vehicle dealership for the storage of automobiles. Multiple automobiles, both operational and non-operational, are parked outside adjacent to the 38594 Cedar Boulevard warehouse, including between the 38594 and 38592 Cedar Boulevard warehouses.

3.3 Current Uses of Adjoining Properties
The nearest residential areas are located adjacent to the southwest and northeast of the subject site, across Cedar Boulevard and Interstate-880, respectively. Based on discussions with the site owner and site personnel, Environ’s visual observations from the property boundary and public rights-of-way, and a limited review of publicly available information, a general determination of the current use of adjacent properties was developed, as described Table C.

Table C: Current Use of Adjacent Properties
Direction Property/Land Use Ramboll’s Observations
Northwest Public Storage. No apparent exterior manufacturing or chemical storage operations were observed. No concerns were noted.

Southwest Cedar Boulevard Neighborhood
Church; King’s Kids Preschool;
Stellar Academy for Dyslexia;
residential. All properties across
Cedar Boulevard.

No apparent exterior manufacturing or chemical storage
operations were observed. Residential areas consist of
single-family homes. No concerns were noted.

Packet Page 584

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Site Description 15 Ramboll
Table C: Current Use of Adjacent Properties
Direction Property/Land Use Ramboll’s Observations
Southeast Papé Machinery (equipment rental). No apparent exterior manufacturing or chemical storage operations were observed. The property occupied by
Papé Machinery is further discussed in Section 4.1.2.

Northeast Residential (located across
Interstate-880).

No apparent exterior manufacturing or chemical storage
operations were observed. Residential areas consist of
single-family homes. No concerns were noted.

Notes:

During the site visit, Ramboll walked or drove by the borders of these properties that are shared with the subject site. Ramboll did not enter the neighboring properties.

Packet Page 585

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Review of Public Records and
Other Information Sources 16 Ramboll

4. REVIEW OF PUBLIC RECORDS AND OTHER

INFORMATION SOURCES

4.1 Environmental Regulatory Database Review
Ramboll contracted with EDR to prepare a summary of listings in federal and state agency databases within applicable radii of the subject site as specified by the ASTM standard.2F 3 A copy of the EDR
report, dated April 12, 2022, is presented in Appendix B.

4.1.1 Database Review for Site
Ramboll reviewed the results of the state and federal environmental database searches performed by EDR (see Appendix B) and searched the California Geotracker and Envirostor databases. The subject site is listed on 9 databases, as discussed in Table D.

Table D: Database Review
Listing Name or
Address Database Summary of Information Contained in Database Databases Related to Potential Site Contamination
J&M Concrete
38288 Cedar
Boulevard
Geotracker’s Leaking Underground
Fuel Tank Report (LUST), Alameda
County Fuel Leak List (LUST REG 2),
Recovered Government Archive LUST
(RGA-LUST), "Cortese" Hazardous
Waste & Substances Sites List
(CORTESE), Hazardous Substance
Storage Container Database (HIST
UST), California Environmental
Reporting System (CERS); Facility
Index System/Facility Registration
System (FINDS)
The listings refer to the removal of two fuel
USTs from the subject site in 1989 and
general compliance listings related to the
current and former businesses located at this
address. This matter is further discussed in
Section 4.4.

Fremont Paving
38370 Cedar
Boulevard
Hazardous Waste & Substance Site
List (HIST CORTESE), CORTESE,
LUST, RGA-LUST, LUST REG 2, HIST

LUST, FINDS
The listings refer to the removal of six fuel
USTs from the subject site in 1989. This
matter is further discussed in Section 4.4.

Databases Related to Regulatory Compliance
Fremont Paving
38370 Cedar
Boulevard
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act Non-generators/No Longer
Regulated (RCRA NonGen/NLR),
Enforcement and Compliance History
Online (ECHO), HAULERS, Facility
and Manifest Data (HAZNET),
Hazardous Waste Tracking System
(HWTS)
Fremont Paving is listed in regulatory
compliance databases related to their use of
the site as an operations yard. Minor
violations listed include improper hazardous
material storage. This matter is further
discussed in Section 4.4.
3 EDR uses the term “radii” to refer to the ASTM terminology “approximate minimum search distance” in the environmental database report.

Packet Page 586

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Review of Public Records and
Other Information Sources 17 Ramboll
Table D: Database Review
Listing Name or
Address Database Summary of Information Contained in Database Various Businesses
38424 Cedar
Boulevard
FINDS, ECHO Listings for Applied Air Filters GMC and
Overhead Door Company in regulatory
compliance databases dating back to 1996.

Minor violations listed include improper
training of employees for hazardous material
business plans.

Various Businesses
38456 Cedar
Boulevard

RCRA-SQG, FINDS, ECHO, HAZNET,
HWTS, EMI, CERS, RCRA NonGen /
NLR
Benchmark Autobody Inc. is listed as a small
quantity generator of hazardous waste and
in several compliance databases. Brancho
Marble is listed in several compliance
databases. California Camper Repair and
Brancho Marble are listed in compliance
databases. Minor violations were noted for
California Camper Repair including failure to
properly label and manage hazardous waste.

California Camper
Repair
38456 Cedar
Boulevard
EDR US Hist Auto Stat California Camper Repair from 2005 to 2012.

Various Businesses
38472 Cedar
Boulevard
EDR US Hist Auto Stat, RCRA-SQG,
FINDS, ECHO, RCRA NonGen / NLR,

HAZNET, HWTS, HAULERS, EMI
Bay Area Body Shop is listed as a historical
auto shop from 1999 to 2012. Bay Area Body
Shop is listed as a small quantity generator
of hazardous waste. Pheonix Auto Painting
and Zipin Out Auto are listed in compliance
databases. Several violations were noted for
Zipin Out auto between 2014 and 2021,
including failure to properly manage used oil
and fuel filters and failure to properly store
and label batteries and universal wastes.

Don Signer Buick
38478 Cedar
Boulevard
RCRA Small Quantity Generator
(RCRA-SQG), FINDS, ECHO
The subject site is listed as a small quantity
generator of hazardous waste. No violations
were found.

PG&E
38486 Cedar
Boulevard
HWTS, HAZNET 2017 listings for disposal of oil-containing waste, detergents, and soaps. No violations
identified.

Various Businesses
38592 Cedar
Boulevard
EDR US Hist Auto Stat, HAZNET,
HWTS, FINDS, ECHO, RCRA NonGen /

NLR, CHIMRS
Historical Auto Stations: Hometown Auto
Repair from 2003 to 2008 and Zipin Out
Auto Repair in 2011. Zipin Out Auto and
Jinnspeed LLC are listed on regulatory
compliance databases with no violations
identified.

Packet Page 587

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Review of Public Records and
Other Information Sources 18 Ramboll
Table D: Database Review
Listing Name or
Address Database Summary of Information Contained in Database Martin’s Auto
Wholesale
38592A Cedar
Boulevard
HAZNET, HWTS Listing on the HAZNET database indicates
the site recycled 0.17 tons of aqueous
solution with total organic residues less than
10 percent.

Newark Commercial
Truck Repair
38592D Cedar
Boulevard
FINDS, ECHO, RCRA NonGen / NLR Newark Commercial Truck Repair is listed on regulatory compliance databases with no
violations identified.

Various Businesses
38594 Cedar
Boulevard
Historic Gas Stations (EDR US Hist
Auto Stat)
Historical Auto Stations: Premier Auto
Upholstery from 1999 to 2002, Hometown
Auto Repair in 2008, Imperial Truck and
Trailer Repair in 2009.

Golden State Auto
38594A Cedar
Boulevard

HAZNET, HWTS, EMI, FINDS, ECHO,
RCRA NonGen / NLR
Golden State Autobody is listed on regulatory
compliance databases with no violations
identified.

4.1.2 Database Review for Adjoining Properties
A summary of the pertinent listings in the EDR database report for off-site properties located adjoining to the subject site is provided below. Ramboll’s analysis of adjoining properties was based on observations made during the site reconnaissance (as discussed in Table C) and location information for off-site listings as presented in the EDR report. The discussion of adjoining sites does not include listings for certain databases that are (by themselves) not necessarily indicative of a contamination concern (e.g., compliance listings beyond those specified in Section 8.2.1 of the ASTM Standard).

Also, for purposes of this analysis, Ramboll considers “adjoining” properties to be immediately adjacent, even if separated by a road or other physical barrier. • Nortrax West (Papé Machinery Inc). Located adjacent to the southeast of the subject site, the Papé Machinery property located at 38600 Cedar Boulevard is listed on the Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tank Facilities (AST), NPDES Permits Listing (NPDES), HIST CORTESE, LUST, and HIST UST databases. The database listings are related to five former USTs located on the Papé Machinery property (formerly Horton Equipment and Empire Equipment). A cluster of one 10,000-gallon diesel UST, one 10,000-gallon gasoline UST, and two 550-gallon diesel USTs were formerly located on the eastern portion of the property near Interstate-880. One 550-gallon waste oil UST was formerly located on the eastern portion of the property near Cedar Boulevard. All five USTs were removed in approximately the late 1980s, although removal documents were not available for review. Multiple subsurface investigations have been conducted at the Papé Machinery property, revealing soil and groundwater impacts from TPH and VOCs. Eight groundwater monitoring wells are located at the property and were monitored on a semi-annual basis until 2018, as required by ACWD.

Between 2004 and present, groundwater flow beneath the Papé Machinery property has varied between west-southwest and south-southeast, approximately cross-gradient of the subject site.

Packet Page 588

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Review of Public Records and
Other Information Sources 19 Ramboll
Results from the most recent semi-annual groundwater monitoring event in May 2018 reported elevated concentrations of TPH-d in the vicinity of the gasoline diesel UST near Interstate-880. In addition, low-level concentrations of TPH-g, TPH-d, VOCs including tetrachloroethene (PCE) and 1,1,1-trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA) are present in groundwater in the vicinity of the former waste oil UST located near Cedar Boulevard on the southern corner of the property. The most recent monitoring report indicates that no significant down-gradient migration of the contaminants has occurred beyond the Cedar Boulevard roadway. The results of a subsurface investigation implemented in 2020 indicate that 17 out of 19 soil vapor wells sampled reported concentrations of PCE that exceed the San Francisco RWQCB (SFRWQCB) commercial Environmental Screening Level (ESL). Upon review of the results of the 2021 subsurface investigation, ACWD requested additional soil vapor sampling at the Papé Machinery property and at adjacent properties to assess potential vapor intrusion concerns related to the contamination at the Papé Machinery property.

Although the property has an on-going case with the ACWD, the groundwater plumes are well characterized and are downgradient/crossgradient from the subject site. Therefore, the Papé Machinery property is not of concern for the subject site.

4.1.3 Database Review for Non-Adjoining Properties
Based on the review of available database information, Ramboll did not identify any off-site nonadjoining properties that are of concern for the subject site.

4.2 Historical Uses of the Site and Surrounding Area

4.2.1 Past Uses of the Site
The subject site was historically an open field reportedly used for livestock grazing until the Freitas Family, the current owners of the subject site, purchased it in 1959. Gradually over the next three decades, the subject site was developed with the current buildings. Various businesses including a paving company, automobile body and mechanical repair companies, and trucking companies have occupied the subject site. Prior to the construction of Cedar Boulevard in approximately the mid1970s, Timber Street (also known as Cedar Road) ran along the northeastern border of the subject site parallel to Interstate-880. The former Timber Street corridor is the current on-site parcel 92A2375-22-1.

A summary of Ramboll’s key observations from the available historical sources is presented in Table E.

Table E: Summary of Key Observations from Historical Sources for the Subject Site Historical Source Key Observations Regarding Site History Sanborn Maps
(1905, 1908, 1920, 1928,
1935, 1950)
In 1905, the Sanborn Maps depict a small residential building in the southeast portion of the subject site and an unmarked structure in the north corner of the subject site.

The 1920 Sanborn Map depicts the structure in the northern corner of the subject site as an automobile garage. By 1928, an accessory structure is depicted between the residence and the garage. No concerns are noted.

Packet Page 589

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Review of Public Records and
Other Information Sources 20 Ramboll
Table E: Summary of Key Observations from Historical Sources for the Subject Site Historical Source Key Observations Regarding Site History Aerial Photographs and
Satellite Imagery1
(1939, 1946, 1948, 1958,
1966, 1968, 1974, 1979,
1982, 1993, 1998, 2000-
2014)
Early photographs show the subject site as an open field until the 1966 photo when the current structures at 38288 and 38370 Cedar Boulevard have been constructed.

