Agenda packet — Newark City Council, July 24, 2025 (part 11 of 13)

Revision History
Client: Farallon Consulting
Project: 251-230302; W&J Enterprises
WorkOrder: 2303185
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Date Revision Reason
03/16/2023 1 Revised to report down to the MDL for PNAs and TPH DMO. 05/17/2023 Revised to update the TPH Diesel Range for with and without silica gel cleanup (water) per client email.
2 05/23/2023 Revised to report both Diesel ranges (C10-C24) and (C10-28) for TPH with and without silica gel.

Fuel finger print also included.
3

Page 2 of 31 ends

Glossary of Terms & Qualifier Definitions
Client: Farallon Consulting
Project: 251-230302; W&J Enterprises
WorkOrder: 2303185
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Glossary Abbreviation
%D Serial Dilution Percent Difference
95% Interval 95% Confident Interval
CPT Consumer Product Testing not NELAP Accredited
DF Dilution Factor
DI WET (DISTLC) Waste Extraction Test using DI water
DISS Dissolved (direct analysis of 0.45 µm filtered and acidified water sample) DLT Dilution Test (Serial Dilution)
DUP Duplicate
EDL Estimated Detection Limit
ERS External reference sample. Second source calibration verification.

ITEF International Toxicity Equivalence Factor
LCS Laboratory Control Sample
LQL Lowest Quantitation Level
MB Method Blank
MB % Rec % Recovery of Surrogate in Method Blank, if applicable MDL Method Detection Limit ¹
ML Minimum Level of Quantitation
MS Matrix Spike
MSD Matrix Spike Duplicate
NA Not Applicable
ND Not detected at or above the indicated MDL or RL
NR Data Not Reported due to matrix interference or insufficient sample amount.

PDS Post Digestion Spike
PDSD Post Digestion Spike Duplicate
PF Prep Factor
RD Relative Difference
RL Reporting limit ²
RPD Relative Percent Difference
RRT Relative Retention Time
RSD Relative Standard Deviation
SPK Val Spike Value
SPKRef Val Spike Reference Value
SPLP Synthetic Precipitation Leachate Procedure
ST Sorbent Tube
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure
¹ MDL is the minimum measured concentration of a substance that can be reported with 99% confidence that the measured concentration is distinguishable from method blank results. Definition and Procedure for the Determination of the Method Detection Limit, Revision 2, 40CFR, Part 136, Appendix B, EPA 821-R-16-006, December 2016.
² RL is the lowest level that can be reliably determined within specified limits of precision and accuracy during routine laboratory operating conditions. (The RL cannot be lower than the lowest calibration standard used in the initial calibration of the instrument and must be greater than the MDL.) Page 3 of 31
Glossary of Terms & Qualifier Definitions
Client: Farallon Consulting
Project: 251-230302; W&J Enterprises
WorkOrder: 2303185
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" TEQ Toxicity Equivalents
TZA TimeZone Net Adjustment for sample collected outside of MAI's UTC.

WET (STLC) Waste Extraction Test (Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration) Analytical Qualifiers
J Result is less than the RL/ML but greater than the MDL. The reported concentration is an estimated value.

S Surrogate recovery outside accepted recovery limits.
a3 Sample diluted due to high organic content interfering with quantitative/or qualitative analysis. c1 Surrogate recovery outside of the control limits due to the dilution of the sample. c2 Surrogate recovery outside of the control limits due to suspected matrix interference. j1 See attached narrative

Page 4 of 31 ends

Client: Farallon Consulting
Project: 251-230302; W&J Enterprises
Case Narrative
March 09, 2023
Work Order: 2303185
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" j1:

Total Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons- Diesel, Motor Oil Samples 2303185-003A, -004A, -00B, -005A, -005B, -006A were analyzed on an instrument sequence with a passing closing continuing calibration verification (CCV) that was analyzed outside of the method recommendation of a 12-hour time frame due to tower error that stopped the sequence prior to its completion. The CCV recoveries were within control limits both before and after the tower error; therefore, there is no impact to the results. The quality of the data is acceptable and reportable.

Page 5 of 31 ends

Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Farallon Consulting
Project: 251-230302; W&J Enterprises
Date Received: 03/02/2023 17:30
Date Prepared: 03/03/2023
WorkOrder: 2303185
Extraction Method: E625
Analytical Method: SW8270C
Unit: µg/L
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs / PNAs) using SIM Mode MW-3 2303185-001D Water 03/02/2023 10:25 GC21 03062316.D 264841 Analytes Result Qualifiers MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Acenaphthene ND 0.0019 0.0047 1 03/06/2023 15:58
Acenaphthylene 0.0023 J 0.00087 0.0047 1 03/06/2023 15:58 Anthracene 0.044 0.0025 0.0047 1 03/06/2023 15:58
Benzo (a) anthracene ND 0.011 0.047 1 03/06/2023 15:58
Benzo (a) pyrene ND 0.0029 0.0047 1 03/06/2023 15:58
Benzo (b) fluoranthene ND 0.0053 0.019 1 03/06/2023 15:58 Benzo (g,h,i) perylene ND 0.0048 0.019 1 03/06/2023 15:58 Benzo (k) fluoranthene ND 0.0049 0.019 1 03/06/2023 15:58 Chrysene ND 0.0019 0.0047 1 03/06/2023 15:58
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene ND 0.0053 0.019 1 03/06/2023 15:58 Fluoranthene ND 0.0025 0.0094 1 03/06/2023 15:58
Fluorene ND 0.0027 0.0094 1 03/06/2023 15:58
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene ND 0.0068 0.019 1 03/06/2023 15:58 1-Methylnaphthalene ND 0.0023 0.0047 1 03/06/2023 15:58 2-Methylnaphthalene ND 0.0014 0.0047 1 03/06/2023 15:58 Naphthalene ND 0.011 0.047 1 03/06/2023 15:58
Phenanthrene ND 0.0024 0.0047 1 03/06/2023 15:58
Pyrene ND 0.0018 0.0047 1 03/06/2023 15:58
Surrogates REC (%) Qualifiers Limits
Analyst(s): KVE Analytical Comments: c2
2-Fluorobiphenyl 69 63-115 03/06/2023 15:58
2-Fluorophenol 16 S 20-103 03/06/2023 15:58
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 6 of 31 ends

Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Farallon Consulting
Project: 251-230302; W&J Enterprises
Date Received: 03/02/2023 17:30
Date Prepared: 03/03/2023
WorkOrder: 2303185
Extraction Method: E625
Analytical Method: SW8270C
Unit: µg/L
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs / PNAs) using SIM Mode MW-4 2303185-002D Water 03/02/2023 11:05 GC21 03062317.D 264841 Analytes Result Qualifiers MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Acenaphthene ND 0.0019 0.0047 1 03/06/2023 16:25
Acenaphthylene ND 0.00088 0.0047 1 03/06/2023 16:25
Anthracene 0.016 0.0025 0.0047 1 03/06/2023 16:25
Benzo (a) anthracene ND 0.011 0.047 1 03/06/2023 16:25
Benzo (a) pyrene ND 0.0029 0.0047 1 03/06/2023 16:25
Benzo (b) fluoranthene ND 0.0053 0.019 1 03/06/2023 16:25 Benzo (g,h,i) perylene ND 0.0048 0.019 1 03/06/2023 16:25 Benzo (k) fluoranthene ND 0.0049 0.019 1 03/06/2023 16:25 Chrysene ND 0.0019 0.0047 1 03/06/2023 16:25
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene ND 0.0053 0.019 1 03/06/2023 16:25 Fluoranthene ND 0.0025 0.0094 1 03/06/2023 16:25
Fluorene ND 0.0027 0.0094 1 03/06/2023 16:25
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene ND 0.0068 0.019 1 03/06/2023 16:25 1-Methylnaphthalene ND 0.0023 0.0047 1 03/06/2023 16:25 2-Methylnaphthalene ND 0.0014 0.0047 1 03/06/2023 16:25 Naphthalene 0.029 J 0.011 0.047 1 03/06/2023 16:25
Phenanthrene 0.0030 J 0.0025 0.0047 1 03/06/2023 16:25
Pyrene 0.0021 J 0.0018 0.0047 1 03/06/2023 16:25
Surrogates REC (%) Qualifiers Limits
Analyst(s): KVE Analytical Comments: c2
2-Fluorobiphenyl 63 63-115 03/06/2023 16:25
2-Fluorophenol 8 S 20-103 03/06/2023 16:25
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 7 of 31 ends

Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Farallon Consulting
Project: 251-230302; W&J Enterprises
Date Received: 03/02/2023 17:30
Date Prepared: 03/03/2023
WorkOrder: 2303185
Extraction Method: E625
Analytical Method: SW8270C
Unit: µg/L
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs / PNAs) using SIM Mode MW-6 2303185-003D Water 03/02/2023 11:40 GC21 03062318.D 264841 Analytes Result MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Acenaphthene ND 0.038 0.094 20 03/06/2023 16:52
Acenaphthylene ND 0.018 0.094 20 03/06/2023 16:52
Anthracene ND 0.051 0.094 20 03/06/2023 16:52
Benzo (a) anthracene ND 0.23 0.94 20 03/06/2023 16:52
Benzo (a) pyrene ND 0.058 0.094 20 03/06/2023 16:52
Benzo (b) fluoranthene ND 0.11 0.38 20 03/06/2023 16:52 Benzo (g,h,i) perylene ND 0.096 0.38 20 03/06/2023 16:52 Benzo (k) fluoranthene ND 0.098 0.38 20 03/06/2023 16:52 Chrysene ND 0.038 0.094 20 03/06/2023 16:52
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene ND 0.11 0.38 20 03/06/2023 16:52 Fluoranthene ND 0.051 0.19 20 03/06/2023 16:52
Fluorene ND 0.055 0.19 20 03/06/2023 16:52
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene ND 0.14 0.38 20 03/06/2023 16:52 1-Methylnaphthalene ND 0.045 0.094 20 03/06/2023 16:52
2-Methylnaphthalene ND 0.028 0.094 20 03/06/2023 16:52
Naphthalene ND 0.23 0.94 20 03/06/2023 16:52
Phenanthrene ND 0.049 0.094 20 03/06/2023 16:52
Pyrene ND 0.036 0.094 20 03/06/2023 16:52
Surrogates REC (%) Qualifiers Limits
Analyst(s): KVE Analytical Comments: a3,c1
2-Fluorobiphenyl 75 63-115 03/06/2023 16:52
2-Fluorophenol 3 S 20-103 03/06/2023 16:52
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 8 of 31 ends

Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Farallon Consulting
Project: 251-230302; W&J Enterprises
Date Received: 03/02/2023 17:30
Date Prepared: 03/03/2023
WorkOrder: 2303185
Extraction Method: E625
Analytical Method: SW8270C
Unit: µg/L
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs / PNAs) using SIM Mode MW-7 2303185-004D Water 03/02/2023 12:50 GC21 03062319.D 264841 Analytes Result Qualifiers MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Acenaphthene ND 0.019 0.047 10 03/06/2023 17:19
Acenaphthylene ND 0.0087 0.047 10 03/06/2023 17:19
Anthracene 0.029 J 0.025 0.047 10 03/06/2023 17:19
Benzo (a) anthracene ND 0.11 0.47 10 03/06/2023 17:19
Benzo (a) pyrene ND 0.029 0.047 10 03/06/2023 17:19
Benzo (b) fluoranthene ND 0.053 0.19 10 03/06/2023 17:19 Benzo (g,h,i) perylene ND 0.048 0.19 10 03/06/2023 17:19 Benzo (k) fluoranthene ND 0.049 0.19 10 03/06/2023 17:19 Chrysene ND 0.019 0.047 10 03/06/2023 17:19
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene ND 0.053 0.19 10 03/06/2023 17:19 Fluoranthene ND 0.025 0.094 10 03/06/2023 17:19
Fluorene ND 0.027 0.094 10 03/06/2023 17:19
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene ND 0.068 0.19 10 03/06/2023 17:19 1-Methylnaphthalene ND 0.023 0.047 10 03/06/2023 17:19
2-Methylnaphthalene ND 0.014 0.047 10 03/06/2023 17:19
Naphthalene ND 0.11 0.47 10 03/06/2023 17:19
Phenanthrene ND 0.024 0.047 10 03/06/2023 17:19
Pyrene ND 0.018 0.047 10 03/06/2023 17:19
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): KVE Analytical Comments: a3
2-Fluorobiphenyl 72 63-115 03/06/2023 17:19
2-Fluorophenol 30 20-103 03/06/2023 17:19
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 9 of 31 ends

Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Farallon Consulting
Project: 251-230302; W&J Enterprises
Date Received: 03/02/2023 17:30
Date Prepared: 03/03/2023
WorkOrder: 2303185
Extraction Method: E625
Analytical Method: SW8270C
Unit: µg/L
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs / PNAs) using SIM Mode MW-8 2303185-005D Water 03/02/2023 13:30 GC21 03062320.D 264841 Analytes Result Qualifiers MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Acenaphthene ND 0.0095 0.024 5 03/06/2023 17:46
Acenaphthylene ND 0.0044 0.024 5 03/06/2023 17:46
Anthracene 0.15 0.013 0.024 5 03/06/2023 17:46
Benzo (a) anthracene ND 0.057 0.24 5 03/06/2023 17:46
Benzo (a) pyrene 0.026 0.015 0.024 5 03/06/2023 17:46
Benzo (b) fluoranthene 0.029 J 0.026 0.095 5 03/06/2023 17:46 Benzo (g,h,i) perylene ND 0.024 0.095 5 03/06/2023 17:46 Benzo (k) fluoranthene ND 0.025 0.095 5 03/06/2023 17:46 Chrysene 0.011 J 0.0095 0.024 5 03/06/2023 17:46
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene ND 0.026 0.095 5 03/06/2023 17:46 Fluoranthene 0.020 J 0.013 0.047 5 03/06/2023 17:46
Fluorene ND 0.014 0.047 5 03/06/2023 17:46
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene ND 0.034 0.095 5 03/06/2023 17:46 1-Methylnaphthalene ND 0.011 0.024 5 03/06/2023 17:46
2-Methylnaphthalene ND 0.0071 0.024 5 03/06/2023 17:46
Naphthalene ND 0.057 0.24 5 03/06/2023 17:46
Phenanthrene ND 0.012 0.024 5 03/06/2023 17:46
Pyrene 0.017 J 0.0090 0.024 5 03/06/2023 17:46
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): KVE Analytical Comments: c1
2-Fluorobiphenyl 67 63-115 03/06/2023 17:46
2-Fluorophenol 28 20-103 03/06/2023 17:46
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 10 of 31 ends

Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Farallon Consulting
Project: 251-230302; W&J Enterprises
Date Received: 03/02/2023 17:30
Date Prepared: 03/03/2023
WorkOrder: 2303185
Extraction Method: E625
Analytical Method: SW8270C
Unit: µg/L
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs / PNAs) using SIM Mode MW-5 2303185-006D Water 03/02/2023 14:10 GC21 03062321.D 264841 Analytes Result Qualifiers MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Acenaphthene ND 0.038 0.095 20 03/06/2023 18:13
Acenaphthylene ND 0.018 0.095 20 03/06/2023 18:13
Anthracene ND 0.052 0.095 20 03/06/2023 18:13
Benzo (a) anthracene ND 0.23 0.95 20 03/06/2023 18:13
Benzo (a) pyrene 0.13 0.059 0.095 20 03/06/2023 18:13
Benzo (b) fluoranthene 0.14 J 0.11 0.38 20 03/06/2023 18:13 Benzo (g,h,i) perylene ND 0.097 0.38 20 03/06/2023 18:13 Benzo (k) fluoranthene ND 0.099 0.38 20 03/06/2023 18:13 Chrysene 0.056 J 0.038 0.095 20 03/06/2023 18:13
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene ND 0.11 0.38 20 03/06/2023 18:13 Fluoranthene 0.063 J 0.052 0.19 20 03/06/2023 18:13
Fluorene ND 0.055 0.19 20 03/06/2023 18:13
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene 0.14 J 0.14 0.38 20 03/06/2023 18:13 1-Methylnaphthalene ND 0.046 0.095 20 03/06/2023 18:13
2-Methylnaphthalene ND 0.029 0.095 20 03/06/2023 18:13
Naphthalene ND 0.23 0.95 20 03/06/2023 18:13
Phenanthrene ND 0.050 0.095 20 03/06/2023 18:13
Pyrene 0.062 J 0.036 0.095 20 03/06/2023 18:13
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): KVE
2-Fluorobiphenyl 88 63-115 03/06/2023 18:13
2-Fluorophenol 45 20-103 03/06/2023 18:13
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP

Page 11 of 31 ends

Page 12 of 31 ends

Page 13 of 31 ends

Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Farallon Consulting
Project: 251-230302; W&J Enterprises
Date Received: 03/02/2023 17:30
Date Prepared: 03/03/2023
WorkOrder: 2303185
Extraction Method: SW3510C/3630C
Analytical Method: SW8015B
Unit: µg/L
Total Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons w/ Silica Gel Clean-Up MW-3 2303185-001B Water 03/02/2023 10:25 GC11B 03072357.D 264876 Analytes Result MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID TPH-Diesel (C10-C24) ND 76 100 1 03/08/2023 03:45
TPH-Diesel (C10-C28) ND 99 100 1 03/08/2023 03:45
TPH-Motor Oil (C18-C36) ND 180 500 1 03/08/2023 03:45
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): JIS
C9 92 70-130 03/08/2023 03:45
MW-4 2303185-002B Water 03/02/2023 11:05 GC11B 03072361.D 264876 Analytes Result MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID TPH-Diesel (C10-C24) ND 76 100 1 03/08/2023 05:02
TPH-Diesel (C10-C28) ND 99 100 1 03/08/2023 05:02
TPH-Motor Oil (C18-C36) ND 180 500 1 03/08/2023 05:02
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): JIS
C9 92 70-130 03/08/2023 05:02
MW-6 2303185-003B Water 03/02/2023 11:40 GC11B 03072365.D 264876 Analytes Result MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID TPH-Diesel (C10-C24) ND 76 100 1 03/08/2023 06:19
TPH-Diesel (C10-C28) ND 99 100 1 03/08/2023 06:19
TPH-Motor Oil (C18-C36) ND 180 500 1 03/08/2023 06:19
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): JIS
C9 93 70-130 03/08/2023 06:19
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 14 of 31 ends

Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Farallon Consulting
Project: 251-230302; W&J Enterprises
Date Received: 03/02/2023 17:30
Date Prepared: 03/03/2023
WorkOrder: 2303185
Extraction Method: SW3510C/3630C
Analytical Method: SW8015B
Unit: µg/L
Total Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons w/ Silica Gel Clean-Up MW-7 2303185-004B Water 03/02/2023 12:50 GC6A 03082318.D 264876 Analytes Result MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID TPH-Diesel (C10-C24) ND 76 100 1 03/09/2023 00:43
TPH-Diesel (C10-C28) ND 99 100 1 03/09/2023 00:43
TPH-Motor Oil (C18-C36) ND 180 500 1 03/09/2023 00:43
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): JIS Analytical Comments: j1
C9 102 70-130 03/09/2023 00:43
MW-8 2303185-005B Water 03/02/2023 13:30 GC6A 03082322.D 264876 Analytes Result MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID TPH-Diesel (C10-C24) ND 76 100 1 03/09/2023 02:01
TPH-Diesel (C10-C28) ND 99 100 1 03/09/2023 02:01
TPH-Motor Oil (C18-C36) ND 180 500 1 03/09/2023 02:01
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): JIS Analytical Comments: j1
C9 107 70-130 03/09/2023 02:01
MW-5 2303185-006B Water 03/02/2023 14:10 GC6A 03092312.D 264876 Analytes Result MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID TPH-Diesel (C10-C24) ND 76 100 1 03/09/2023 12:24
TPH-Diesel (C10-C28) 120 99 100 1 03/09/2023 12:24
TPH-Motor Oil (C18-C36) ND 180 500 1 03/09/2023 12:24
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): JIS
C9 105 70-130 03/09/2023 12:24
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP

Page 15 of 31 ends

Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Farallon Consulting
Project: 251-230302; W&J Enterprises
Date Received: 03/02/2023 17:30
Date Prepared: 03/03/2023
WorkOrder: 2303185
Extraction Method: SW3510C
Analytical Method: SW8015B
Unit: µg/L
Total Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons w/out SG Clean-Up MW-3 2303185-001A Water 03/02/2023 10:25 GC11B 03072359.D 264875 Analytes Result MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID TPH-Diesel (C10-C24) ND 49 100 1 03/08/2023 04:23
TPH-Diesel (C10-C28) ND 85 100 1 03/08/2023 04:23
TPH-Motor Oil (C18-C36) ND 190 500 1 03/08/2023 04:23
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): JIS
C9 95 70-130 03/08/2023 04:23
MW-4 2303185-002A Water 03/02/2023 11:05 GC11B 03072363.D 264875 Analytes Result MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID TPH-Diesel (C10-C24) ND 49 100 1 03/08/2023 05:40
TPH-Diesel (C10-C28) ND 85 100 1 03/08/2023 05:40
TPH-Motor Oil (C18-C36) ND 190 500 1 03/08/2023 05:40
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): JIS
C9 95 70-130 03/08/2023 05:40
MW-6 2303185-003A Water 03/02/2023 11:40 GC6A 03082316.D 264875 Analytes Result MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID TPH-Diesel (C10-C24) ND 49 100 1 03/09/2023 00:04
TPH-Diesel (C10-C28) ND 85 100 1 03/09/2023 00:04
TPH-Motor Oil (C18-C36) ND 190 500 1 03/09/2023 00:04
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): JIS Analytical Comments: j1
C9 98 70-130 03/09/2023 00:04
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 16 of 31 ends

Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Farallon Consulting
Project: 251-230302; W&J Enterprises
Date Received: 03/02/2023 17:30
Date Prepared: 03/03/2023
WorkOrder: 2303185
Extraction Method: SW3510C
Analytical Method: SW8015B
Unit: µg/L
Total Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons w/out SG Clean-Up MW-7 2303185-004A Water 03/02/2023 12:50 GC6A 03082320.D 264875 Analytes Result MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID TPH-Diesel (C10-C24) ND 49 100 1 03/09/2023 01:22
TPH-Diesel (C10-C28) ND 85 100 1 03/09/2023 01:22
TPH-Motor Oil (C18-C36) ND 190 500 1 03/09/2023 01:22
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): JIS Analytical Comments: j1
C9 100 70-130 03/09/2023 01:22
MW-8 2303185-005A Water 03/02/2023 13:30 GC6A 03082324.D 264875 Analytes Result MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID TPH-Diesel (C10-C24) ND 49 100 1 03/09/2023 02:40
TPH-Diesel (C10-C28) ND 85 100 1 03/09/2023 02:40
TPH-Motor Oil (C18-C36) ND 190 500 1 03/09/2023 02:40
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): JIS Analytical Comments: j1
C9 102 70-130 03/09/2023 02:40
MW-5 2303185-006A Water 03/02/2023 14:10 GC6A 03082326.D 264875 Analytes Result MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID TPH-Diesel (C10-C24) ND 49 100 1 03/09/2023 03:19
TPH-Diesel (C10-C28) ND 85 100 1 03/09/2023 03:19
TPH-Motor Oil (C18-C36) ND 190 500 1 03/09/2023 03:19
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): JIS Analytical Comments: j1
C9 103 70-130 03/09/2023 03:19
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP

Page 17 of 31 ends

Fuel FingerPrint *
Farallon Consulting Client Project ID: W&J Enterprises
330 Franklin Street, Ste. 200
Oakland, CA 94607
Client Contact: Peter Sims
Client P.O.:

Date Sampled: 03/02/23
Date Received: 03/03/23
Date Extracted: 03/03/23
Date Analyzed: 03/09/23
Extraction method: SW3510C Analytical methods: SW8015B Work Order: 2303185 Lab ID Client ID Matrix Fuel Fingerprint
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" 2303185-006B MW-5 W This sample has a small pattern within diesel range. Chromatogram enclosed.

NELAP 4033ORELAP TD Analyst's Initial

Page 18 of 31 ends

File : D:\HPCHEM\GC6\DATAA\03092312.D
Operator :

Acquired : 9 Mar 2023 12:24 pm using AcqMethod GC6A_G.M Instrument : GC-6
Sample Name: 2303185-006B W WSG
Misc Info :

Vial Number: 6

2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 24.00 26.00 28.00 200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
1800000
2000000
2200000
2400000
2600000
2800000
3000000
3200000
3400000
3600000
3800000
4000000
4200000
4400000
4600000
4800000
Time
Response_ 03092312.D\FID1A

Page 19 of 31 ends

Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Farallon Consulting
Project: 251-230302; W&J Enterprises
Date Analyzed: 03/03/2023
Date Prepared: 03/03/2023
WorkOrder: 2303185
BatchID: 264841
Analytical Method: SW8270C
Unit: µg/L
Sample ID: MB/LCS/LCSD-264841
Instrument: GC48
Matrix: Water
Extraction Method: E625
QC Summary Report for SW8270C
Analyte MB
Result

MDL RL SPK
Val
MB SS
%REC
MB SS
Limits
Acenaphthene ND 0.0020 0.0050 - - -
Acenaphthylene ND 0.00093 0.0050 - - -
Anthracene ND 0.0027 0.0050 - - -
Benzo (a) anthracene ND 0.012 0.050 - - -
Benzo (a) pyrene ND 0.0031 0.0050 - - -
Benzo (b) fluoranthene ND 0.0056 0.020 - - -
Benzo (g,h,i) perylene ND 0.0051 0.020 - - -
Benzo (k) fluoranthene ND 0.0052 0.020 - - -
Chrysene ND 0.0020 0.0050 - - -
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene ND 0.0056 0.020 - - -
Fluoranthene ND 0.0027 0.010 - - -
Fluorene ND 0.0029 0.010 - - -
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene ND 0.0072 0.020 - - -
1-Methylnaphthalene ND 0.0024 0.0050 - - -
2-Methylnaphthalene 0.0016,J 0.0015 0.0050 - - -
Naphthalene ND 0.012 0.050 - - -
Pentachlorophenol ND 0.089 0.25 - - -
Phenanthrene ND 0.0026 0.0050 - - -
Pyrene ND 0.0019 0.0050 - - -
Surrogate Recovery
2-Fluorophenol 2.2 5 45 20-103
Phenol-d5 1.5 5 29 20-120
Nitrobenzene-d5 3.6 5 71 61-130
2-Fluorobiphenyl 3.8 5 77 63-115
2,4,6-Tribromophenol 3.7 5 74 48-149
4-Terphenyl-d14 3.1 5 61 32-113
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 20 of 31 ends

LCS/LCSD
Limits

RPD RPD
Limit
Acenaphthene 0.24 0.24 0.25 95 97 60-132 2.51 25
Acenaphthylene 0.20 0.20 0.25 78 81 54-126 3.67 25
Anthracene 0.25 0.27 0.25 102 108 60-130 6.30 25
Benzo (a) anthracene 0.26 0.28 0.25 104 112 60-130 7.20 25 Benzo (a) pyrene 0.26 0.28 0.25 104 114 60-130 8.96 25
Benzo (b) fluoranthene 0.27 0.30 0.25 106 119 60-130 11.6 25 Benzo (g,h,i) perylene 0.26 0.29 0.25 104 115 50-130 10.3 25 Benzo (k) fluoranthene 0.28 0.28 0.25 110 112 60-130 1.10 25 Chrysene 0.25 0.26 0.25 98 106 70-130 7.39 25
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene 0.27 0.30 0.25 109 120 50-130 9.80 25 Fluoranthene 0.26 0.28 0.25 102 111 65-130 7.95 25
Fluorene 0.23 0.24 0.25 91 95 70-120 4.01 25
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene 0.27 0.29 0.25 107 118 50-130 9.99 25 1-Methylnaphthalene 0.22 0.23 0.25 86 91 65-130 4.97 25 2-Methylnaphthalene 0.21 0.22 0.25 86 89 60-130 3.76 25 Naphthalene 0.23 0.23 0.25 91 93 70-130 2.12 25
Phenanthrene 0.26 0.28 0.25 103 110 65-120 6.66 25
Pyrene 0.24 0.26 0.25 97 105 70-120 7.00 25
Surrogate Recovery
2-Fluorophenol 2.1 2.2 5 42 43 20-103 3.00 25
Phenol-d5 1.4 1.5 5 29 30 20-120 5.55 25
Nitrobenzene-d5 3.7 3.8 5 74 77 61-130 4.06 25
2-Fluorobiphenyl 3.9 3.9 5 79 77 63-115 2.06 25
2,4,6-Tribromophenol 4.5 4.9 5 89 97 48-149 8.14 25
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP

Page 21 of 31 ends

Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Farallon Consulting
Project: 251-230302; W&J Enterprises
Date Analyzed: 03/08/2023
Date Prepared: 03/07/2023
WorkOrder: 2303185
BatchID: 265118
Analytical Method: SM2540 C-1997
Unit: mg/L
Sample ID: MB/LCS/LCSD-265118
Instrument: WetChem
Matrix: Water
Extraction Method: SM2540 C-1997
QC Summary Report for Total Dissolved Solids
Analyte MB
Result
MDL RL
Total Dissolved Solids ND 10.0 10.0 - - -
Analyte LCS
Result
LCSD
Result
SPK
Val
LCS
%REC
LCSD
%REC

LCS/LCSD
Limits

RPD RPD
Limit
Total Dissolved Solids 1080 1020 1000 108 102 80-120 5.14 10 CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 22 of 31 ends

Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Farallon Consulting
Project: 251-230302; W&J Enterprises
Date Analyzed: 03/09/2023
Date Prepared: 03/08/2023
WorkOrder: 2303185
BatchID: 265189
Analytical Method: SM2540 C-1997
Unit: mg/L
Sample ID: MB/LCS/LCSD-265189
2303185-003C
Instrument: WetChem
Matrix: Water
Extraction Method: SM2540 C-1997
QC Summary Report for Total Dissolved Solids
Analyte MB
Result
MDL RL
Total Dissolved Solids ND 10.0 10.0 - - -
Analyte LCS
Result
LCSD
Result
SPK
Val
LCS
%REC
LCSD
%REC

LCS/LCSD
Limits

RPD RPD
Limit
Total Dissolved Solids 1020 1020 1000 102 102 80-120 0.196 10 Analyte SAMP Result DUP Result RPD RPD
Limit
Total Dissolved Solids 944 886 6.34 10
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP

Page 23 of 31 ends

Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Farallon Consulting
Project: 251-230302; W&J Enterprises
Date Analyzed: 03/06/2023
Date Prepared: 03/03/2023
WorkOrder: 2303185
BatchID: 264876
Analytical Method: SW8015B
Unit: µg/L
Sample ID: MB/LCS/LCSD-264876
Instrument: GC6A
Matrix: Water
Extraction Method: SW3510C/3630C
QC Report for SW8015B w/ Silica Gel Clean-Up
Analyte MB
Result

MDL RL SPK
Val
MB SS
%REC
MB SS
Limits
TPH-Diesel (C10-C23) ND 73 100 - - -
TPH-Diesel (C10-C24) ND 76 100 - - -
TPH-Diesel (C10-C28) ND 99 100 - - -
TPH-Motor Oil (C18-C36) ND 180 500 - - -
Surrogate Recovery
C9 600 625 97 70-130
Analyte LCS
Result
LCSD
Result
SPK
Val
LCS
%REC
LCSD
%REC

LCS/LCSD
Limits

RPD RPD
Limit
TPH-Diesel (C10-C23) 1000 1000 1000 102 104 70-130 1.84 20 Surrogate Recovery
C9 610 600 625 97 96 70-130 0.932 20
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP

Page 24 of 31 ends

Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Farallon Consulting
Project: 251-230302; W&J Enterprises
Date Analyzed: 03/03/2023
Date Prepared: 03/03/2023
WorkOrder: 2303185
BatchID: 264875
Analytical Method: SW8015B
Unit: µg/L
Sample ID: MB/LCS/LCSD-264875
Instrument: GC31B
Matrix: Water
Extraction Method: SW3510C
QC Report for SW8015B w/out SG Clean-Up
Analyte MB
Result

MDL RL SPK
Val
MB SS
%REC
MB SS
Limits
TPH-Diesel (C10-C23) ND 53 100 - - -
TPH-Diesel (C10-C24) ND 49 100 - - -
TPH-Diesel (C10-C28) 110 85 100 - - -
TPH-Motor Oil (C18-C36) ND 190 500 - - -
Surrogate Recovery
C9 580 625 93 70-130
Analyte LCS
Result
LCSD
Result
SPK
Val
LCS
%REC
LCSD
%REC

LCS/LCSD
Limits

RPD RPD
Limit
TPH-Diesel (C10-C23) 1100 1100 1000 109 112 70-130 2.39 20 Surrogate Recovery
C9 570 570 625 92 91 70-130 0.948 20
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP

Page 25 of 31 ends

McCampbell Analytical, Inc.
1534 Willow Pass Rd
Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701
(925) 252-9262
CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD Page
Lab ID Matrix Collection Date Hold
Requested Tests (See legend below)
Report to:

Peter Sims
330 Franklin Street, Ste. 200
Oakland, CA 94607
(510) 879-6806 FAX:

PO:
03/03/2023
ClientSampID
Project: 251-230302; W&J Enterprises
WorkOrder: 2303185
1 of 1
Date Logged:

Date Received: 03/02/2023
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Farallon Consulting
Bill to:

WaterTrax
Detection Summary
Dry-Weight
[]
2303185-001 MW-3 Water 3/2/2023 10:25 D A C A B
2303185-002 MW-4 Water 3/2/2023 11:05 D A C A B
2303185-003 MW-6 Water 3/2/2023 11:40 D A C A B
2303185-004 MW-7 Water 3/2/2023 12:50 D A C A B
2303185-005 MW-8 Water 3/2/2023 13:30 D A C A B
2303185-006 MW-5 Water 3/2/2023 14:10 D A C A B
Prepared by: Lilly Ortiz
NOTE: Soil samples are discarded 60 days after receipt unless other arrangements are made (Water samples are 30 days).

Hazardous samples will be returned to client or disposed of at client expense.

Comments:
8270_PNA_W PRDisposal Fee TDS_W TPH(DMO)_W
TPH(DMO)WSG_W
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
9 10
Test Legend:
11 12

Page 26 of 31 ends

LabID ClientSampID Collection Date
& Time
Date Logged:

Matrix Test Name Containers TAT
/Composites

WORK ORDER SUMMARY
Work Order: 2303185
Comments
Client Name: FARALLON CONSULTING Project: 251-230302; W&J Enterprises QC Level: LEVEL 2
Dry- Hold
Weight
Sub
Out
Bottle &
Preservative
3/3/2023
Sediment
Content
CLIP EDF Excel EQuIS Email HardCopy ThirdParty J-flag
Client Contact: Peter Sims
Contact's Email: [email protected]
WaterTrax
Head Test Due Date
Space
U**
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" 001A MW-3 Water SW8015B (Diesel & Motor Oil) 2 aVOA, Unpres 3/2/2023 10:25 5 days 3/9/2023 Present 001B MW-3 Water SW8015B (TPH-d,mo w/ S.G. Clean-Up) 2 aVOA, Unpres 3/2/2023 10:25 5 days 3/9/2023 Present 001C MW-3 Water SM2540C (TDS) 1 500mL HDPE, 3/2/2023 10:25 5 days unprsv.
3/9/2023 Present
001D MW-3 Water SW8270C (PAHs/PNAs) 1 1LA Narrow Mouth, 3/2/2023 10:25 5 days Unpres
3/9/2023 Present
002A MW-4 Water SW8015B (Diesel & Motor Oil) 2 aVOA, Unpres 3/2/2023 11:05 5 days 3/9/2023 Present 002B MW-4 Water SW8015B (TPH-d,mo w/ S.G. Clean-Up) 2 aVOA, Unpres 3/2/2023 11:05 5 days 3/9/2023 Present 002C MW-4 Water SM2540C (TDS) 1 500mL HDPE, 3/2/2023 11:05 5 days unprsv.
3/9/2023 Present
002D MW-4 Water SW8270C (PAHs/PNAs) 1 1LA Narrow Mouth, 3/2/2023 11:05 5 days Unpres
3/9/2023 Present
003A MW-6 Water SW8015B (Diesel & Motor Oil) 2 aVOA, Unpres 3/2/2023 11:40 5 days 3/9/2023 Present 003B MW-6 Water SW8015B (TPH-d,mo w/ S.G. Clean-Up) 2 aVOA, Unpres 3/2/2023 11:40 5 days 3/9/2023 Present 003C MW-6 Water SM2540C (TDS) 1 500mL HDPE, 3/2/2023 11:40 5 days unprsv.
3/9/2023 Present

Page 1 of 3 ends

* STLC and TCLP extractions require 2 days to complete; therefore, all TATs begin after the extraction is completed (i.e., One-day TAT yields results in 3 days from sample submission).

NOTES:
- MAI assumes that all material present in the provided sampling container is considered part of the sample - MAI does not exclude any material from the sample prior to sample preparation unless requested in writing by the client.

U** = An unpreserved container was received for a method that suggests a preservation in order to extend hold time for analysis. - Organic extracts are held for 40 days before disposal; Inorganic extract are held for 30 days.

Page 27 of 31 ends

LabID ClientSampID Collection Date
& Time
Date Logged:

Matrix Test Name Containers TAT
/Composites

WORK ORDER SUMMARY
Work Order: 2303185
Comments
Client Name: FARALLON CONSULTING Project: 251-230302; W&J Enterprises QC Level: LEVEL 2
Dry- Hold
Weight
Sub
Out
Bottle &
Preservative
3/3/2023
Sediment
Content
CLIP EDF Excel EQuIS Email HardCopy ThirdParty J-flag
Client Contact: Peter Sims
Contact's Email: [email protected]
WaterTrax
Head Test Due Date
Space
U**
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" 003D MW-6 Water SW8270C (PAHs/PNAs) 1 1LA Narrow Mouth, 3/2/2023 11:40 5 days Unpres
3/9/2023 Present
004A MW-7 Water SW8015B (Diesel & Motor Oil) 2 aVOA, Unpres 3/2/2023 12:50 5 days 3/9/2023 Present 004B MW-7 Water SW8015B (TPH-d,mo w/ S.G. Clean-Up) 2 aVOA, Unpres 3/2/2023 12:50 5 days 3/9/2023 Present 004C MW-7 Water SM2540C (TDS) 1 500mL HDPE, 3/2/2023 12:50 5 days unprsv.
3/9/2023 Present
004D MW-7 Water SW8270C (PAHs/PNAs) 1 1LA Narrow Mouth, 3/2/2023 12:50 5 days Unpres
3/9/2023 Present
005A MW-8 Water SW8015B (Diesel & Motor Oil) 2 aVOA, Unpres 3/2/2023 13:30 5 days 3/9/2023 Present 005B MW-8 Water SW8015B (TPH-d,mo w/ S.G. Clean-Up) 2 aVOA, Unpres 3/2/2023 13:30 5 days 3/9/2023 Present 005C MW-8 Water SM2540C (TDS) 1 500mL HDPE, 3/2/2023 13:30 5 days unprsv.
3/9/2023 Present
005D MW-8 Water SW8270C (PAHs/PNAs) 1 1LA Narrow Mouth, 3/2/2023 13:30 5 days Unpres
3/9/2023 Present
006A MW-5 Water SW8015B (Diesel & Motor Oil) 2 aVOA, Unpres 3/2/2023 14:10 5 days 3/9/2023 Present 006B MW-5 Water SW8015B (TPH-d,mo w/ S.G. Clean-Up) 2 aVOA, Unpres 3/2/2023 14:10 5 days 3/9/2023 Present

Page 2 of 3 ends

* STLC and TCLP extractions require 2 days to complete; therefore, all TATs begin after the extraction is completed (i.e., One-day TAT yields results in 3 days from sample submission).

Page 28 of 31 ends

LabID ClientSampID Collection Date
& Time
Date Logged:

Matrix Test Name Containers TAT
/Composites

Page 3 of 3 ends

* STLC and TCLP extractions require 2 days to complete; therefore, all TATs begin after the extraction is completed (i.e., One-day TAT yields results in 3 days from sample submission).