Also beginning in 1966, 38592 and 38594 Cedar Boulevard appear to be used as a yard for a trucking company. The 1979 aerial photo shows the warehouses at 38424, 38456, and 38472 Cedar Boulevard have been constructed and semi-trailers appear to be parked on the vacant lot that is currently 38486 Cedar Boulevard. The 1982 aerial photo shows the warehouse at 38486 Cedar Boulevard has been constructed.

The 1993 aerial photo shows the warehouses at 38592 and 38594 Cedar Boulevard have been constructed. The 1993 and subsequent aerial photos show the subject site as it generally appears today.

Topographic Maps
(1899, 1915, 1947, 1948,
1959, 1968, 1968, 1973,
1980, 1993, 1997)
No development is shown at the subject site until the 1980 map, when the warehouse structures are depicted. No concerns are noted.

City Directory Abstracts
(1979, 1982, 2002, 2008,
2013, 2014, 2017)
38370 Cedar Boulevard. Fremont Paving (1982-2017).
38424 Cedar Boulevard. Andax Engineering (1979-1982), Overhead Door Company (1994-2009), Unknown Occupant (2004), JKJ Inc. (2009), Applied Air Filters (2013- 2017).
38456 Cedar Boulevard. Southeast Roofing Supply (1982), California Camper Repair (2002-2017), Bracho Marble & Granite (2009-2017). 38472 Cedar Boulevard. Bay Area Body Shop (2002-2017).
38478 Cedar Boulevard. Custom Paints by Sal (1979-1982), B&L Automotive Group (1982), Frank Freitas (2002).
38486 Cedar Boulevard. Adams Tailored Woodworking (1994-2002), Jag Fine Resource Woodworking (2002), The Cabinet Shop (2008-2009), Eurobahn Motor Sports (2014-2017).
38504 Cedar Boulevard. Auto Glass (2008).
38592 Cedar Boulevard. ALS Roofing Supply (1999), Services Hometown Auto Repair (2002-2004), Gold Wheel Auto (2004), Auto Critic Services (2004), American Bonafide Donation Service (2004), Zipin Out Auto Repair (2013), Autoland (2013- 2017), Unknown Occupant (2004-2014). MT Smog Test Only (2014-2017). 38594 Cedar Boulevard. Jim Pisciotta Marine (1994), Premier Auto Upholstery (1999, 2002), Car Stereo Installations Unlimited (2002-2013), Unlimited Premier Auto (2002), Tops & Interiors (2002), Hometown Auto Repair (2008-2009), Golden State Auto Body (2014-2017).
1 In addition to aerial photographs provided by EDR, Ramboll viewed historical satellite imagery provided via Google Earth. Printed copies were not obtained, and imagery dates were not independently verified. EDR reported that Sanborn fire insurance coverage is not available for the subject site.

4.2.2 Past Uses of Adjacent Properties
Interstate-880 first appears along the northeast border of the subject site in approximately the 1950s.

The current residential area located adjacent to the northeast of the subject site was formerly open fields before residential tract-housing was developed in approximately the early 1960s. Adjacent to the northwest of the subject site was formerly a residential property as early as 1939 and remained Packet Page 590

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Review of Public Records and
Other Information Sources 21 Ramboll
relatively unchanged until the current Public Storage facility was constructed between 1982 and 1993.

Residential properties and open fields were historically located adjacent to the southwest of the subject site until the buildings currently occupied by the Cedar Boulevard Neighborhood Church and King’s Kids Preschool were constructed in approximately the mid-1970s. The open field formerly located adjacent to the southwest of the subject site was developed into a residential housing-tract between 1982 and 1993. The engineered flood control channel located immediately adjacent to the southeast of the subject site was constructed in approximately the 1950s. Adjacent to the southeast of the subject site were open fields until approximately the 1960s when the vacant land began to be used for the parking of heavy construction rental equipment. The warehouse structure currently located adjacent to the southeast of the subject site, on the other side of the flood control channel, was constructed in approximately the mid-1970s.

4.3 Review of Local and State Agency Information
Ramboll visited or otherwise contacted local governmental agencies and regulatory bodies for information relating to the subject site. An overview of the findings of this review is presented in Table F.

Table F: Local Agency Information for the Site
Agency Contacted /
Document Reviewed Information Obtained
Alameda County
Assessor’s Office
(Assessor)
Documents reviewed online using the Assessor’s website included assessment roll information and a tax map. The map indicates that the APNs for the subject site are 92A-2375-2-6 and 92A-2375-22-1.

Newark Public Works,
Building Department
(Building Department)
and Newark Fire
Prevention Bureau (Fire
Department)
Ramboll reviewed to following available public records provided in an electronic format by the Building Department and Fire Department:
38288 Cedar Boulevard. J&R Concrete Contractors was listed as a site tenant in 1989. A Hazardous Material Management Plan for J&R Concrete Contractors included the storage of compressed gases and up to 165 gallons of waste oil. Al-Con Concrete was issued hazardous materials storage permits from 1997 to 2007. Stormwater Facility Inspection Reports and Hazardous Waste Generator Inspection Reports were reviewed for Al-Con Concrete. Stored hazardous materials at Al-Con Concrete reportedly included compressed gases for welding, waste absorbent, and batteries. 38370 Cedar Boulevard. Building permits include electrical permits and building renovation permits from 1963 through 2003. Fremont Paving was issued hazardous materials storage permits from 1998 to 2007.

Packet Page 591

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Review of Public Records and
Other Information Sources 22 Ramboll
Newark Public Works,
Building Department
(Building Department)
and Newark Fire
Prevention Bureau (Fire
Department)
38424 Cedar Boulevard. Documents indicate the current warehouse structure was proposed for construction in March 1978. A permit was issued in May 1978 for the construction of a 4-feet diameter, 12-feet long diesel AST located adjacent to the northeast corner of the building. There is no indication that the AST was ever installed. A 16,000-gallon AST used for the storage of wax was located adjacent to southwest corner of building, in current location of cardboard compacting machine.

Records indicate Overhead Door may have been on-site as early as 1985. Hazardous material storage permits for Overhead Door were issued between 1997 and 2007.

Unified Program Inspection Report Summaries from 1996 to 2007 indicate the storage of waste oil, oil filters, anti-freeze, batteries, paints, stains, absorbent, welding gases, and propane. Hazardous Material Business Plan Certification Forms were provided; however, pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 25509 (b), the complete hazardous materials business plans were not provided. 38456 Cedar Boulevard. Documents indicate the current warehouse structure was proposed for construction in March 1978. Building department records include a building permit for a spray booth installation in 2006, electrical permit in 2006, and a demolition permit for the demolition of interior offices in Unit B. Records indicate California Camper Repair may have been on-site as early as 1989 and was issued hazardous materials storage permits from 1997 to 2007. Records also included Hazardous Materials Management Plans from 1999 to 2005, which indicate the storage of paint products with major ingredients toluene, xylene, methyl ethyl ketone, and ethyl benzene, propane, batteries, and welding gases. Occupancy records indicate Brancho Marble and Granite occupied 38456 Cedar starting in 2007.

Stormwater Facility Inspection reports from 2007 indicate a cutting and washwater recirculation and treatment system was installed in the building. Included in the provided files were Material Safety Data Sheets for Superior Resin Coloring Paste, Oxalic Acid, Tin Oxide, Mastic 2000, Catalyzer for Mastic 2000, and acetone. 38472 Cedar Boulevard. Records indicate Maaco Auto Painting was a tenant from at least 1982 to 1988. A 1987 hazardous materials storage permit indicates ten to twelve 55-gallon paint and thinner drums were stored at the subject site. A structure fire reportedly occurred at the Maaco Auto Painting business in 1988. Records indicate Pheonix Auto Painting and Repair operated at the subject site between 1989 and 1992. Hazardous material storage permits for Bay Area Body Shop were issued between 1997 and 2007. During that time period, minor notices of hazardous chemical storage violations were issued to Bay Area Body Shop. The violations were reportedly corrected prior to subsequent inspections. Documented hazardous materials storage included automotive paint, paint solvents, waste paint, waste antifreeze, batteries, acetylene, welding gases, motor oil, and refrigerant. Records include a building permit from 2000 for the installation of a new paint spray booth. 38486-A Cedar Boulevard. Records indicate occupancy by Frank Freitas beginning in 1982. Adam’s Tailored Woodworking was a tenant in 1992. Hazardous material storage permits for The Cabinet Shop were issued between 2004 and 2007. Records reviewed also include Stormwater Facility inspection reports. Approximately 15 gallons of varnish were stored on-site in 2004.
38592-A Cedar Boulevard. Records indicate Martin’s Auto Wholesale was a tenant from 1993 to 1994 and Hometown Auto Repair was a tenant form 1996 to 2006.

Hazardous Material Business Plans (HMBPs) for Hometown Auto Repair reviewed from 1996 to 1998 indicate 300 gallons of waste oil and 55 gallons of waste antifreeze were produced per year. A hazardous materials inspection in 2006 Packet Page 592

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Review of Public Records and
Other Information Sources 23 Ramboll
Table F: Local Agency Information for the Site
Agency Contacted /
Document Reviewed Information Obtained
Newark Public Works,
Building Department
(Building Department)
and Newark Fire
Prevention Bureau (Fire
Department)
reported minor amount of used oil had leaked from a drum of used oil filters. The issue was corrected prior to the subsequent inspection. 38594-B Cedar Boulevard. Records indicate JIT Automotive was a tenant in 2006.

Packet Page 593

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Review of Public Records and
Other Information Sources 24 Ramboll
Table F: Local Agency Information for the Site
Agency Contacted /
Document Reviewed Information Obtained
Alameda County
Department of
Environmental Health
(ACDEH)
Ramboll reviewed the following available public records maintained by ACDEH:
38288 Cedar Boulevard. Records indicate that the subject site was used by Al-Con Concrete as a storage area for concrete construction equipment. An unscaled map from 1989 shows the former USTs that were located at the site. 38370 Cedar Boulevard. Hazardous waste manifests were reviewed pertaining to the off-haul of used oil, used antifreeze, and asphalt emulsion. Photographs taken during a 2010 ACDEH inspection show multiple 55-gallon drums and 5-gallon buckets that reportedly contained waste overcoat, tack oil, and miscellaneous unknown materials. The drums and buckets were historically stored in the area located along the eastern boundary of 38730 Cedar Boulevard between the waste oil storage shed and the Fremont Paving office. Inspection photos from 2011 show the drums and buckets had been removed and no staining or indications of a release were noted.

Hazardous materials business plans (HMBPs) from 2017 through 2022 are consistent with observations during the May 2022 site visit; no concerns are noted. 38424 Cedar Boulevard. Overhead Door Company HMBPs from 2003 to 2010 reported no hazardous waste generated. Correspondence, inspection photologs, and HMBPs from 2019 through 2022 for Applied Air Filters are consistent with observations during the May 2022 site visit; no concerns are noted. 38456 Cedar Boulevard. Chemical inventory lists for Bracho Marble and Granite from 2007 and 2011 reported small quantities (5 gallon or less) of construction and cleaning related materials were stored at the subject site. No violations were noted.

Correspondence and HMBPs from 2017 through 2020 for Bracho Marble and California Camper Repair are consistent with observations during the May 2022 site visit; no concerns are noted.
38472 Cedar Boulevard. Files reviewed pertain to Bay Area Body Shop. Hazardous material inventory lists from 2009 to 2014 indicate the business stores one to two 55-gallon drums of solvents, thinners, primers, and paints that contain VOCs as well as oil, used oil, antifreeze, and used antifreeze. In 2014, a correctable violation was issued for the improper storage of used oil due to some minor staining observed near used oil canisters. No information was provided as to where the minor staining was observed, records indicate the violation was corrected prior to the subsequent reinspection. Correspondence and HMBPs from 2017 through 2021 for Bay Area Body Shop and Zip In Out Auto Service are consistent with observations during the May 2022 site visit; no concerns are noted.
38592 Cedar Boulevard. 1991 letter from Alameda County Health Agency requests removal of two 55‐gal barrels of spent sandblasting sand, one 55‐gal drum of waste motor oil, 43 containers (ranging between 5 and 55 gallons in volume) containing 1,1,1‐trichloroethane and methyl‐ethyl ketone in solution with water, and one 140‐gal stainless steel vat containing Ridoline (a caustic cleaner containing primarily sodium hydroxide). No leaks or releases were indicated in the removal letter. Site owner reports chemicals were used by a boat repair company. Records indicate the empty ASTs in the northeast corner of business were reportedly used by previous tenant.

No concerns are noted in closure documentation from 2019 for Zip In Out Auto Service prior to their move to 38472 Cedar.

Packet Page 594

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Review of Public Records and
Other Information Sources 25 Ramboll
Table F: Local Agency Information for the Site
Agency Contacted /
Document Reviewed Information Obtained
Alameda County Water
District (ACWD)
Ramboll requested records from ACWD for information regarding soil or groundwater investigations, USTs, LUSTs, hazardous materials inspections, or violations/permits for the subject site. Digital records were provided to Ramboll pertaining to the removal of 2 USTs at 38288 Cedar Boulevard and the removal of 6 USTs at 38370 Cedar Boulevard. The details of the removal reports and subsequent environmental investigations are summarized in Section 4.4. Files also included correspondence between ACWD and the City of Newark related to a water well (ID: 5S/1W-06B008) reportedly located at 38370 Cedar Boulevard.
38288 Cedar Boulevard has an open LUFT case (ACWD No. TT0623; SFRWQCB No. 01-3514) that is in the process of obtaining case closure. The public comment period for the case closure at 38288 Cedar Boulevard was completed on May 9, 2022 with no public comments received. On June 2, 2022, ACWD issued a letter stating that case closure will be issued once monitoring wells MW-8 and MW-9 are destroyed and a final Case Closure Summary documenting the monitoring well destructions is submitted to the SFRWQCB for review and approval.

The portion of 38370 Cedar Boulevard where the former USTs were located is an open LUFT case (ACWD No. TT0590; SFRWQCB No. 01-2452).

4.3.1 Interviews with Site Owner
Personal interviews were conducted in person and on the telephone by Jason Kane of Ramboll with Frank Freitas in May and June 2015. Personal interviews were also conducted by Tommy Winger of Ramboll with Mr. Freitas on April 22 and April 26, 2022. Mr. Freitas co-owns the subject site through the Freitas Family Trust. The subject site has been owned by the Freitas family since approximately 1959. At the time the subject site was purchased, it was an open field used by a neighboring farm as pasture for livestock. Information garnered through the interviews conducted with Mr. Freitas is summarized below in Table G.

Table G: Historical Site Information Provided by Site Owner Address Past Occupant(s) Notes
38288 Cedar
Boulevard (shown
in green on Figure
1)
Fremont Paving
(1959‐1965),
concrete company,
landscaping
company, trucking
companies
38288 Cedar Boulevard served as the equipment yard for Fremont Paving from 1959 to1965 when the business was moved next door to 38370 Cedar Boulevard. Section 4.4 discusses the removal of two USTs from 38288 Cedar Boulevard in 1989.
38370 Cedar
Boulevard (shown
in yellow on Figure
1)
Fremont Paving
(sole occupant
since 1965)
Fremont Paving first began using 38370 Cedar Boulevard as an equipment yard in approximately 1965. Office structure was built in approximately 1978. Section 4.4 further discusses the removal of six USTs in 1989 and the subsequent installation of monitoring wells, additional subsurface investigations, and groundwater remediation.

Packet Page 595

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Review of Public Records and
Other Information Sources 26 Ramboll
Table G: Historical Site Information Provided by Site Owner Address Past Occupant(s) Notes
Central and Eastern Portion of the Site (shown in blue on Figure 1) 38424 Cedar
Boulevard
Overhead Door
Company, Andax
Engineering
The warehouse at 38424 Cedar Boulevard was reportedly constructed in approximately 1978. The first tenant was Andax Engineering, an Australian company that used the subject site to house a demonstration industrial machine that waxed cardboard boxes. Although records reviewed at the Newark Fire and Building Departments indicated permits were issued in May 1978 for the construction of a 4-feet diameter, 12-feet long diesel AST located adjacent to the northeast corner of the building, Mr. Freitas indicated no such AST was ever installed.
38456 Cedar
Boulevard
Roofing supply
company
The warehouse at 38456 Cedar Boulevard was reportedly constructed in the early 1980s.
38472 Cedar
Boulevard
MAACO, and other
automotive body
repair and paint
shops
The warehouse at 38472 Cedar Boulevard was reportedly constructed in approximately 1983. A fire broke out at the subject site in approximately 1988 during MAACO’s tenancy.
38486 Cedar
Boulevard
Cabinet and
woodworking shops
The warehouse at 38486 Cedar Boulevard was reportedly constructed in approximately 1983. The southern portion of the building was historically occupied by cabinet and woodworking shops. The northern portion of the building was historically and is currently used for the storage of Freitas Family personal property.
38592 Cedar
Boulevard
Automotive repair
shops, boat repair
shop
The warehouse at 38592 Cedar Boulevard was reportedly constructed in approximately 1985. As detailed in Table F, in 1991 multiple drums of hazardous waste were removed from the property in following the vacancy from the subject site by the boat repair company. Mr. Freitas reported the drum removal was performed under the oversight of the County Health Department (presumably ACDEH) and the matter was resolved to the satisfaction of ACDEH.
38594 Cedar
Boulevard
Storage for Newark
School District,
automotive body
paint shop,
automotive
upholstery repair
business,
automotive
sound system
installation
business
Between approximately the 1960’s and the construction of the building in 1985, two trucking companies utilized the vacant lot for storage and routine maintenance of their semi-trailer trucks. The warehouse at 38594 Cedar Boulevard was reportedly constructed in approximately 1985.

4.4 Previous Environmental Assessments and Activities
This section summarizes the removal of two USTs at 38288 Cedar Boulevard and six USTs at 38370 Cedar Boulevard and the ensuing subsurface investigations and groundwater remediation activities Packet Page 596

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Review of Public Records and
Other Information Sources 27 Ramboll
conducted by Ramboll3F
4 since 2015. The information regarding the UST removals was garnered from the review of historical documents provided by ACWD and from interviews with the site owner. A summary of historic sample locations is shown in Figures 3a and 3b.

4.4.1 Former USTs at 38288 Cedar Boulevard
In April 1989, Environmental Bio-Systems, Inc. (EBS) removed a 2,000-gallon gasoline UST and a 1,000-gallon gasoline UST from an area south of the garage structure at 38288 Cedar Boulevard. The USTs were removed under the oversight of the City of Newark Hazardous Materials Bureau. The 2,000-gallon gasoline UST was observed to have slight rusting and pitting with no holes upon removal.

The 1,000-gal gasoline UST was observed to have significant pitting and rusting with several small holes along the top of the tank. The location of the former USTs at 38288 Cedar Boulevard are shown in Figure 3.

Confirmation soil samples were collected from the base of the tank excavation pit at a depth of approximately 11 feet bgs. Two soil samples were collected from beneath the 2,000-gallon gasoline UST and one sample was collected beneath the 1,000-gallon gasoline UST. All samples were analyzed for TPH-g and BTEX. Only the sample collected underneath the 1,000-gallon gasoline UST reported results greater than laboratory reporting limits as benzene, toluene, and xylene concentrations were reported slightly above the laboratory reporting limit of 0.1 parts per million (ppm).

During the collection of the aforementioned confirmation samples, hydrocarbon odor was evident and the excavation pits were over-excavated to approximately 14 feet bgs, the depth at which groundwater was typically encountered. Approximately 150 cubic yards of soil was excavated and stockpiled on-site under the direction of the City of Newark Hazardous Materials Bureau. No additional confirmation samples were collected from the base of the excavation following the over-excavation.

Three four-point composite samples were collected from the soil stockpile. Stockpile samples reported maximum concentrations of 98 ppm as TPH-g, 0.6 ppm as benzene, 0.4 ppm as toluene, 0.3 ppm as ethylbenzene, and 12 ppm as xylene.

The site owner stated that the soil stockpile from the excavation of the USTs was off-hauled, although no documentation was available to confirm this claim. In 2004, ACWD initiated a LUFT case for 38288 Cedar Boulevard, requesting quarterly reports to investigate and remediate soil and groundwater contamination. According to the site owner, no additional subsurface investigations were performed at 38288 Cedar Boulevard until Ramboll conducted subsurface sampling at the site between 2015 and 2021 (see Section 4.4). The public comment period for the case closure at 38288 Cedar Boulevard was completed on May 9, 2022, with no public comments received. On June 2, 2022, ACWD issued a letter stating that case closure will be issued once monitoring wells MW-8 and MW-9 are destroyed and a final Case Closure Summary documenting the monitoring well destructions is submitted to the SFRWQCB for review and approval.

4.4.2 Former USTs at 38370 Cedar Boulevard
UST Removal and Soil Excavation – February 1989
In February 1989, EBS removed one 8,000-gallon diesel UST, one 5,000-gallon diesel UST, three 1,000-gallon gasoline USTs, and one 550-gallon gasoline UST from an area west of the garage structure at 38370 Cedar Boulevard. The USTs were removed under the oversight of the City of 4 Formerly Environ International Corporation.

Packet Page 597

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Review of Public Records and
Other Information Sources 28 Ramboll
Newark Hazardous Materials Bureau. One of the 1,000-gallon gasoline USTs was observed to have significant rusting, scaling, and pitting visible with multiple holes high and low at both ends of the tank. The other five USTs were observed to have slight rusting and pitting but no visible holes. The location of the former USTs at 38370 Cedar Boulevard are shown in Figure 3.

Confirmation soil samples were collected from the base of the excavation pit at depths ranging between approximately 5 and 12 feet bgs and analyzed for TPH-g, BTEX, lead, and, if in the vicinity of a former diesel UST, TPH-d. Concentrations were generally slightly above or less than laboratory reporting limits with the exception of the confirmation samples collected beneath the 1,000-gallon gasoline UST noted to have multiple holes. Samples collected beneath said UST reported maximum concentrations of 7,700 ppm as TPH-g, 5.9 ppm as benzene, 100 ppm as toluene, 360 ppm as ethylbenzene, and 67 ppm as xylene.

At the time of sampling, hydrocarbon odor was evident in the area of the 1,000-gallon gasoline UST noted to have multiple holes. The soil in this area was over-excavated under the direction of the City of Newark Hazardous Materials Bureau to a depth of approximately 21 feet bgs, the depth at which flowing water was observed to be entering the excavation pit. Three additional confirmation samples were collected from the base of the over-excavation and reported maximum concentrations of 370 ppm as TPH-g, 8.6 ppm as benzene, 25 ppm as toluene, 34 ppm as ethylbenzene, and 13 ppm as xylene.

Approximately 100 cubic yards of soil was excavated and stockpiled on-site. Two four-point composite samples were collected from the soil stockpile. Stockpile samples reported maximum concentrations of 140 ppm as TPH-g, 2.3 ppm as benzene, 12 ppm as toluene, 21 ppm as ethylbenzene, and 2.6 ppm as xylene. The soil stockpiles were aerated in accordance with Bay Area Air Quality Management District regulations for an unspecified duration. Following aeration, two four-point composite confirmation samples were collected from the soil stockpile and analyzed for TPH-g and BTEX. The reported concentrations of TPH-g and BTEX were slightly above laboratory reporting limits of 1.0 and

0.1 ppm, respectively, and the soil was reused as backfill in the UST excavation pit. In 1999, ACWD initiated a Leaking Underground Fuel Tank (LUFT) Case for 38370 Cedar Boulevard, requesting quarterly reports to investigate and remediate soil and groundwater contamination.

Subsurface Investigation and Monitoring Well Installation – March 2001 EBS advanced six exploratory soil borings in March 2001 at and in the vicinity of the former USTs at 38370 Cedar Boulevard. Three of the boring locations (SB-1 through SB-3) were located around the perimeter of the former UST pit. The other three boring locations (MW-1 through MW-3) were converted into groundwater monitoring wells. The locations of the March 2001 soil borings and groundwater monitoring wells are shown in Figures 3a and 3b.

Soil boring logs indicate fill to approximately 1.5 feet bgs underlain by silts and clays to a depths of approximately 9 to 11 feet bgs. Sand was observed beneath the silts and clays to a depth of approximately 18 to 19 feet bgs where stiff clay was observed. Clayey sand was observed beneath the stiff clay to the termination of the borings at a depth of 25 feet bgs. Groundwater was observed at a depth of approximately 12 to 13 feet bgs during drilling activities.

Soil samples were collected from all six boring locations at depths of 10 or 15 feet bgs and grab groundwater samples were collected from depths of approximately 24 to 25 feet bgs. All soil and groundwater samples were analyzed for TPH-g, TPH-d, BTEX, and MTBE.