Page 29 of 31 ends

Page 30 of 31 ends

Sample Receipt Checklist
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client Name: Farallon Consulting
WorkOrder №: 2303185
Date Logged: 3/3/2023
Matrix: Water Logged by: Lilly Ortiz
Carrier: Client Drop-In
Shipping container/cooler in good condition? Yes No
Custody seals intact on shipping container/cooler? Yes No NA Samples Received on Ice? Yes No
Chain of custody present? Yes No
Chain of custody signed when relinquished and received? Yes No Chain of custody agrees with sample labels? Yes No
Samples in proper containers/bottles? Yes No
Sample containers intact? Yes No
Sufficient sample volume for indicated test? Yes No
All samples received within holding time? Yes No NA
Sample/Temp Blank temperature NA
ZHS conditional analyses: VOA meets zero headspace Yes No NA requirement (VOCs, TPHg/BTEX, RSK)?
pH acceptable upon receipt (Metal: <2; Nitrate 353.2/4500NO3:
<2; 522: <4; 218.7: >8)?
Yes No NA
Temp: 1.6°C
Chain of Custody (COC) Information
Sample IDs noted by Client on COC? Yes No
Date and Time of collection noted by Client on COC? Yes No Sampler's name noted on COC? Yes No
Sample Receipt Information
Sample Preservation and Hold Time (HT) Information
Sample labels checked for correct preservation? Yes No
Project: 251-230302; W&J Enterprises
(Ice Type: WET ICE )
Comments:
pH tested and acceptable upon receipt (200.7: ≤2; 533: 6 - 8; 537.1: 6 - 8)?
Yes No NA
UCMR Samples:

Free Chlorine tested and acceptable upon receipt (<0.1mg/L) [not applicable to 200.7]?
Yes No NA
Date and Time Received: 3/2/2023 17:30
Received by: Agustina Venegas
COC agrees with Quote? Yes No NA
Custody seals intact on sample bottles? Yes No NA

Page 31 of 31 ends

WorkOrder:

Report Created for: Farallon Consulting
330 Franklin Street, Ste. 200
Oakland, CA 94607
Project Contact: Peter Sims
Project: 1071-105; 6756-6792 Central Ave
Project P.O.:

Project Received: 03/02/2023
Analytical Report reviewed & approved for release on 03/09/2023 by:

Christine Askari
2303198
The report shall not be reproduced except in full, without the written approval of the laboratory. The analytical results relate only to the items tested. Results reported conform to the most current NELAP standards, where applicable, unless otherwise stated in a case narrative.

Amended: 05/24/2023
Analytical Report
1534 Willow Pass Rd. Pittsburg, CA 94565 ♦ TEL: (877) 252-9262 ♦ FAX: (925) 252-9269 ♦ www.mccampbell.com CA ELAP 1644 ♦ NELAP 4033 ORELAP
Project Manager
Revision: 3
McCampbell Analytical, Inc.
"When Quality Counts"

Page 1 of 41 ends

Revision History
Client: Farallon Consulting
Project: 1071-105; 6756-6792 Central Ave
WorkOrder: 2303198
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Date Revision Reason
03/16/2023 1 Revised to report down to the MDL for PNAs and TPH DMO. 05/17/2023 Revised to update the TPH Diesel Range for with and without silica gel cleanup (water) per client email.
2 05/24/2023 Revised to report both Diesel ranges (C10-C24) and (C10-28) for TPH with and without silica gel.

Fuel finger print also included.
3

Page 2 of 41 ends

Glossary of Terms & Qualifier Definitions
Client: Farallon Consulting
Project: 1071-105; 6756-6792 Central Ave
WorkOrder: 2303198
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Glossary Abbreviation
%D Serial Dilution Percent Difference
95% Interval 95% Confident Interval
CPT Consumer Product Testing not NELAP Accredited
DF Dilution Factor
DI WET (DISTLC) Waste Extraction Test using DI water
DISS Dissolved (direct analysis of 0.45 µm filtered and acidified water sample) DLT Dilution Test (Serial Dilution)
DUP Duplicate
EDL Estimated Detection Limit
ERS External reference sample. Second source calibration verification.

PDS Post Digestion Spike
PDSD Post Digestion Spike Duplicate
PF Prep Factor
RD Relative Difference
RL Reporting limit ²
RPD Relative Percent Difference
RRT Relative Retention Time
RSD Relative Standard Deviation
SPK Val Spike Value
SPKRef Val Spike Reference Value
SPLP Synthetic Precipitation Leachate Procedure
ST Sorbent Tube
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure
¹ MDL is the minimum measured concentration of a substance that can be reported with 99% confidence that the measured concentration is distinguishable from method blank results. Definition and Procedure for the Determination of the Method Detection Limit, Revision 2, 40CFR, Part 136, Appendix B, EPA 821-R-16-006, December 2016.
² RL is the lowest level that can be reliably determined within specified limits of precision and accuracy during routine laboratory operating conditions. (The RL cannot be lower than the lowest calibration standard used in the initial calibration of the instrument and must be greater than the MDL.) Page 3 of 41
Glossary of Terms & Qualifier Definitions
Client: Farallon Consulting
Project: 1071-105; 6756-6792 Central Ave
WorkOrder: 2303198
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" TEQ Toxicity Equivalents
TZA TimeZone Net Adjustment for sample collected outside of MAI's UTC.

WET (STLC) Waste Extraction Test (Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration) Analytical Qualifiers
B Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank at a concentration greater than 1/10 the reported sample result.

J Result is less than the RL/ML but greater than the MDL. The reported concentration is an estimated value.

S Surrogate recovery outside accepted recovery limits.
a3 Sample diluted due to high organic content interfering with quantitative/or qualitative analysis. b1 Aqueous sample that contains greater than ~1 vol. % sediment c1 Surrogate recovery outside of the control limits due to the dilution of the sample. e2 Diesel range compounds are detected; no recognizable pattern e7 Oil range compounds are detected.
j1 See attached narrative

Page 4 of 41 ends

Client: Farallon Consulting
Project: 1071-105; 6756-6792 Central Ave
Case Narrative
March 09, 2023
Work Order: 2303198
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" j1:

Total Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons- Diesel, Motor Oil Samples 2303198-002A, -002B, -003A, -003B were analyzed on an instrument sequence with a passing closing continuing calibration verification (CCV) that was analyzed outside of the method recommendation of a 12-hour time frame due to tower error that stopped the sequence prior to its completion. The CCV recoveries were within control limits both before and after the tower error; therefore, there is no impact to the results. The quality of the data is acceptable and reportable.

Page 5 of 41 ends

Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Farallon Consulting
Project: 1071-105; 6756-6792 Central Ave
Date Received: 03/02/2023 17:30
Date Prepared: 03/03/2023
WorkOrder: 2303198
Extraction Method: SW5030B
Analytical Method: SW8260B
Unit: mg/kg
Volatile Organics
IDW-03022023 2303198-001A Soil 03/02/2023 14:00 GC45 03082327.D 264883 Analytes Result RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Acetone ND 0.20 1 03/09/2023 03:02
tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME) ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02 Benzene ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
Bromobenzene ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
Bromochloromethane ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
Bromodichloromethane ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
Bromoform ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
Bromomethane ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
2-Butanone (MEK) ND 0.10 1 03/09/2023 03:02
t-Butyl alcohol (TBA) ND 0.050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
n-Butyl benzene ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
sec-Butyl benzene ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
tert-Butyl benzene ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
Carbon Disulfide ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
Carbon Tetrachloride ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
Chlorobenzene ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
Chloroethane ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
Chloroform ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
Chloromethane ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
2-Chlorotoluene ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
4-Chlorotoluene ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
Dibromochloromethane ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND 0.00050 1 03/09/2023 03:02 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 0.00025 1 03/09/2023 03:02
Dibromomethane ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
Dichlorodifluoromethane ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
1,2-Dichloroethane (1,2-DCA) ND 0.00010 1 03/09/2023 03:02 1,1-Dichloroethene ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
1,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
1,3-Dichloropropane ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
2,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 6 of 41 ends

Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Farallon Consulting
Project: 1071-105; 6756-6792 Central Ave
Date Received: 03/02/2023 17:30
Date Prepared: 03/03/2023
WorkOrder: 2303198
Extraction Method: SW5030B
Analytical Method: SW8260B
Unit: mg/kg
Volatile Organics
IDW-03022023 2303198-001A Soil 03/02/2023 14:00 GC45 03082327.D 264883 Analytes Result RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID 1,1-Dichloropropene ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
Diisopropyl ether (DIPE) ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
Ethylbenzene ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
Ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE) ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02 Freon 113 ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
Hexachloroethane ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
2-Hexanone ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
Isopropylbenzene ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
4-Isopropyl toluene ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
Methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE) ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02 Methylene chloride ND 0.020 1 03/09/2023 03:02
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02 Naphthalene ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
n-Propyl benzene ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
Styrene ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
Tetrachloroethene ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
Toluene ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
Trichloroethene ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
Trichlorofluoromethane ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND 0.00025 1 03/09/2023 03:02
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
Vinyl Chloride ND 0.00025 1 03/09/2023 03:02
m,p-Xylene ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
o-Xylene ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
Xylenes, Total ND 0.0050 1 03/09/2023 03:02
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 7 of 41 ends

Page 8 of 41 ends

Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Farallon Consulting
Project: 1071-105; 6756-6792 Central Ave
Date Received: 03/02/2023 17:30
Date Prepared: 03/03/2023
WorkOrder: 2303198
Extraction Method: E625
Analytical Method: SW8270C
Unit: µg/L
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs / PNAs) using SIM Mode F-26 2303198-002C Water 03/02/2023 12:45 GC21 03072309.D 264841 Analytes Result MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Acenaphthene ND 0.043 0.11 20 03/07/2023 13:39
Acenaphthylene ND 0.020 0.11 20 03/07/2023 13:39
Anthracene ND 0.059 0.11 20 03/07/2023 13:39
Benzo (a) anthracene ND 0.26 1.1 20 03/07/2023 13:39
Benzo (a) pyrene ND 0.067 0.11 20 03/07/2023 13:39
Benzo (b) fluoranthene ND 0.12 0.43 20 03/07/2023 13:39 Benzo (g,h,i) perylene ND 0.11 0.43 20 03/07/2023 13:39 Benzo (k) fluoranthene ND 0.11 0.43 20 03/07/2023 13:39 Chrysene ND 0.043 0.11 20 03/07/2023 13:39
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene ND 0.12 0.43 20 03/07/2023 13:39 Fluoranthene ND 0.059 0.22 20 03/07/2023 13:39
Fluorene ND 0.063 0.22 20 03/07/2023 13:39
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene ND 0.16 0.43 20 03/07/2023 13:39 1-Methylnaphthalene ND 0.052 0.11 20 03/07/2023 13:39
2-Methylnaphthalene ND 0.033 0.11 20 03/07/2023 13:39
Naphthalene ND 0.26 1.1 20 03/07/2023 13:39
Phenanthrene ND 0.056 0.11 20 03/07/2023 13:39
Pyrene ND 0.041 0.11 20 03/07/2023 13:39
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): MV Analytical Comments: a3,b1
2-Fluorobiphenyl 66 63-115 03/07/2023 13:39
2-Fluorophenol 40 20-103 03/07/2023 13:39
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 9 of 41 ends

Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Farallon Consulting
Project: 1071-105; 6756-6792 Central Ave
Date Received: 03/02/2023 17:30
Date Prepared: 03/03/2023
WorkOrder: 2303198
Extraction Method: E625
Analytical Method: SW8270C
Unit: µg/L
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs / PNAs) using SIM Mode F-27 2303198-003C Water 03/02/2023 13:00 GC21 03082313.D 264841 Analytes Result MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Acenaphthene ND 0.011 0.027 5 03/08/2023 15:55
Acenaphthylene ND 0.0050 0.027 5 03/08/2023 15:55
Anthracene ND 0.015 0.027 5 03/08/2023 15:55
Benzo (a) anthracene ND 0.065 0.27 5 03/08/2023 15:55
Benzo (a) pyrene ND 0.017 0.027 5 03/08/2023 15:55
Benzo (b) fluoranthene ND 0.030 0.11 5 03/08/2023 15:55 Benzo (g,h,i) perylene ND 0.028 0.11 5 03/08/2023 15:55 Benzo (k) fluoranthene ND 0.028 0.11 5 03/08/2023 15:55 Chrysene ND 0.011 0.027 5 03/08/2023 15:55
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene ND 0.030 0.11 5 03/08/2023 15:55 Fluoranthene ND 0.015 0.054 5 03/08/2023 15:55
Fluorene ND 0.016 0.054 5 03/08/2023 15:55
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene ND 0.039 0.11 5 03/08/2023 15:55 1-Methylnaphthalene ND 0.013 0.027 5 03/08/2023 15:55
2-Methylnaphthalene ND 0.0081 0.027 5 03/08/2023 15:55
Naphthalene ND 0.065 0.27 5 03/08/2023 15:55
Phenanthrene ND 0.014 0.027 5 03/08/2023 15:55
Pyrene ND 0.010 0.027 5 03/08/2023 15:55
Surrogates REC (%) Qualifiers Limits
Analyst(s): MV Analytical Comments: c1,b1
2-Fluorobiphenyl 51 S 63-115 03/08/2023 15:55
2-Fluorophenol 25 20-103 03/08/2023 15:55
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 10 of 41 ends

Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Farallon Consulting
Project: 1071-105; 6756-6792 Central Ave
Date Received: 03/02/2023 17:30
Date Prepared: 03/03/2023
WorkOrder: 2303198
Extraction Method: E625
Analytical Method: SW8270C
Unit: µg/L
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs / PNAs) using SIM Mode F-28 2303198-004C Water 03/02/2023 13:15 GC21 03082314.D 264841 Analytes Result Qualifiers MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID Acenaphthene ND 0.0039 0.0097 2 03/08/2023 16:23
Acenaphthylene ND 0.0018 0.0097 2 03/08/2023 16:23
Anthracene 0.0070 J 0.0052 0.0097 2 03/08/2023 16:23
Benzo (a) anthracene ND 0.023 0.097 2 03/08/2023 16:23
Benzo (a) pyrene ND 0.0060 0.0097 2 03/08/2023 16:23
Benzo (b) fluoranthene ND 0.011 0.039 2 03/08/2023 16:23 Benzo (g,h,i) perylene ND 0.0099 0.039 2 03/08/2023 16:23 Benzo (k) fluoranthene ND 0.010 0.039 2 03/08/2023 16:23 Chrysene ND 0.0039 0.0097 2 03/08/2023 16:23
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene ND 0.011 0.039 2 03/08/2023 16:23 Fluoranthene ND 0.0052 0.019 2 03/08/2023 16:23
Fluorene ND 0.0056 0.019 2 03/08/2023 16:23
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene ND 0.014 0.039 2 03/08/2023 16:23 1-Methylnaphthalene 0.0054 J 0.0046 0.0097 2 03/08/2023 16:23 2-Methylnaphthalene 0.0053 JB 0.0029 0.0097 2 03/08/2023 16:23 Naphthalene ND 0.023 0.097 2 03/08/2023 16:23
Phenanthrene 0.0058 J 0.0050 0.0097 2 03/08/2023 16:23
Pyrene ND 0.0037 0.0097 2 03/08/2023 16:23
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): MV Analytical Comments: b1
2-Fluorobiphenyl 78 63-115 03/08/2023 16:23
2-Fluorophenol 43 20-103 03/08/2023 16:23
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP

Page 11 of 41 ends

Page 12 of 41 ends

Page 13 of 41 ends

Page 14 of 41 ends

Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Farallon Consulting
Project: 1071-105; 6756-6792 Central Ave
Date Received: 03/02/2023 17:30
Date Prepared: 03/03/2023
WorkOrder: 2303198
Extraction Method: SW3510C/3630C
Analytical Method: SW8015B
Unit: µg/L
Total Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons w/ Silica Gel Clean-Up F-26 2303198-002B Water 03/02/2023 12:45 GC6A 03082328.D 264876 Analytes Result Qualifiers MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID TPH-Diesel (C10-C24) 130 76 100 1 03/09/2023 03:57
TPH-Diesel (C10-C28) 240 99 100 1 03/09/2023 03:57
TPH-Motor Oil (C18-C36) 430 J 180 500 1 03/09/2023 03:57 Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): JIS Analytical Comments: e2,j1,b1
C9 99 70-130 03/09/2023 03:57
F-27 2303198-003B Water 03/02/2023 13:00 GC6A 03082332.D 264876 Analytes Result MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID TPH-Diesel (C10-C24) ND 76 100 1 03/09/2023 05:15
TPH-Diesel (C10-C28) ND 99 100 1 03/09/2023 05:15
TPH-Motor Oil (C18-C36) ND 180 500 1 03/09/2023 05:15
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): JIS Analytical Comments: j1,b1
C9 98 70-130 03/09/2023 05:15
F-28 2303198-004B Water 03/02/2023 13:15 GC11B 03082309.D 264876 Analytes Result MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID TPH-Diesel (C10-C24) ND 76 100 1 03/08/2023 18:56
TPH-Diesel (C10-C28) ND 99 100 1 03/08/2023 18:56
TPH-Motor Oil (C18-C36) ND 180 500 1 03/08/2023 18:56
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): JIS Analytical Comments: b1
C9 90 70-130 03/08/2023 18:56
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP

Page 15 of 41 ends

Page 16 of 41 ends

Analytical Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Farallon Consulting
Project: 1071-105; 6756-6792 Central Ave
Date Received: 03/02/2023 17:30
Date Prepared: 03/03/2023
WorkOrder: 2303198
Extraction Method: SW3510C
Analytical Method: SW8015B
Unit: µg/L
Total Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons w/out SG Clean-Up F-26 2303198-002A Water 03/02/2023 12:45 GC6A 03082330.D 264875 Analytes Result MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID TPH-Diesel (C10-C24) 200 49 100 1 03/09/2023 04:36
TPH-Diesel (C10-C28) 410 85 100 1 03/09/2023 04:36
TPH-Motor Oil (C18-C36) 860 190 500 1 03/09/2023 04:36
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): JIS Analytical Comments: e7,e2,j1,b1
C9 103 70-130 03/09/2023 04:36
F-27 2303198-003A Water 03/02/2023 13:00 GC6A 03082334.D 264875 Analytes Result MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID TPH-Diesel (C10-C24) 120 49 100 1 03/09/2023 05:54
TPH-Diesel (C10-C28) 140 85 100 1 03/09/2023 05:54
TPH-Motor Oil (C18-C36) ND 190 500 1 03/09/2023 05:54
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): JIS Analytical Comments: e2,j1,b1
C9 107 70-130 03/09/2023 05:54
F-28 2303198-004A Water 03/02/2023 13:15 GC11B 03082311.D 264875 Analytes Result MDL RL DF Date Analyzed
Client ID Lab ID Matrix Date Collected Instrument Batch ID TPH-Diesel (C10-C24) ND 49 100 1 03/08/2023 19:34
TPH-Diesel (C10-C28) ND 85 100 1 03/08/2023 19:34
TPH-Motor Oil (C18-C36) ND 190 500 1 03/08/2023 19:34
Surrogates REC (%) Limits
Analyst(s): JIS Analytical Comments: b1
C9 93 70-130 03/08/2023 19:34
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP

Page 17 of 41 ends

Fuel FingerPrint *
Client Project ID: 6756-6792 Central
Ave
Farallon Consulting
330 Franklin Street, Ste. 200
Oakland, CA 94607
Client Contact: Peter Sims
Client P.O.:

Date Sampled: 03/02/23
Date Received: 03/03/23
Date Extracted: 03/03/23
Date Analyzed: 03/09/23
Extraction method: SW3510C Analytical methods: SW8015B Work Order: 2303198 Lab ID Client ID Matrix Fuel Fingerprint
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" 2303198-002A F-26 W This sample has two small patterns within the oil and diesel ranges.,b1 Chromatogram enclosed. 2303198-002B F-26 W This sample has two small patterns within the oil and diesel ranges.,b1 Chromatogram enclosed. 2303198-003A F-27 W This sample has a small pattern within diesel range.,b1 Chromatogram enclosed.