Packet Page 598

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Review of Public Records and
Other Information Sources 29 Ramboll
Soil borings MW-1 through MW-3 were converted to 2-inch diameter schedule 40 polyvinyl chloride (PVC) monitoring wells. Wells MW-1 and MW-2 were screened from 10 to 25 feet bgs and well MW-3 was screened from 9.5 to 24.5 feet bgs using 0.010-inch slotted PVC. Depth to groundwater in the monitoring wells at the time of sampling ranged between 9 and 10 feet bgs and groundwater flow direction was calculated to be to the southeast. Groundwater samples collected from the monitoring wells were analyzed for TPH-g, TPH-d, BTEX, and MTBE.

Results of the soil and groundwater sampling are provided in Tables 3, 4, and 6. Soil samples collected from SB3 and MW-1 reported elevated concentrations of TPH-g (250 milligram per kilogram [mg/kg] in MW1) and TPH-d (330 mg/kg in SB3) and minor detections of BTEX and MTBE.

Groundwater samples collected from SB1, SB3, and MW-1 reported elevated concentrations of TPH-g (48,000 micrograms per liter [µg/L] in MW-1), TPH-d (31,000 µg/L in SB1), and BTEX (6,900, 6,000, 3,200, and 10,000 µg/L, respectively, in MW1) but did not report concentrations of MTBE above laboratory reporting limits, likely due to laboratory dilutions of the samples. SB2, MW-2, and MW-3 reported concentrations of MTBE ranging between 3.5 and 26 µg/L.

Subsurface Soil and Groundwater Investigation – November 2007 ACC Environmental Consultants (ACC) advanced 11 exploratory borings at and in the vicinity of the former UST locations in November 2007. The borings (B4 through B14) were advanced to depths ranging between approximately 12 and 32 feet bgs for the collection of soil and groundwater samples.

The locations of the November 2007 soil borings are shown in Figures 3a and 3b.

Soil boring logs indicate fill to approximately 1 foot bgs underlain by silts and clays to depths of approximately 10 to 12 feet bgs. Silty sand was observed beneath the silts and clays to a depth of approximately 16 feet bgs. Clayey silts were then observed to depths of approximately 20 to 22 feet bgs and silty sands were observed to a depth of approximately 32 feet bgs. Groundwater was typically observed at a depth of approximately 10 to 13 feet bgs during drilling activities.

A total of 17 soil samples were collected from borings B4 through B9 and B12 at depths ranging between 6 and 20 feet bgs. Grab groundwater samples were collected from the first-encountered groundwater at borings B6, B7, B8, B10, B11, B13, and B14. All soil and groundwater samples were analyzed for TPH-g, TPH-d, BTEX, and MTBE.

Results of the soil and groundwater sampling are provided in Tables 3, 4, and 6. The maximum concentration of TPH-g and TPH-d was 240 and 110 mg/kg, respectively, in the sample collected from location B4 at a depth of 12 feet bgs. The other soil samples reported concentrations of TPH-d ranging from less than the laboratory reporting limit to 87 mg/kg and concentrations of TPH-g ranging from less than the laboratory reporting limit to 6.6. BTEX and MTBE were not detected in the soil samples. Results of groundwater samples collected from locations B6, B7, B8, and B11 reported elevated concentrations of TPH-g (4,400 µg/L in B6) and TPH-d in (44,000 µg/L in B7). Ethylbenzene concentrations were elevated at locations B6 and B7 and MTBE concentrations were also elevated at B7. Borings B6, B7, B8, and B11 were all located north and northeast of the former UST locations at 38370 Cedar Boulevard.

Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring
Monitoring wells MW-1 through MW-3 were monitored on a quarterly basis by ACC from September 2002 through February 2008. Groundwater flow directions varied in all directions but were most frequently to the southwest and southeast. In general, TPH-g, TPH-d, BTEX, and MTBE concentrations Packet Page 599

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Review of Public Records and
Other Information Sources 30 Ramboll
decreased over time. Following the February 2008 quarterly groundwater monitoring event, the wells were not sampled again until Ramboll sampled the wells in July 2015. Subsurface investigations, groundwater monitoring wells installations, and groundwater remediation activities conducted by Ramboll at 38370 Cedar Boulevard since 2015 are summarized in Section 4.4.3 and a summary of subsurface conditions are discussed in Section 4.4.4. Historical groundwater analytical data is summarized in Table 6. Historical groundwater elevations are presented in Table 7.

4.4.3 Summary of Ramboll Subsurface Investigations (2015 to Present) Ramboll 2015 Investigation
In July 2015 through September 2015, Ramboll conducted the following subsurface investigation activities at the site:
• Soil sampling for metals, organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), PCBs, TPH, and VOCs at locations SB01 through SB26 and SV06 throughout the subject site; • Soil vapor sampling for VOCs at temporary soil vapor probes installed at locations SV01 through SV12 and SV14 through SV45 throughout the subject site; and • Monitoring well installation and soil and groundwater sampling for TPH and VOCs at locations MW4 through MW-9 at 38288 and 38270 Cedar Boulevard.

Results are summarized in Section 4.4.4 of this report and presented in Tables 1 through 7. Sampling locations are provided on Figures 3a and 3b.

Ramboll 2019 Investigation
In January through March 2019, Ramboll conducted the following subsurface investigation activities at the site:
• Installation and soil and groundwater sampling of extraction well EW-1 near MW-1; • Installation and soil and groundwater sampling of monitoring well MW-10 on the eastern portion of 38370 Cedar;
• Installation and soil vapor sampling of 8 semi-permanent soil vapor monitoring wells (SV46 through SV53);
• Soil and groundwater sampling of two temporary groundwater borings (SB27 and SB28); and • Destruction of monitoring well MW-2 and repair of the surface completions of wells MW-4 and MW7.

Results are summarized in Section 4.4.4 of this report and presented in Tables 1 through 7. Sampling locations are provided on Figures 3a and 3b.

Ramboll 2020-2021 Investigation
In December 2020 through January 2021, Ramboll conducted the following subsurface investigation activities at the site:
• Soil and grab groundwater samples from the deeper, Newark Aquifer; • Installation of MW-11 and additional groundwater monitoring at 38370 Cedar; Packet Page 600

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Review of Public Records and
Other Information Sources 31 Ramboll
• Installation and sampling of MW-12 at 38594 Cedar Boulevard; • Soil vapor well installation at SV54 and Site-wide soil vapor sampling; • Shallow soil sampling for low-threat closure; and
• Well survey and sensitive receptor survey for case closure at 38288 Cedar.

Results are summarized in Section 4.4.4 of this report and presented in Tables 1 through 7. Sampling locations are provided on Figures 3a and 3b.

Ramboll 2022 Soil Gas Sampling
• Sampling of soil vapor wells SV48 through SV54.

Results are summarized in Section 4.4.4 of this report and presented in Table 5. Sampling locations are provided on Figures 4a and 4b.

4.4.4 Summary of Subsurface Soil, Soil Gas and Groundwater Conditions at the Subject Site
Regulatory Screening Criteria
Sampling analytical results are compared to the following regulatory screening criteria:
• Soil: ESLs for shallow soil exposure in an unrestricted residential land use scenario.4F 5 In the case
of arsenic, soil sample analytical results were compared to the regional background concentration (11 mg/kg)5F
6;
• Soil vapor: Subslab/Soil Gas Vapor Intrusion Human Health Risk Levels for unrestricted residential land use (RWQCB, 2019); and,
• Groundwater:
1) Maximum Contaminant Levels (“MCLs”; CCR, 2014)6F
7;
2) if no MCL is available, then RWQCB ESLs (RWQCB, 2019); or, 3) if MCLs or ESLs are not available, then United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) for tapwater.7F
8 38288 Cedar (area shown in green on Figure 1)
All detected concentrations in shallow soil samples collected at 38288 Cedar were below ESLs for unrestricted residential land use. TPH and VOCs were not detected above laboratory reporting limits 5 Regional Water Quality Control Board - San Francisco Bay Region (RWQCB). 2019. Environmental Screening Levels. July, Revision 2.
6 Duvergé, Dylan Jacques. 2011. Establishing Background Arsenic in Soil of the Urbanized San Francisco Bay Region.
7 California Code of Regulations (CCR). Title 22, §64444 8 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2021. Regional Screening Levels for Chemical Contaminants at Superfund Sites, RSL Summary Table (TR=1E-6, HQ=1). May.

Packet Page 601

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Review of Public Records and
Other Information Sources 32 Ramboll
in deeper soil samples collected at or in the vicinity of the former USTs at locations SB27 or during the installation of MW-8 or MW-9.

During soil vapor sampling conducted in 2015, concentrations of benzene and naphthalene were reported above ESLs for unrestricted residential land use at SV03 and SV04, in the vicinity of the garage structure. No other VOCs were detected above laboratory reporting limits during the 2015 soil vapor sampling at 38288 Cedar, including SV06 which was collected in the location of the former USTs. In March 2019 and December 2020, soil vapor samples were collected from SV46 inside the garage structure; all VOC concentrations, including benzene and naphthalene, were below their respective ESLs for unrestricted residential land use.

Monitoring wells MW-8 and MW-9 were installed at 38288 Cedar in 2015 to assess whether prior USTs may have impacted groundwater in this area of the subject site. To date, only TPH-d has been detected in these wells at concentrations of 50 µg/L (MW-8 in 2015) and 100 µg/L (MW-9 in 2019); both concentrations are below the ESL of 200 µg/L. At the request of ACWD, a grab groundwater sample was collected in the former UST location in 2019 (SB27). TPH-d was detected in the grab groundwater sample at SB27 at 83 µg/L, below the ESL. TPH-mo was detected at 720 µg/L, above the ESL of 410 µg/L. VOCs were not detected above laboratory reporting limits in groundwater samples collected from MW-8, MW-9, and SB27. On June 2, 2022, ACWD issued a letter stating that case closure will be issued once monitoring wells MW-8 and MW-9 are destroyed and a final Case Closure Summary documenting the monitoring well destructions is submitted to the SFRWQCB for review and approval.
38370 Cedar (area shown in yellow on Figure 1)
Shallow soil sampling results for samples collected at 38370 Cedar did not report any concentrations above ESLs for unrestricted residential land use. Concentrations of TPH and petroleum-related VOCs (including benzene and ethylbenzene) exceed ESLs for unrestricted residential land use in the soil sample collected at 24 feet bgs during the installation of EW-1 in the former UST area. TPH and petroleum-related VOCs were less than ESLs for unrestricted residential land use in the soil sample collected at 35 feet bgs at EW-1. Soil samples collected at 11 feet bgs or deeper (below the groundwater table) in SB21 reported concentrations of TPH-d and benzene above the ESLs for unrestricted residential land use. Soil sampling performed during the installation of MW-4 through MW-7, MW-10, and MW-11 as well as soil borings on the eastern portion of 38370 Cedar did not detect VOCs or TPH-g/d/mo above laboratory reporting limits.

TPH-g/d/mo and BTEX were not detected above laboratory reporting limits in soil samples collected from the top and bottom of the Newark Aquitard.

Soil vapor samples collected from temporary soil vapor wells at 38370 Cedar identified concentrations of BTEX and naphthalene above ESLs for unrestricted residential land use in the former UST area as well as the eastern portion of 38370 Cedar in the immediate vicinity of the shed housing the asphalt spreaders where significant fuel staining was observed on the asphalt-paved surface, in the immediate vicinity of the waste oil shed, and where drums and buckets that reportedly contained waste overcoat, tack oil, and miscellaneous unknown materials were historically stored. It should be noted that at SV11 and SV12, no VOCs were detected above laboratory reporting limits. These sampling locations are in the maintenance garage, which is between the former UST area (SV07 through SV09) and the shed housing the asphalt spreaders (SV14 through SV17).

Packet Page 602

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Review of Public Records and
Other Information Sources 33 Ramboll
Elevated concentrations of fuel-related constituents are localized in shallow groundwater at MW-1 and EW-1. Additional monitoring wells (MW-4 through MW-7, MW-10 and MW-11) installed by Ramboll that are located upgradient, downgradient and cross-gradient of the former UST locations at 38370 Cedar did not detect concentrations of these fuel-related constituents in groundwater above regulatory screening criteria. Furthermore, the results of groundwater monitoring at MW-10 and MW-11 confirm historical and current operations on the eastern portion of 38370 Cedar have not impacted groundwater. As discussed in Section 4.4.5, a groundwater extraction and treatment system is currently operating at 38370 Cedar and is proposed to operate through June 2022.

TPH-g/d/mo, BTEX, and MTBE were not detected above laboratory reporting limits in the groundwater sample collected from the Newark Aquifer.

Central and Eastern Portion of the Site (area shown in blue on Figure 1) Eastern Portion of 38370 Cedar Boulevard
Soil vapor wells SV47 through SV51 were installed at 38370 Cedar in 2019 to confirm previous soil vapor concentrations detected in 2015. Soil vapor well SV47 was installed adjacent to the existing main warehouse and SV48 through SV51 were installed along the eastern boundary of the property.

SV51 was later replaced by SV51B in 2020. Soil vapor samples collected from wells SV47 through SV51B in March 2019 and December 2020 only detected two chemicals above ESLs for unrestricted residential land use: benzene and ethylbenzene in the March 2019 sample at SV50. Soil vapor samples collected in June 2022 from wells SV48 through SV51B did not detect any chemicals above ESLs for unrestricted residential land use. No further investigation is recommended at this time. The eastern portion of 38370 Cedar Boulevard is under review by the SFRWQCB to confirm that no further action is needed based on prior environmental sampling activities. 38424 Cedar
Shallow soil sampling results for samples collected at 38424 Cedar did not report any concentrations above ESLs for unrestricted residential land use.

Soil vapor samples collected in 2015 from SV19 and SV20, located near the storage area for old car and machine parts, reported benzene concentrations above the unrestricted residential ESL. VOCs were not detected above the ESLs in the soil vapor samples from the remainder of 38424 Cedar at SV21 and SV22. In March 2019, soil vapor well SV52 was installed in the vicinity of prior sample locations SV19 and SV20. All VOCs concentrations in the March 2019 sample at SV52 were below their respective ESLs. PCE and TCE were detected in the December 2020 sample at SV52 at concentrations above ESLs for unrestricted residential land use. In Ramboll’s soil vapor sampling conducted at the subject site to date, PCE and TCE had not previously been detected at concentrations greater than the ESLs for unrestricted residential land use. In January 2021, SV52 was resampled to confirm the PCE and TCE detections. A duplicate sample was also collected during resampling at SV52.

PCE and TCE were not detected above laboratory reporting limits in the resample or duplicate sample collected at SV52 in January 2021. A soil vapor sample collected in June 2022 from well SV52 did not detect any chemicals above ESLs for unrestricted residential land use. No further investigation is recommended at this time. 38424 Cedar Boulevard is under review by the SFRWQCB to confirm that no further action is needed based on prior environmental sampling activities.

Packet Page 603

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Review of Public Records and
Other Information Sources 34 Ramboll
38456 Cedar
No VOC concentrations were above ESLs for unrestricted residential land use in the soil vapor samples collected from 38456 Cedar. No further investigation is recommended at this time. 38456 Cedar Boulevard is under review by the SFRWQCB to confirm that no further action is needed based on prior environmental sampling activities.
38472 Cedar
At 38472 Cedar, the only VOC reported in soil vapor samples above ESLs for unrestricted residential land use was benzene in sample SV30 in the southern portion of the subject site. However, it is common to find benzene at low concentrations in the vicinity of parking areas as stormwater runoff from these areas are likely the source of these low concentrations. No further investigation or mitigation is recommended at this time. 38472 Cedar Boulevard is under review by the SFRWQCB to confirm that no further action is needed based on prior environmental sampling activities. 38486 Cedar
At 38486 Cedar, the only VOC reported in soil vapor samples above ESLs for unrestricted residential land use was benzene at locations SV32 and SV54 in the southern portion of the subject site.

However, it is common to find benzene at low concentrations in the vicinity of parking areas or roads as stormwater runoff from these areas are likely the source of these low concentrations. A soil vapor sample collected in June 2022 from well SV54 did not detect any chemicals above ESLs for unrestricted residential land use. No further investigation or mitigation is recommended at this time. 38486 Cedar Boulevard is under review by the SFRWQCB to confirm that no further action is needed based on prior environmental sampling activities.
38592 Cedar
At 38592 Cedar, the only VOC reported in soil gas samples above ESLs for unrestricted residential land use was benzene in samples SV33 and SV42. However, it is common to find benzene at low concentrations in the vicinity of parking areas or roads as stormwater runoff from these areas are likely the source of these low concentrations. No further investigation or mitigation is recommended at this time. 38592 Cedar Boulevard is under review by the SFRWQCB to confirm that no further action is needed based on prior environmental sampling activities. 38594 Cedar
OCPs and TPH were not detected above laboratory reporting limits in the shallow soil sample collected at SB26. TPH and VOCs were not detected above laboratory reporting limits in the soil sample collected from boring SB28.

Soil vapor concentrations of benzene in SV43, SV44 and SV45 were above the ESL for unrestricted residential land use. However, it is common to find benzene at low concentrations in the vicinity of parking areas or roads as stormwater runoff from these areas are likely the source of these low concentrations. In the summa canister sample from SV34 collected in 2015, benzene, 1,2- bromoethane, ethylbenzene, 1,1,2-trichloroethane, and 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane were also detected at concentrations above the ESLs. However, surface air leakage was reported in the Summa canister (1,1-difluoroethane [1,1-DFA] was detected at a concentration of 2,700 micrograms per cubic meter [µg/m3]). As a result, soil vapor was resampled in March 2019 and December 2020 following the installation of soil vapor well SV53 in the immediate vicinity of prior sampling location SV34. No VOCs were detected above ESLs for unrestricted residential land use in samples collected at SV53. A soil Packet Page 604

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Review of Public Records and
Other Information Sources 35 Ramboll
vapor sample collected in June 2022 from well SV53 did not detect any chemicals above ESLs for unrestricted residential land use.

A grab groundwater sample was collected from SB28 at 38594 Cedar in the northern portion of the subject site, adjacent to soil vapor samples SV34 and SV53. TPH-d and TPH-mo were detected at concentrations in excess of their respective MCLs. Monitoring well MW-12 was installed in the immediate vicinity of SB28 in December 2020. TPH-g/d/mo, BTEX, and MTBE were not detected above laboratory reporting limits in the sample collected from monitoring well MW-12 in December 2020. No further investigation or mitigation is recommended at this time. 38594 Cedar Boulevard is under review by the SFRWQCB to confirm that no further action is needed based on prior environmental sampling activities.

4.4.5 Groundwater Remediation Activities
Groundwater Injection at 38370 Cedar
As summarized in Section 4.4.4, subsurface investigations conducted by Ramboll at the 38370 Cedar portion of the site from 2015 through 2021 identified petroleum hydrocarbon impacts to soil and groundwater from six former fuel USTs located west of the current garage structure. Based on the findings of the subsurface investigations, in April 2021 an ISCO groundwater injection program was implemented in the former UST area to promote rapid destruction of site chemicals of potential COPCs such as TPH-g, TPH-d, BTEX, and MTBE in soil and groundwater.

In accordance with the Remedial Action Work Plan approved by ACWD, a mixture of 13,226 pounds of Klozur SP (a commercially available sodium persulfate reagent), 2,671 gallons of 25% sodium hydroxide (NaOH) aqueous solution (an alkaline activator), and 12,477 gallons of potable water as the injection reagent was injected at a total of 11 injection borings in the former UST area at 38370 Cedar, targeting a treatment area of approximately 900 square feet (SF). The 900 SF treatment area focused on the approximate former location of Tank F and existing wells EW-1 and MW-1. The injection reagent, drilling methods and program are detailed below.

In July 2021, Ramboll conducted post-injection groundwater monitoring at site monitoring wells EW-1, MW-1, and MW-3 through MW-7 (see Figure 4a). Results of the July 2021 groundwater sampling indicated concentrations of TPH-g and benzene had increased in wells EW-1 and MW-1 in comparison to pre-injection concentrations. Additional groundwater monitoring was conducted at EW-1 and MW-1 in August 2021. Results of August 2021 sampling were consistent with July 2021 sampling results.

The increased COPC concentrations are likely the result of the destruction of organic soil material adhered to residual fuel product that had historically leaked from the former USTs. The destruction of the organic soil material released the residual fuel product into the groundwater, thereby increasing the groundwater concentrations of the COPCs.

Groundwater Extraction and Treatment at 38370 Cedar
As discussed in the 2020 Ramboll Investigation Report, from March 11 to March 14, 2019, Ramboll conducted a 5-day groundwater extraction program at the new extraction well (EW-1) and additional groundwater sampling of monitoring wells at 38370 Cedar after completion of the pumping from the extraction well. In total, approximately 8,200 gallons of groundwater were extracted from EW-1 during the groundwater extraction test. The results of groundwater sampling performed at MW-1 in September 2018, prior to the groundwater extraction program at EW-1, were compared to the sampling results from a sample collected at MW-1 in March 2019, after the groundwater extraction Packet Page 605

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Review of Public Records and
Other Information Sources 36 Ramboll
program at EW-1. Although decreases in benzene and TPH-g were observed, concentrations of TPH-d and other VOCs remained relatively stable or increased slightly.

In December 2021 following approval by ACWD, a groundwater extraction and treatment system was installed at the site. Since January 4, 2022, over 250,000 gallons of groundwater have been extracted from EW-1, treated, and discharged to the sanitary sewer. The groundwater extraction and treatment system is planned to operate through June 2022 at which point the monitoring wells at and in the vicinity of the former USTs at 38370 Cedar are to be sampled. The groundwater sampling results will be compared to historical concentrations to evaluate whether or not additional remediation (such as additional groundwater extraction or ISCO injection) is warranted. If the operation of the groundwater extraction and treatment successfully reduced COPCs in groundwater, the groundwater sampling results will be presented to ACWD and SFRWQCB with the intent of obtaining low threat closure of the open LUFT case at 38370 Cedar Boulevard.

4.5 Environmental Lien Record Search
A review of EDR Environmental Lien Search Report dated May 19, 2015 to identify environmental liens or activity use limitations (AULs) imposed by judicial authorities with respect to the property. No environmental liens or AULs were found.

4.6 User-Provided Information
Ramboll provided Robson Homes with a User Questionnaire (consistent with Appendix X3 of the ASTM Standard) that requested information relating to environmental liens, AULs, specialized knowledge of the property, property value diminution, chain-of-title, or any other commonly known or obvious indications of site contamination, that was not otherwise provided to Ramboll. The user did not provide any information that was not otherwise obtained and reviewed by Ramboll.

Packet Page 606

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Site Reconnaissance 37 Ramboll

5. SITE RECONNAISSANCE

5.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions
Jason Kane of Ramboll conducted site reconnaissance visits on May 19 and June 18, 2015. Tommy Winger of Ramboll conducted site reconnaissance visits on April 22 and April 26, 2022. During the site visits, observations of the subject site were made to evaluate if any RECs, as defined in Chapter 2, are present.

5.2 General Site Setting and Observations
Ramboll made observations concerning all of the interior and exterior issues specified in Sections 9.4.2 through 9.4.4 of the ASTM E1527-21 Standard. The presence or absence of each issue of environmental interest or concern is noted in Table H. Only those areas of environmental interest or concern that were observed at the subject site are discussed further in the text below.

Table H: Summary of Site Reconnaissance Observations
Issue ASTM
Section Observation
Interior and Exterior Issues
Current use(s) of the property 9.4.2.1 See Section 3.2
Past use(s) of the property 9.4.2.2 See Section 3.2 and 4.2 Hazardous substances and petroleum products used, treated, stored, disposed of, or generated on the property in connection with identified present or past uses

9.4.2.3 Historically Present
Present
(see Section 5.2.1)
Storage tanks:

Underground storage tanks (fill ports, vent pipes, manholes) Aboveground storage tanks (ASTs)

9.4.2.4 Historically Present
Present
(see Section 5.2.2)
Odors (strong, pungent or noxious) 9.4.2.5 Absent
Pools of liquid, standing surface water or sumps 9.4.2.6 Absent Drums of hazardous substances or petroleum products (for example, five-gallon, 55-gallon or totes)

9.4.2.7 Historically Present
Present
(see Section 5.2.1)
Hazardous substance and petroleum product containers (not necessarily in connection with identified uses)

9.4.2.8 Absent
Unidentified substance containers suspected of containing hazardous substances or petroleum products

9.4.2.9 Historically Present
(see Section 5.2.3)
Packet Page 607

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Site Reconnaissance 38 Ramboll
Table H: Summary of Site Reconnaissance Observations
Issue ASTM
Section Observation
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
Electrical equipment on-site (e.g., transformers, capacitors) Electrical equipment known or likely to contain PCBs
Hydraulic equipment on-site (e.g., elevators, truck dock lifts) Hydraulic equipment known or likely to contain PCBs

9.4.2.10 Unlikely to be Present
(see Section 5.2.4)
Interior Issues
Heating/cooling systems 9.4.3.1 Present
(see Section 5.2.5)
Stains or corrosion on interior floors, walls or ceilings (except for staining from water)

9.4.3.2 Present
(see Section 5.2.6)
Floor drains and interior sumps 9.4.3.3 Present
(see Section 5.2.7)
Exterior Issues
Pits, ponds or lagoons on property or adjacent sites 9.4.4.1 Absent Stained soil or pavement 9.4.4.2 Present
(see Section 5.2.6)
Stressed vegetation (from other than insufficient water) 9.4.4.3 Absent On-site solid waste disposal; areas apparently filled or graded by non-natural causes; or mounds or depressions suggesting solid waste disposal

9.4.4.4 Present
(see Section 5.2.8)
Wastewater or other liquid (including storm water) or any discharge into a drain, ditch, underground injection system or stream on or adjacent to the property

9.4.4.5 Present
(see Section 5.2.9)
Wells (including dry wells, irrigation wells, injection wells, abandoned wells, or other wells)

9.4.4.6 Present
(see Section 5.2.10)
Septic systems or cesspools 9.4.4.7 Absent
Notes:

Observations noted in this table and discussed further below are based on information obtained during the site visits and from a review of the sources summarized in Chapter 4.

See the ASTM Standard for a detailed description of the issues included in each referenced ASTM section.

Per the ASTM Standard, fluorescent light ballasts likely to contain PCBs do not need to be noted.

Packet Page 608

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Site Reconnaissance 39 Ramboll

5.2.1 Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products
38288 Cedar Boulevard. In 2015, Ramboll observed one 55-gallon drum of used oil and fuel filters, multiple 1-quart containers of oil, and one 55-gallon used oil drum located at or in the vicinity of the garage.

In 2022, Ramboll observed one shipping container used to store multiple 5-gallon containers of hydraulic oil or fluid and lubricants. A separate shipping container was used for repairing small heavy equipment and a 5-gallon open top container filled with used oil was observed. Six 55-gallon drums were observed at the front of the property and contain soil cuttings from the installation of monitoring wells MW-8 and MW-9.
38370 Cedar Boulevard. In 2015, Ramboll observed shipping containers and truck trailers used to store multiple 5‐gallon containers of tire mounting compound, hydraulic oil or fluid, asphalt emulsifier, and waste oil buckets. One 10-gallon oil drum, one 55-gallon motor oil drum in secondary containment, and multiple 5-gallon buckets of hydraulic oil, motor oil, and asphalt emulsifier were stored in the garage. Three 5-gallon fuel containers, nine empty 55-gallon drums, and three unlabeled 55-gallon drums reportedly used for waste oil were stored in a waste oil shed located in the northeastern corner of the property.

In 2022, Ramboll observed one 55-gallon used oil drum, one 250-gallon used oil AST, one 55-gallon new oil drum in secondary containment, two 55-gallon new oil drums that were unopened, one 55- gallon used oil filter drum, and multiple 5-gallon containers of hydraulic oil and asphalt emulsifier.

East of the warehouse building, multiple empty and partially full unlabeled 55-gallon drums and 5- gallon containers were staged and reportedly being used to collect oil, fuel, and other liquids generated during deconstruction and disposal of old heavy equipment. The waste oil shed observed in 2015 was recently demolished and waste containers were consolidated. 38424 Cedar Boulevard. In 2015, Ramboll observed one 55-gallon waste oil drum, one 55-gallon used transmission fluid drum, and car cleaning and maintenance products (1 gallon or less in volume) inside the warehouse. A 5-gallon fuel container on its side with minor asphalt staining in the vicinity and multiple corroded 1-gallon paint cans were observed behind the warehouse.

In 2022, Ramboll observed one 16-gallon waste oil and transmission fluid drum and one 16-gallon used anti-freeze drum that were both in secondary containment, a tray containing used oil, multiple empty 55-gallon waste oil and fluid drums, and multiple 5-gallon containers of acetone and cleaning agents. Behind the warehouse, 16 55-gallon drums containing used charcoal were stored on pallets, and two 55-gallon unlabeled drums with unknown contents were observed. Two unlabeled and empty 55-gallon drums were also observed.
38456-A Cedar Boulevard. In 2015, Ramboll observed minor storage of waste oil (110 gallons per year), approximately four 5‐gallon containers of acetone, and automotive paint products inside the warehouse.

In 2022, Ramboll observed one 55-gallon waste oil drum in secondary containment, two 55-gallon waste paint drums, multiple quart-sized new oil and transmission fluid containers, and automotive paint products inside the warehouse.

Packet Page 609

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Site Reconnaissance 40 Ramboll
38456-B Cedar Boulevard. In 2015, Ramboll observed minor storage of acetone and glue as well as construction- and cleaning-related products in the chemical storage room.

In 2022, Ramboll observed the same minor storage of acetone, glue and construction and cleaning products in the chemical storage room. Ramboll also observed multiple unopened 5-gallon buckets of new hydraulic oil in the main warehouse.
38472-A Cedar Boulevard. In 2015, Ramboll observed minor solvent use (acetone-based) to clean hand tools in the rear of the warehouse. The solvent cleaning was performed inside secondary containment. Automotive coating and paint products were also observed in the warehouse.

Historically, Maaco Auto Painting stored approximately ten to twelve 55‐gallon drums of paints and acetone-based thinners in the late 1980’s.

In 2022, Ramboll observed one 55-gallon waste oil drum, one used oil filter rack connected to a 55- gallon waste oil drum, four 55-gallon new motor oil drums, and multiple unopened 5-gallon containers of paint thinner, solvents, and methane reducer. 5-gallon containers paint solvents (urethane reducer, wash thinner) and new paint products were observed in the area of the temporary paint booth that is constructed out of a modified children’s “bounce house”. Ramboll also observed the following ASTs: one empty 55-gallon AST; two empty approximately 150-gallon ASTs; and one approximately 500-gallon AST with a waste oil label that had trace amounts of waste oil in the bottom. 38472-B Cedar Boulevard. In 2022, Ramboll observed one new 55-gallon diesel exhaust fluid drum and 3 new 55-gallon “Lube Buster” hydraulic oil drums. In addition, Ramboll observed two empty, unlabeled 55-gallon drums in secondary containment behind the warehouse. 38486-A Cedar Boulevard. In 2015, Ramboll observed one 55-gallon drum each of new and used oil.

In 2022, Ramboll observed two 55-gallon waste oil drums and one 55-gallon used antifreeze drum. 38486-B Cedar Boulevard. In 2022 Ramboll observed two 55-gallon unlabeled drums that were approximately half-full, multiple 5-gallon containers of adhesive solvent, primer thinner and cleaning products, empty and partially full 5-gallon containers of gasoline, and one 3-gallon old waste oil container.
38592 Cedar Boulevard. At the time of Ramboll’s site walks in 2015 and 2022, 38592 Cedar Boulevard was divided into three separate units (38592-A, 38592-B, and 38592-C Cedar Boulevard.

Based on a 1991 letter from Alameda County Health Agency, two 55‐gallon barrels of spent sandblasting sand, one 55‐gallon drum of waste motor oil, 43 containers (ranging between 5 and 55 gallons in volume) containing 1,1,1‐trichloroethane and methyl‐ethyl ketone in solution with water, and one 140‐gallon stainless steel vat containing Ridoline (a caustic cleaner containing primarily sodium hydroxide) were present on this portion of the site. No leaks or releases were indicated in the removal letter. The site owner reported the drums referenced in the 1991 letter were removed under the oversight of the County Health Department (presumably ACDEH) and the matter was resolved to the satisfaction of ACDEH.
38592-A Cedar Boulevard. In 2015, Ramboll observed one 55‐gallon new oil drum, one 55‐gallon waste coolant drum, and one 55‐gal new coolant drum inside the building.

Packet Page 610

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Site Reconnaissance 41 Ramboll
In 2022, Ramboll observed quart-size containers of new motor oil inside Autoland. 38592-B Cedar Boulevard. In 2022, Ramboll observed one 55-gallon waste transmission fluid drum, one 55-gallon waste oil drum, one open air trough with approximately 3-inches of waste oil lining the bottom, two 10-gallon containers of gasoline, and one new 5-gallon container of joint compound. 38592-C Cedar Boulevard. In 2022, Ramboll did not observe storage of any hazardous materials or waste.
38594-A Cedar Boulevard. In 2015, Ramboll observed the storage of automotive paint products and minor solvent use (acetone-based) for the cleaning of painting tools.

In 2022, Ramboll observed one 2-gallon container of new hydraulic oil, three 55-gallon drums of used paint and paint rinse waste liquid, multiple small containers of coolant and antifreeze, and automotive paint products near the paint booth.
38594-B Cedar Boulevard. In 2022, Ramboll observed three 5-gallon containers of gasoline inside the building.

5.2.2 Storage Tanks
In 1989, two USTs were removed from 38288 Cedar Boulevard and six USTs were removed from 38370 Cedar Boulevard. The USTs were formerly used to store diesel and gasoline fuel. The removal of the USTs is discussed in Section 4.4.

A 500-gallon used oil AST is located at 38592-A Cedar Boulevard.

Historically at 38424 Cedar Boulevard, a permit was issued by the Building Department in May 1978 for the construction of a 4-feet diameter, 12-feet long diesel AST located adjacent to the northeast corner of the building. There is no indication that the AST was ever installed and the site owner indicated no such AST was ever installed. A 16,000-gallon AST used for the storage of wax was located adjacent to southwest corner of building, in the current location of the cardboard compacting machine.

5.2.3 Unidentified Substance Containers
In 2015, one 55-gallon unlabelled drum, reportedly used for the storage of waste motor oil, was observed in the garage at 38288 Cedar Boulevard. Multiple unlabelled 5-gallon buckets and 55-gallon drums were located in the garage at 38370 Cedar Boulevard. The buckets and drums reportedly contain waste oils (hydraulic, lubricating, and/or motor). At 38424 Cedar Boulevard approximately fifteen 55-gallon unlabelled drums are stored in the rear of property. A majority of the drums appeared to be only partially full, although the contents were unknown. No staining was observed at or in the vicinity of the drums. Four unlabelled drums were also located at 38592-C Cedar Boulevard (MT Smog Test). The drums were reportedly used for the storage of personal items by the business owner.

In 2022, multiple unlabelled 5-gallon containers and 55-gallon drums reportedly used to collect oil, fuel, and other liquids generated during deconstruction and disposal of old heavy equipment were observed behind the garage at 38370 Cedar Boulevard. Two 55-gallon unlabelled drums with unknown contents were observed behind the warehouse at 38424 Cedar Boulevard. Two unlabelled Packet Page 611

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Site Reconnaissance 42 Ramboll
55-gallon drums approximately half-full with unknown contents were observed inside 38486-B Cedar Boulevard.

5.2.4 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Heavy hydraulic construction equipment (e.g., graders, excavators, pavers), both operational and non-operational, is parked around the perimeter of the yard at 38370 Cedar Boulevard. Minor staining was observed underneath the majority of the heavy equipment. Based on the frequent use and maintenance of the equipment, it is likely that the hydraulic oils in each machine have been replaced since the federal-ban on PCBs was enacted in 1979 and therefore it is unlikely that the oils contain PCBs.

A hydraulic cardboard compactor with an exterior, aboveground hydraulic oil reservoir was observed in the southern portion of the property at 38424 Cedar Boulevard. The compactor was reportedly installed by the current tenant, Applied Air Filters, when they began operating at the subject site in approximately 2014. No staining was observed at or in the vicinity of the hydraulic compactor.

Because the hydraulic compactor was installed after the 1979 federal ban on the manufacture of PCBs, it is unlikely that the unit contains PCBs.

Hydraulic lifts for automobiles were observed at 38424 Cedar Boulevard (two), 38472-A Cedar Boulevard (three), 38486 Cedar Boulevard (one), 38592-B Cedar Boulevard (three), and 38594 Cedar Boulevard (three). All hydraulic lifts were observed to have aboveground hydraulic oil reservoirs. No staining was observed at or in the vicinity of the hydraulic lifts. Because the hydraulic lifts were installed after the 1979 federal ban on the manufacture of PCBs, it is unlikely that the units contains PCBs.

Multiple transformers were observed at the subject site. All private transformers were located inside warehouse buildings and observed to be dry-type transformers. PG&E-owned transformers are located on-site at 38424 and 38456 Cedar Boulevard.

5.2.5 Cooling Systems
Interior, wall-mounted air conditioning units for the cooling of warehouse office-spaces were observed throughout the subject site.

5.2.6 Interior and Exterior Staining
38288 Cedar Boulevard. Minor oil stains were observed on the floor inside the garage. The floor was observed to be in good condition, free of cracks. Oil staining was also observed on the gravel located around the perimeter and southern portion of the yard where semi-trailer trucks are currently and have historically been parked.
38370 Cedar Boulevard. Multiple locations with oil staining are located in the center of the garage floor where equipment is serviced, and minor cracking was observed in the concrete floor. Significant diesel fuel staining observed on asphalt-paved surface underneath tarps in asphalt spreader storage shed. Asphalt-paved surface with staining was observed to have minor cracking. Exterior oil staining underneath majority of heavy equipment parked around perimeter yard at 38370 Cedar Boulevard.

The staining was observed on unpaved surfaces or asphalt-/concrete-paved surfaces that are in poor condition with many cracks and potholes.

Packet Page 612

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Site Reconnaissance 43 Ramboll
38424 Cedar Boulevard. Minor oil staining was observed on the exterior asphalt-paved surface underneath motorhomes parked throughout the address and underneath pallets located outside behind the warehouse building. The pallets are used to store old car and machine parts. The asphalt was observed to be in good condition.
38472-A Cedar Boulevard. Minor oil staining was observed on the concrete floor inside the warehouse building. The floor was observed to be in good condition, free of cracks. Minor exterior oil staining was observed outside the warehouse garage roll-up doors. The asphalt was observed to be in good condition.
38472-B Cedar Boulevard. Minor oil staining was observed on the concrete floor inside the warehouse building. The floor was observed to be in good condition, free of cracks. 38486-A Cedar Boulevard. Multiple oil-stained locations related to current or past storage of leaking engines and engine parts were observed. The floor was observed to be in good condition, free of cracks.

5.2.7 Interior Sump
A former tenant of 38424-B Cedar Boulevard (Bay Area Body Shop) operated a “down-draft” painting booth in the northern portion of the warehouse located at 38472 Cedar Boulevard. The ventilation system for the painting booth was installed in a below-grade sump and predominantly captures fumes and vapors from the painting process, although small particles of paint collect on the intake vent at the base of the sump.

During the 2022 Ramboll site visit, the tenant space at 38424-B Cedar Boulevard was occupied by MT Smog and the “down-draft” paint booth and sump had been removed. A large metal grate replaced a portion of the concrete floor in the center of the tenant space and covers concrete rubble and dirt where the paint booth was formerly located.

5.2.8 On-site Waste Disposal
The northern portion of 38288 Cedar Boulevard has piles of construction and landscape debris and used tires. At 38370 Cedar Boulevard, Fremont Paving stockpiles excess quantities of soil and asphalt from off-site grading and paving jobs in the southwestern corner of 38370 Cedar Boulevard (adjacent to Cedar Blvd and the 38288 Cedar address). The soil and asphalt is periodically off-hauled to a permitted landfill.

Used tires and old and/or abandoned vehicles are stored in the northern portion of 38370 Cedar, 38424 Cedar, 38472 Cedar, 38486 Cedar, 38592 Cedar and 38594 Cedar, along the parcel border with interstate 880.

5.2.9 On-site Wastewater System
Bracho Marble and Granite, the tenant at 38456-B Cedar Boulevard, operates a small water treatment system to remove marble and granite sediment for water recycling. The marble and granite sediment is containerized and off-hauled by a recycling company.

5.2.10 Monitoring Wells
A total of eleven monitoring wells and one extraction well are located at the site (Figure 4a). Under the direction of EBS in March 2001, three monitoring wells (MW-1 through MW-3) were installed at Packet Page 613

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Site Reconnaissance 44 Ramboll
38370 Cedar Boulevard, as discussed in Section 4.4. Monitoring well MW-2 was destroyed by Ramboll in 2019. Under the direction of Ramboll in July 2015, two monitoring wells were installed at 38288 Cedar Boulevard (MW-8 and MW-9) and four additional monitoring wells were installed at 38370 Cedar Boulevard (MW-4, MW-5, MW-6, and MW-7), as discussed in Section 4.4. Under the direction of Ramboll in 2019, an extraction well (EW-1) and monitoring well (MW-10) were installed at 38370 Cedar Boulevard. Under the direction of Ramboll in 2020 and 2021 a monitoring well was installed at 38370 Cedar Boulevard (MW-11) and a monitoring well was installed at 38594 Cedar Boulevard (MW12).

Packet Page 614

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Findings, Opinion, and Conclusions 45 Ramboll

6. FINDINGS, OPINION, AND CONCLUSIONS
Ramboll performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM International’s Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process E1527-21 (the “ASTM Standard”) of the buildings located at 38288 – 38594 Cedar Boulevard in Newark, California. The objective of the ESA was to identify RECs, as defined in the ASTM Standard. A list of key definitions presented in the ASTM Standard is provided in Section 8 at the end of this report. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 6.2.

6.1 Findings, Opinions, and Conclusions

6.1.1 Recognized Environmental Conditions
Ramboll identified the following REC, as defined by ASTM (see Chapter 2.0), in connection with unrestricted residential use of the property:
• 38370 Cedar Boulevard (shown in yellow and red on Figure 1). As discussed above in Section 1.2, this portion of the site is an open LUFT case (ACWD No. TT0590; SFRWQCB No. 01- 2452) where groundwater remediation is currently being implemented. The LUFT case at 38370 Cedar Boulevard pertains to the removal of one 8,000-gallon diesel UST, one 5,000-gallon diesel UST, three 1,000-gallon gasoline USTs, and one 550-gallon gasoline UST in 1989 from an area west of the garage structure. Subsurface investigations and monitoring confirm that the impacts from the former USTs to groundwater at 38370 Cedar Boulevard is limited primarily to the former UST area and no migration has occurred since groundwater monitoring activities began in 1989.

Only the upper shallow aquifer has been impacted and the lateral extent is limited to an approximately 2,500-square feet area, as shown in red on Figure 1.

6.1.2 Other Findings
Ramboll identified the following additional findings that are not considered RECs based on available information:
• Regulatory Oversight at the Site. As shown on Figure 1, the site is divided into three areas for the purposes of regulatory oversight: 38288 Cedar Boulevard is an open LUFT case (ACWD No.

TT0623; SFRWQCB No. 01-3514) that is in the process of obtaining case closure; the portion of 38370 Cedar Boulevard where the former USTs were located is an open LUFT case (ACWD No.

TT0590; SFRWQCB No. 01-2452) that has groundwater remediation currently being implemented; and the remaining portion of the site including the eastern portion of 38370 Cedar Boulevard is under review by the SFRWQCB to confirm that no further action is needed based on prior environmental sampling activities.
• Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Soil Gas on Central and Eastern Portions of the Site. Since 2015, fuel-related VOCs such as BTEX have been detected in soil gas samples in multiple locations on the eastern portion of 38370 Cedar Boulevard as well as at 38424, 38472, 38486, 38592, and 38594 Cedar Boulevard. Recent soil gas sampling has not identified concentrations that would require mitigation for unrestricted residential land use, as discussed in detail in Section 4.4.4. No further investigation or mitigation is recommended at this time. • Oil Staining on Ground Surfaces. Multiple locations throughout the subject site were observed to have oil stains on the ground surface. In general, the staining was observed in the location or immediate vicinity of automobiles or automobile parts and maintenance areas, semi-trailer trucks, Packet Page 615

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Findings, Opinion, and Conclusions 46 Ramboll
motorhomes or heavy equipment that are associated with businesses at the subject site. A majority of the staining appeared to be minor in extent. In locations where significant staining was observed, such as the asphalt spreader and waste oil sheds at 38370 Cedar Boulevard, soil and/or soil gas samples were collected at or in the vicinity of the staining to confirm that no subsurface impacts were related to the surface staining (see discussion above). No further investigation is recommended at this time. Oil staining on the ground surface during redevelopment activities will be managed during construction in accordance with a Soil Management Plan (SMP) that is planned for implementation at the site.

6.1.3 De Minimis Conditions
De minimis conditions are those that do not represent a material risk of harm to public health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies. Ramboll did not identify any de minimis conditions related to the subject site.

6.2 Analysis of Data Gaps
The ASTM Standard defines a data gap as “a lack of or inability to obtain information required by the practice despite good faith efforts by the environmental professional to gather such information.” A data gap is only significant if other information obtained during the ESA, or professional experience, raises reasonable concerns and affects the ability of the environmental professional to identify whether a given issue is a REC. Ramboll did not identify any data gaps during the assessment of the subject site.

Packet Page 616

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
ASTM Definitions 47 Ramboll

7. ASTM DEFINITIONS
The following definitions are presented in the ASTM Standard:

REC - Recognized Environmental Condition:

The presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: 1) due to release to the environment; 2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or 3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment.

CREC - Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition:

A recognized environmental condition resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority, with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls.

HREC - Historical Recognized Environmental Condition:

A past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products that has occurred in connection with the property and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or meeting unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory authority, without subjecting the property to any required controls.

De minimis Condition:

A condition that generally does not present a threat to human health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies.

Data Gap / Significant Data Gap:

A lack of or inability to obtain information required by the practice despite good faith efforts by the environmental professional to gather such information. A data gap is significant if other information and/or professional experience raises concerns involving the data gap.

Please note that the term “other finding” is not defined by ASTM; rather, Ramboll uses the term to connote areas of contingent risk that are not clearly defined by the ASTM Standard.

Packet Page 617

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Ramboll

FIGURES
Packet Page 618

SITE LAYOUT AND

REGULATORY OVERSIGHT
PROJECT: 1690019190-002 | DATED: 2/3/2022 | DESIGNER: RMSO FIGURE 1
RAMBOLL US CONSULTING, INC.

A RAMBOLL COMPANY
Service Layer Credits: © 2022 Microsoft Corporation © 2022 Maxar ©CNES (2022) Distribution Airbus DS 0 75 150
Feet
Freitas Site
38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard
Newark, California
C:\Users\rmso\OneDrive - Ramboll\Desktop\drawing1\1690019190-002\1690019190-002-Samploclayout-2.mxd Legend
Approximate Site Boundary
Former UST Excavation
38288 Cedar Blvd: Case closure by ACWD is pending.
60 day public comment period.

Location of Impacted Groundwater at 38370 Cedar Boulevard 38370 Cedar Blvd: Open regulatory case; additional groundwater remediation and monitoring is ongoing.
38424 - 38594 Cedar Blvd and Eastern Portion of 38370 Cedar Blvd:

No current or historical regulatory cases. Voluntary oversight application to RWQCB for this portion of site and request no further action is in process.

Packet Page 619

PROPOSED SITE REDEVELOPMENT MAP
EW-1
MW-9
MW-8
MW-7
MW-6
MW-5
MW-4
MW-3
MW-1
MW-3R MW-5R
MW-1R
MW-4R MW-12
MW-11
MW-10
SV53 SV52
SV50
SV49
SV48
SV47
SV46
SV51B
SV54
LEGEND
Site Boundary
Former USTs at 38370 Cedar
Boulevard
Soil Vapor Well Location
Existing Monitoring Wells
Approximate Location of
Replacement Monitoring Wells
FIGURE 2
RAMBOLL US CONSULTING, INC.

A RAMBOLL COMPANY
0 40 80
Feet
PROJECT: 1690019190-002 | DATED: 6/16/2022 | DESIGNER: RMSO C:\Users\rmso\OneDrive - Ramboll\Desktop\drawing1\1690019190-002\1690019190-200-Monitoring Well Map_SPzone403-2.mxd Freitas Site
38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard
Newark, California
38288 Cedar Blvd: Case closure by ACWD is pending 60 day public comment period.

Location of Impacted Groundwater at 38370 Cedar Boulevard 38370 Cedar Blvd: Open regulatory case; additional groundwater remediation and monitoring required in red shaded area
38424 - 38594 Cedar Blvd and Eastern Portion of 38370 Cedar Blvd:

No current or historical regulatory cases. Ramboll will submit voluntary oversight application to RWQCB for this portion of site and request no further action.

Packet Page 620
Public
Storage
Residential
Neighborhood
Church

CEDAR BOULEVARD
NIMITZ FREEWAY (880)

SMITH AVENUE
Residential
Papé
Machinery
Residential
!¬1
!¬3
!¬2
!¬4
!¬5
!¬6 !¬7
!¬8
38288
Cedar Boulevard
38370
Cedar Boulevard
38424
Cedar Boulevard
38456
Cedar Boulevard
38594
38486 Cedar Boulevard
Cedar Boulevard
38472
Cedar Boulevard
38592
Cedar Boulevard
PROJECT: 1690009004 | DATED: 6/3/2022 | DESIGNER: RMSO Q:\DRAWINGS\1690009004\may_2022_figures\may_2022_figures.aprx\figure_2_vicinity_map Service Layer Credits: Bing Maps Aerial: © 2022 Microsoft Corporation © 2022 Maxar ©CNES (2022) Distribution Airbus DS 0 100 200
Feet
RAMBOLL US CONSULTING, INC.

A RAMBOLL COMPANY
FIGURE 3
Freitas Site
38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard
Newark, California

SITE LAYOUT

AND VICINITY MAP
!(
Ná
Legend
Site Boundary
Former UST Excavation

1. Viviano Trucking Inc.

2. Fremont Paving Inc.

3. Applied Air Filters

4. Unit A: California Camper Repair
Unit B: Bracho Marble and Granite

5. Unit A: Zipin Out Auto Services
Unit B: MT Smog

6. Unit A: Eurobahn Motors Sports
Unit B: Freitas Family Personal Storage

7. Unit A: Golden State Auto
Unit B: Yama Auto Brokers Inc.

8. Unit A: Autoland Car Sales
Unit B: Jinn Speed
Unit C: Illumeaesthetic
Packet Page 621

SAMPLE LOCATION MAP
PROJECT: 1690009004 | DATED: 9/21/2021 | DESIGNER: msosa FIGURE 4a
RAMBOLL US CONSULTING, INC.

A RAMBOLL COMPANY
Service Layer Credits:
0 60 120
Feet
!(
Ná
Freitas Site
38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard
Newark, California
Q:\DRAWINGS\1690009004\1690009004-MonitoringSamploclayout-lands-4_2021_2.mxd ") ") ") ")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#* #*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#* #*
#*
#*
#*
#* #*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#* #*
!>
!>
#*
´>"
´>"
´>"
´>"
´>"
´>"
´>"
´>"
´>"
´>"
´>"
´>"
Ò#*#* Ò#*#*
Ò#*#*
Ò#*#*
Ò#*#*
Ò#*#*
Ò#*#*
Ò#*#*
Ò#*#*
Ò#*#*
Ò#*#*
#*#*
Ð
#*#*
Ð
#*#*
Ð
Ó!³

CEDAR BOULEVARD
INTERSTATE 880
38288
Cedar Blvd
38370
Cedar Blvd
38424
Cedar Blvd
38456
Cedar Blvd 38472
Cedar Blvd
38486
Cedar Blvd
38594
Cedar Blvd
38592
Cedar Blvd
EW-1
MW-10
SV48
SV50
SV51/SV51B
SV47
SV46
SV06
SV53
SB28 SV52
SV33
SV40
SB29
MW-11
SV54
MW-12
SBNA-1
MW-9
MW-8
MW-7
MW-6
MW-5
MW-4
MW-3
MW-1
SB25
SB24
SB23 SB22
SB21
SB20
SB19
SB18
SB16
SB15
SB14
SB13
SB11
SB10
SB09
SB08 SB07
SB06
SB05
SB04
SB03
SB02
SB01
SB17
SB12
SV31
SV34
SV43
SV35
SV37
SV38
SV32
SV30
SV36
SB26
SV44
SV39
SV29
SV28
SV27
SV26
SV25
SV24
SV23
SV22
SV21
SV20
SV19
SV18
SV17
SV15
SV08
SV07
SB27
SV03
SV16
SV14
SV12
SV11
SV10
SV09
SV05
SV04 SV02
SV01
SV45
SV41 SV42
SB-1
SB-3
SB-2
Former UST
Excavation
B14
B10
B9
B8 B7
B6
B5
B4
B13
B11
B12
2 Former Tank
Locations
Soil Boring Location
(2015 and 2020)
Legend
Former UST Area
#*#*
Ð Sample Location from 2001
Site Boundary Investigation by EBS
Soil and Grab Groundwater
Sample Location (2019)
Ó!´ Monitoring Well Location
Soil Vapor Location
(2015)
Soil Vapor Well Location
#*
")
#* !> Newark Aquifer Sample
Location
Ó!³
Ò#*#* Sample Location from 2007
Investigation by ACC
Packet Page 622

SAMPLE LOCATION MAP -

WESTERN PORTION OF SITE
PROJECT: 1690009004 | DATED: 9/28/2021 | DESIGNER: RMSO FIGURE 4b
RAMBOLL US CONSULTING, INC.

A RAMBOLL COMPANY
Service Layer Credits:

Freitas Site
38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard
Newark, California
Q:\DRAWINGS\1690009004\1690009004-Samploc map_2019_3.mxd ") ") ") ")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#* #*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
!> Ó!³
Ó!´
Ó!´
Ó´!
Ó´!
Ó!´
Ó!´
Ó´!
Ó´!
Ó´!
Ó´!
Ó!´
#*#*
Ð
#*#*
Ð
#*#*
Ð
Ò#*#* Ò#*#*
Ò#*#*
Ò#*#*
Ò#*#*
Ò#*#*
Ò#*#*
Ò#*#*
Ò#*#*
Ò#*#*
Ò#*#*
")
Ó!´

CEDAR BOULEVARD
38288
Cedar Blvd
38370
Cedar Blvd
38424
Cedar Blvd
38472
Cedar Blvd
SB27
SV46
SV47 MW-10
SV49
SV50
SV51/SV51B
SV52
SV48
SV40 SB29
MW-11
MW-9
MW-8
MW-7
MW-6
MW-5
MW-4
MW-3
EW-1
MW-1
SB25
SB24
SB23 SB22
SB21
SB20
SB19
SB18
SB16
SB15
SB14
SB13
SV08
SB10
SB09
SB08 SB07
SB06
SB05
SB04 SB03
SB02 SB01
SB17
SB12
SV30
SV39
SV29
SV26
SV25
SV24
SV23
SV22
SV21
SV20
SV19
SV18
SV17
SV15

SV07
SV06
SV03
SV16
SV14
SV12
SV11
SV10
SV09
SV05
SV04
SV02
SV01
SB-1
SB-3
SB-2
Former UST
Excavation
B14
B10
B9
B8
B7
B6
B5
B4
B13
B11
B12
2 Former Tank
Locations
SB11
SBNA-1
Soil Boring Location
(2015 and 2020)
Newark Aquifer Sample
Location
Legend
Former UST Area
#*#*
Ð Sample Location from 2001
Investigation by EBS
Ò#*#* Sample Location from 2007
Investigation by ACC
Site Boundary
Soil and Grab Groundwater
Sample Location (2019)
Ó!´ Monitoring Well Location
Soil Vapor Location (2015)
Soil Vapor Well Location
#*
")
Ó!³
!>
#*
Approximate Location of
Impacted Groundwater at
38370 Cedar Boulevard
Packet Page 623

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Ramboll
TABLES
Packet Page 624
Table 1: Metals in Soil Samples
Results of Soil Sampling
38288-38594 Cedar Boulevard, Newark, California
Sample
Location
Sample
ID
Sample
Depth
(feet bgs)
Sample
Date Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Chromiuma Cobalt Copper Lead Mercury Molybdenum Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium Vanadium Zinc 38288 Cedar Boulevard
SB01 SB01_2.5 2.5 7/7/2015 0.69 9.3 240 0.53 ND<0.25 95 14 35 10 ND<0.050 0.73 110 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 58 67 SB02 SB02_2.5 2.5 7/7/2015 ND<0.50 6.4 160 ND<0.50 ND<0.25 66 13 28 8.6 ND<0.050 0.73 73 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 43 52 SB03 SB03_2.5 2.5 7/7/2015 0.54 8.6 270 0.53 ND<0.25 83 14 29 9.9 ND<0.050 ND<0.50 95 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 49 57 SB04 SB04_2.5 2.5 7/7/2015 ND<0.50 8.0 250 0.51 ND<0.25 76 13 29 9.2 ND<0.050 ND<0.50 91 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 47 57 SB05 SB05_2.5 2.5 7/7/2015 0.61 8.1 210 0.51 ND<0.25 75 13 29 11 0.052 1.2 89 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 48 59 SB06 SB06_2.5 2.5 7/7/2015 0.64 8.4 180 ND<0.50 ND<0.25 81 13 30 9.9 ND<0.050 0.52 99 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 49 61 SB07 SB07_2.5 2.5 7/7/2015 0.67 8.7 300 ND<0.50 ND<0.25 80 13 31 9.6 ND<0.050 0.57 100 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 47 62 SB08 SB08_2.5 2.5 7/7/2015 0.75 9.7 300 0.58 ND<0.25 90 15 38 11 ND<0.050 0.63 110 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 54 73 SB09 SB09_2.5 2.5 7/7/2015 0.74 8.8 260 0.56 ND<0.25 90 15 37 11 ND<0.050 0.53 110 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 53 67 SB10 SB10_2.5 2.5 7/7/2015 0.58 6.7 220 0.51 ND<0.25 74 13 27 7.8 ND<0.050 0.50 90 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 44 53 38370 Cedar Boulevard
SB11 SB11_2.5 2.5 7/7/2015 0.56 8.3 200 0.53 ND<0.25 80 14 28 8.4 ND<0.050 ND<0.50 98 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 48 51 SB12 SB12_2.5 2.5 7/7/2015 ND<0.50 5.6 120 ND<0.50 ND<0.25 59 11 30 16 0.11 0.61 72 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 43 63 SB13 SB13_2.5 2.5 7/7/2015 ND<0.50 5.6 180 ND<0.50 ND<0.25 65 12 27 13 ND<0.050 ND<0.50 74 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 42 61 SB14 SB14_2.5 2.5 7/7/2015 ND<0.50 5.4 110 ND<0.50 ND<0.25 64 16 40 6.0 ND<0.050 0.70 71 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 78 56 SB15 SB15_2.5 2.5 7/7/2015 ND<0.50 6.8 170 ND<0.50 ND<0.25 71 14 33 8.2 ND<0.050 0.86 81 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 62 57 SB16 SB16_2.5 2.5 7/7/2015 0.55 8.6 180 0.54 ND<0.25 83 14 32 9.1 ND<0.050 0.54 95 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 55 58 SB17 SB17_2.5 2.5 7/7/2015 0.65 8.6 230 0.54 ND<0.25 82 14 32 10 ND<0.050 0.54 100 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 52 67 SB18 SB18_2.5 2.5 7/7/2015 0.57 7.5 280 0.55 ND<0.25 83 13 32 9.0 ND<0.050 0.53 99 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 52 59 SB19 SB19_2.5 2.5 7/7/2015 0.71 9.4 180 0.59 ND<0.25 88 14 33 10 0.054 0.69 110 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 52 65 38424 Cedar Boulevard
SB22 SB22_2.5 2.5 7/9/2015 0.65 5.8 210 ND<0.50 ND<0.25 69 12 28 15 ND<0.050 0.55 81 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 44 60 SB23 SB23_2.5 2.5 7/9/2015 0.54 5.3 170 ND<0.50 ND<0.25 59 11 28 11 ND<0.050 0.50 68 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 47 56 SB24 SB24_2.5 2.5 7/9/2015 ND<0.50 7.4 200 0.54 ND<0.25 78 13 30 8.9 ND<0.050 ND<0.50 98 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 44 58 SB25 SB25_2.5 2.5 7/9/2015 0.61 7.8 200 0.56 ND<0.25 73 13 30 8.3 ND<0.050 0.66 88 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 46 54 38594 Cedar Boulevard
SB26 SB26_2.5 2.5 7/10/2015 ND<0.50 7.7 250 0.51 ND<0.25 76 13 31 9.1 ND<0.050 ND<0.5 98 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 44 60 11 11 [2] 15,000 16 78 12,000 23 3,100 80 13 390 820 390 390 0.78 390 23,000 Notes:

Only compounds detected above the laboratory reporting limit are included in the table; positive results are shown in bold.

All data are reported in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg).

California Assessment Manual 17 (CAM17) metals analyzed by EPA Method 6020. a
Samples were analyzed for total chromium. Results are compared against screening levels for chromium III.

ESL = environmental screening level
ND = not detected at or above the laboratory reporting limit shown RWQCB = Regional Water Quality Control Board
[1] Environmental Screening Levels. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Residential: Shallow Soil Exposure. July 2019. [2] Duvergé, Dylan Jacques. 2011. Establishing Background Arsenic in Soil of the Urbanized San Francisco Bay Region.

Screening Value from San Francisco Bay RWQCB ESL
for Residential Land Use [1]