NELAP 4033ORELAP TD Analyst's Initial

Page 18 of 41 ends

File : D:\HPCHEM\GC6\DATAA\03082330.D
Operator :

Acquired : 9 Mar 2023 4:36 am using AcqMethod GC6A_G.M
Instrument : GC-6
Sample Name: 2303198-002A W
Misc Info : TPH
Vial Number: 15

Page 19 of 41 ends

File : D:\HPCHEM\GC6\DATAA\03082328.D
Operator :

Acquired : 9 Mar 2023 3:57 am using AcqMethod GC6A_G.M
Instrument : GC-6
Sample Name: 2303198-002B W WSG
Misc Info : TPHSG
Vial Number: 14

Page 20 of 41 ends

File : D:\HPCHEM\GC6\DATAA\03082334.D
Operator :

Acquired : 9 Mar 2023 5:54 am using AcqMethod GC6A_G.M
Instrument : GC-6
Sample Name: 2303198-003A W
Misc Info : TPH
Vial Number: 17

2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 24.00 26.00 28.00 500000
1000000
1500000
2000000
2500000
3000000
3500000
4000000
4500000
5000000
5500000
6000000
6500000
7000000
7500000
8000000
8500000
9000000
9500000
Time
Response_ 03082334.D\FID1A

Page 21 of 41 ends

Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Farallon Consulting
Project: 1071-105; 6756-6792 Central Ave
Date Analyzed: 03/05/2023 - 03/06/2023
Date Prepared: 03/03/2023
WorkOrder: 2303198
BatchID: 264883
Analytical Method: SW8260B
Unit: mg/kg
Sample ID: MB/LCS/LCSD-264883
Instrument: GC38
Matrix: Soil
Extraction Method: SW5030B
QC Summary Report for SW8260B
Analyte MB
Result

MDL RL SPK
Val
MB SS
%REC
MB SS
Limits
Acetone ND 0.12 0.20 - - -
tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME) ND 0.0012 0.0050 - - -
Benzene ND 0.00095 0.0050 - - -
Bromobenzene ND 0.0012 0.0050 - - -
Bromochloromethane ND 0.0011 0.0050 - - -
Bromodichloromethane ND 0.00023 0.0050 - - -
Bromoform ND 0.0038 0.0050 - - -
Bromomethane ND 0.0018 0.0050 - - -
2-Butanone (MEK) ND 0.040 0.10 - - -
t-Butyl alcohol (TBA) ND 0.024 0.050 - - -
n-Butyl benzene ND 0.0016 0.0050 - - -
sec-Butyl benzene ND 0.0018 0.0050 - - -
tert-Butyl benzene ND 0.0021 0.0050 - - -
Carbon Disulfide ND 0.0011 0.0050 - - -
Carbon Tetrachloride ND 0.00017 0.0050 - - -
Chlorobenzene ND 0.0012 0.0050 - - -
Chloroethane ND 0.0017 0.0050 - - -
Chloroform ND 0.00032 0.0050 - - -
Chloromethane ND 0.0017 0.0050 - - -
2-Chlorotoluene ND 0.0016 0.0050 - - -
4-Chlorotoluene ND 0.0013 0.0050 - - -
Dibromochloromethane ND 0.00040 0.0050 - - -
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND 0.00048 0.00050 - - -
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 0.00013 0.00025 - - -
Dibromomethane ND 0.0012 0.0050 - - -
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.0017 0.0050 - - -
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.0015 0.0050 - - -
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.0015 0.0050 - - -
Dichlorodifluoromethane ND 0.00063 0.0050 - - -
1,1-Dichloroethane ND 0.0015 0.0050 - - -
1,2-Dichloroethane (1,2-DCA) ND 0.000070 0.00010 - - -
1,1-Dichloroethene ND 0.00011 0.0050 - - -
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.0012 0.0050 - - -
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.0012 0.0050 - - -
1,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.0013 0.0050 - - -
1,3-Dichloropropane ND 0.00088 0.0050 - - -
2,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.0019 0.0050 - - -
1,1-Dichloropropene ND 0.0018 0.0050 - - -
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 22 of 41 ends

Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Farallon Consulting
Project: 1071-105; 6756-6792 Central Ave
Date Analyzed: 03/05/2023 - 03/06/2023
Date Prepared: 03/03/2023
WorkOrder: 2303198
BatchID: 264883
Analytical Method: SW8260B
Unit: mg/kg
Sample ID: MB/LCS/LCSD-264883
Instrument: GC38
Matrix: Soil
Extraction Method: SW5030B
QC Summary Report for SW8260B
Analyte MB
Result

MDL RL SPK
Val
MB SS
%REC
MB SS
Limits
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.00098 0.0050 - - -
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.00097 0.0050 - - -
Diisopropyl ether (DIPE) ND 0.0018 0.0050 - - -
Ethylbenzene ND 0.0011 0.0050 - - -
Ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE) ND 0.0014 0.0050 - - -
Freon 113 ND 0.0011 0.0050 - - -
Hexachlorobutadiene ND 0.0012 0.0050 - - -
Hexachloroethane ND 0.00064 0.0050 - - -
2-Hexanone ND 0.0027 0.0050 - - -
Isopropylbenzene ND 0.0018 0.0050 - - -
4-Isopropyl toluene ND 0.0019 0.0050 - - -
Methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE) ND 0.0015 0.0050 - - -
Methylene chloride ND 0.012 0.020 - - -
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) ND 0.0017 0.0050 - - -
Naphthalene ND 0.0030 0.0050 - - -
n-Propyl benzene ND 0.0019 0.0050 - - -
Styrene ND 0.0014 0.0050 - - -
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.0013 0.0050 - - -
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.00044 0.0050 - - -
Tetrachloroethene ND 0.00029 0.0050 - - -
Toluene ND 0.0016 0.0050 - - -
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.0021 0.0050 - - -
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 0.0016 0.0050 - - -
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 0.0016 0.0050 - - -
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 0.0012 0.0050 - - -
Trichloroethene ND 0.0014 0.0050 - - -
Trichlorofluoromethane ND 0.0013 0.0050 - - -
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ND 0.00017 0.00025 - - -
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.0016 0.0050 - - -
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 0.0017 0.0050 - - -
Vinyl Chloride ND 0.00012 0.00025 - - -
m,p-Xylene ND 0.0026 0.0050 - - -
o-Xylene ND 0.0014 0.0050 - - -
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 23 of 41 ends

Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Farallon Consulting
Project: 1071-105; 6756-6792 Central Ave
Date Analyzed: 03/05/2023 - 03/06/2023
Date Prepared: 03/03/2023
WorkOrder: 2303198
BatchID: 264883
Analytical Method: SW8260B
Unit: mg/kg
Sample ID: MB/LCS/LCSD-264883
Instrument: GC38
Matrix: Soil
Extraction Method: SW5030B
QC Summary Report for SW8260B
Analyte MB
Result

MDL RL SPK
Val
MB SS
%REC
MB SS
Limits
Surrogate Recovery
Dibromofluoromethane 0.12 0.125 94 70-140
Toluene-d8 0.13 0.125 104 70-140
4-BFB 0.012 0.0125 93 70-140
Benzene-d6 0.095 0.1 95 70-140
Ethylbenzene-d10 0.11 0.1 105 70-140
1,2-DCB-d4 0.081 0.1 81 70-140
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 24 of 41 ends

Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Farallon Consulting
Project: 1071-105; 6756-6792 Central Ave
Date Analyzed: 03/05/2023 - 03/06/2023
Date Prepared: 03/03/2023
WorkOrder: 2303198
BatchID: 264883
Analytical Method: SW8260B
Unit: mg/kg
Sample ID: MB/LCS/LCSD-264883
Instrument: GC38
Matrix: Soil
Extraction Method: SW5030B
QC Summary Report for SW8260B
Analyte LCS
Result
LCSD
Result
SPK
Val
LCS
%REC
LCSD
%REC

LCS/LCSD
Limits

RPD RPD
Limit
Acetone 0.20 0.20 0.20 101 100 60-140 1.14 30
tert-Amyl methyl ether (TAME) 0.014 0.014 0.020 72 71 50-140 1.38 30 Benzene 0.017 0.017 0.020 85 84 60-140 0.748 30
Bromobenzene 0.016 0.016 0.020 79 79 60-140 1.16 30
Bromochloromethane 0.016 0.015 0.020 80 77 60-140 3.75 30 Bromodichloromethane 0.016 0.016 0.020 79 78 60-140 0.950 30 Bromoform 0.012 0.012 0.020 59 61 40-140 3.00 30
Bromomethane 0.022 0.022 0.020 109 108 30-140 0.250 30
2-Butanone (MEK) 0.067 0.068 0.080 83 85 50-140 1.59 30 t-Butyl alcohol (TBA) 0.070 0.067 0.080 87 84 50-140 3.17 30 n-Butyl benzene 0.022 0.022 0.020 111 110 60-150 1.01 30 sec-Butyl benzene 0.023 0.023 0.020 115 113 60-150 2.30 30 tert-Butyl benzene 0.021 0.020 0.020 105 100 60-140 4.82 30 Carbon Disulfide 0.017 0.016 0.020 83 81 50-140 1.42 30 Carbon Tetrachloride 0.018 0.018 0.020 90 90 60-140 0.390 30 Chlorobenzene 0.016 0.016 0.020 79 79 60-140 0.576 30
Chloroethane 0.019 0.020 0.020 97 99 50-140 2.59 30
Chloroform 0.018 0.018 0.020 91 90 60-140 1.01 30
Chloromethane 0.018 0.018 0.020 88 91 20-140 2.94 30
2-Chlorotoluene 0.020 0.019 0.020 98 96 60-140 2.36 30
4-Chlorotoluene 0.018 0.018 0.020 91 90 60-140 1.32 30
Dibromochloromethane 0.016 0.015 0.020 78 77 50-140 1.15 30 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 0.0072 0.0071 0.010 72 71 30-140 1.65 30 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) 0.0077 0.0076 0.010 77 76 40-140 0.558 30 Dibromomethane 0.016 0.015 0.020 79 76 60-140 3.90 30
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.014 0.014 0.020 70 70 60-140 0.521 30 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 0.018 0.017 0.020 88 84 60-140 4.65 30 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.016 0.015 0.020 79 77 60-140 2.25 30 Dichlorodifluoromethane 0.0095 0.0093 0.020 48 47 10-140 1.97 30 1,1-Dichloroethane 0.017 0.017 0.020 84 84 60-140 0.772 30 1,2-Dichloroethane (1,2-DCA) 0.017 0.017 0.020 84 83 60-140 0.886 30 1,1-Dichloroethene 0.018 0.018 0.020 90 90 60-140 0.502 30 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.016 0.016 0.020 81 80 60-140 0.382 30 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.017 0.017 0.020 84 83 60-140 0.914 30 1,2-Dichloropropane 0.016 0.016 0.020 81 81 60-140 0.780 30 1,3-Dichloropropane 0.017 0.016 0.020 83 81 60-140 2.07 30 2,2-Dichloropropane 0.018 0.018 0.020 90 90 60-140 0.569 30 1,1-Dichloropropene 0.017 0.017 0.020 87 87 60-140 0.225 30 CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 25 of 41 ends

Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Farallon Consulting
Project: 1071-105; 6756-6792 Central Ave
Date Analyzed: 03/05/2023 - 03/06/2023
Date Prepared: 03/03/2023
WorkOrder: 2303198
BatchID: 264883
Analytical Method: SW8260B
Unit: mg/kg
Sample ID: MB/LCS/LCSD-264883
Instrument: GC38
Matrix: Soil
Extraction Method: SW5030B
QC Summary Report for SW8260B
Analyte LCS
Result
LCSD
Result
SPK
Val
LCS
%REC
LCSD
%REC

LCS/LCSD
Limits

RPD RPD
Limit
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 0.016 0.016 0.020 81 80 60-140 0.533 30 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 0.017 0.017 0.020 84 84 60-140 0.546 30 Diisopropyl ether (DIPE) 0.016 0.016 0.020 80 79 60-140 0.781 30 Ethylbenzene 0.018 0.018 0.020 90 89 60-140 0.938 30
Ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE) 0.016 0.016 0.020 79 78 60-140 0.485 30 Freon 113 0.015 0.015 0.020 75 75 50-140 0.511 30
Hexachlorobutadiene 0.018 0.018 0.020 91 90 60-140 1.10 30 Hexachloroethane 0.020 0.020 0.020 102 100 60-140 1.29 30 2-Hexanone 0.016 0.016 0.020 82 81 40-140 1.48 30
Isopropylbenzene 0.022 0.021 0.020 109 107 60-140 1.63 30 4-Isopropyl toluene 0.021 0.020 0.020 104 102 60-150 2.42 30 Methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE) 0.016 0.016 0.020 79 78 50-140 0.964 30 Methylene chloride 0.021 0.020 0.020 103 102 60-140 1.73 30 4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) 0.015 0.015 0.020 77 75 50-140 2.15 30 Naphthalene 0.0087 0.0085 0.020 44 42 30-140 2.54 30
n-Propyl benzene 0.022 0.022 0.020 109 108 60-140 1.12 30 Styrene 0.015 0.015 0.020 75 74 60-140 1.87 30
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.016 0.016 0.020 79 78 60-140 1.63 30 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.017 0.017 0.020 85 84 40-140 1.96 30 Tetrachloroethene 0.018 0.018 0.020 90 90 60-140 0.327 30 Toluene 0.017 0.017 0.020 86 85 60-140 1.05 30
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 0.010 0.010 0.020 50 51 40-140 1.62 30 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.011 0.011 0.020 57 57 50-140 0.151 30 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.017 0.017 0.020 86 85 60-140 1.15 30 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.016 0.015 0.020 78 77 60-140 1.19 30 Trichloroethene 0.016 0.016 0.020 81 81 60-140 0.230 30 Trichlorofluoromethane 0.016 0.016 0.020 81 81 50-140 0.627 30 1,2,3-Trichloropropane 0.0086 0.0085 0.010 86 85 60-130 1.70 30 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0.019 0.019 0.020 96 94 30-140 2.01 30 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 0.020 0.020 0.020 101 99 60-140 1.68 30 Vinyl Chloride 0.0093 0.0094 0.010 93 94 30-140 1.01 30 m,p-Xylene 0.032 0.032 0.040 80 79 60-140 0.783 30
o-Xylene 0.017 0.017 0.020 86 84 60-140 2.18 30
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 26 of 41 ends

Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Farallon Consulting
Project: 1071-105; 6756-6792 Central Ave
Date Analyzed: 03/05/2023 - 03/06/2023
Date Prepared: 03/03/2023
WorkOrder: 2303198
BatchID: 264883
Analytical Method: SW8260B
Unit: mg/kg
Sample ID: MB/LCS/LCSD-264883
Instrument: GC38
Matrix: Soil
Extraction Method: SW5030B
QC Summary Report for SW8260B
Analyte LCS
Result
LCSD
Result
SPK
Val
LCS
%REC
LCSD
%REC

LCS/LCSD
Limits

RPD RPD
Limit
Surrogate Recovery
Dibromofluoromethane 0.12 0.12 0.12 97 97 70-140 0.711 30 Toluene-d8 0.13 0.13 0.12 102 103 70-140 0.884 30
4-BFB 0.011 0.011 0.012 91 91 70-140 0.504 30
Benzene-d6 0.092 0.092 0.10 92 92 70-140 0.0016 30
Ethylbenzene-d10 0.10 0.10 0.10 102 102 70-140 0.679 30 1,2-DCB-d4 0.077 0.075 0.10 77 75 70-140 2.14 30
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP

Page 27 of 41 ends

Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Farallon Consulting
Project: 1071-105; 6756-6792 Central Ave
Date Analyzed: 03/03/2023
Date Prepared: 03/03/2023
WorkOrder: 2303198
BatchID: 264841
Analytical Method: SW8270C
Unit: µg/L
Sample ID: MB/LCS/LCSD-264841
Instrument: GC48
Matrix: Water
Extraction Method: E625
QC Summary Report for SW8270C
Analyte MB
Result

MDL RL SPK
Val
MB SS
%REC
MB SS
Limits
Acenaphthene ND 0.0020 0.0050 - - -
Acenaphthylene ND 0.00093 0.0050 - - -
Anthracene ND 0.0027 0.0050 - - -
Benzo (a) anthracene ND 0.012 0.050 - - -
Benzo (a) pyrene ND 0.0031 0.0050 - - -
Benzo (b) fluoranthene ND 0.0056 0.020 - - -
Benzo (g,h,i) perylene ND 0.0051 0.020 - - -
Benzo (k) fluoranthene ND 0.0052 0.020 - - -
Chrysene ND 0.0020 0.0050 - - -
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene ND 0.0056 0.020 - - -
Fluoranthene ND 0.0027 0.010 - - -
Fluorene ND 0.0029 0.010 - - -
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene ND 0.0072 0.020 - - -
1-Methylnaphthalene ND 0.0024 0.0050 - - -
2-Methylnaphthalene 0.0016,J 0.0015 0.0050 - - -
Naphthalene ND 0.012 0.050 - - -
Pentachlorophenol ND 0.089 0.25 - - -
Phenanthrene ND 0.0026 0.0050 - - -
Pyrene ND 0.0019 0.0050 - - -
Surrogate Recovery
2-Fluorophenol 2.2 5 45 20-103
2-Fluorobiphenyl 3.8 5 77 63-115
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 28 of 41 ends

Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Farallon Consulting
Project: 1071-105; 6756-6792 Central Ave
Date Analyzed: 03/03/2023
Date Prepared: 03/03/2023
WorkOrder: 2303198
BatchID: 264841
Analytical Method: SW8270C
Unit: µg/L
Sample ID: MB/LCS/LCSD-264841
Instrument: GC48
Matrix: Water
Extraction Method: E625
QC Summary Report for SW8270C
Analyte LCS
Result
LCSD
Result
SPK
Val
LCS
%REC
LCSD
%REC

LCS/LCSD
Limits

RPD RPD
Limit
Acenaphthene 0.24 0.24 0.25 95 97 60-132 2.51 25
Acenaphthylene 0.20 0.20 0.25 78 81 54-126 3.67 25
Anthracene 0.25 0.27 0.25 102 108 60-130 6.30 25
Benzo (a) anthracene 0.26 0.28 0.25 104 112 60-130 7.20 25 Benzo (a) pyrene 0.26 0.28 0.25 104 114 60-130 8.96 25
Benzo (b) fluoranthene 0.27 0.30 0.25 106 119 60-130 11.6 25 Benzo (g,h,i) perylene 0.26 0.29 0.25 104 115 50-130 10.3 25 Benzo (k) fluoranthene 0.28 0.28 0.25 110 112 60-130 1.10 25 Chrysene 0.25 0.26 0.25 98 106 70-130 7.39 25
Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene 0.27 0.30 0.25 109 120 50-130 9.80 25 Fluoranthene 0.26 0.28 0.25 102 111 65-130 7.95 25
Fluorene 0.23 0.24 0.25 91 95 70-120 4.01 25
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene 0.27 0.29 0.25 107 118 50-130 9.99 25 1-Methylnaphthalene 0.22 0.23 0.25 86 91 65-130 4.97 25 2-Methylnaphthalene 0.21 0.22 0.25 86 89 60-130 3.76 25 Naphthalene 0.23 0.23 0.25 91 93 70-130 2.12 25
Phenanthrene 0.26 0.28 0.25 103 110 65-120 6.66 25
Pyrene 0.24 0.26 0.25 97 105 70-120 7.00 25
Surrogate Recovery
2-Fluorophenol 2.1 2.2 5 42 43 20-103 3.00 25
2-Fluorobiphenyl 3.9 3.9 5 79 77 63-115 2.06 25
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP

Page 29 of 41 ends

Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Farallon Consulting
Project: 1071-105; 6756-6792 Central Ave
Date Analyzed: 03/06/2023
Date Prepared: 03/03/2023
WorkOrder: 2303198
BatchID: 264843
Analytical Method: SW6020
Unit: mg/kg
Sample ID: MB/LCS/LCSD-264843
Instrument: ICP-MS5
Matrix: Soil
Extraction Method: SW3050B
QC Summary Report for Metals
Analyte MB
Result

MDL RL SPK
Val
MB SS
%REC
MB SS
Limits
Antimony ND 0.12 0.50 - - -
Arsenic ND 0.11 0.50 - - -
Barium ND 0.71 5.0 - - -
Beryllium ND 0.10 0.50 - - -
Cadmium ND 0.092 0.50 - - -
Chromium ND 0.13 0.50 - - -
Cobalt ND 0.064 0.50 - - -
Copper ND 0.13 0.50 - - -
Lead ND 0.065 0.50 - - -
Mercury ND 0.038 0.050 - - -
Molybdenum ND 0.092 0.50 - - -
Nickel 0.089,J 0.080 0.50 - - -
Selenium ND 0.21 0.50 - - -
Silver ND 0.057 0.50 - - -
Thallium ND 0.072 0.50 - - -
Vanadium ND 0.11 0.50 - - -
Zinc ND 2.5 5.0 - - -
Surrogate Recovery
Terbium 560 500 111 70-130
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP
(Cont.)

Page 30 of 41 ends

Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Farallon Consulting
Project: 1071-105; 6756-6792 Central Ave
Date Analyzed: 03/06/2023
Date Prepared: 03/03/2023
WorkOrder: 2303198
BatchID: 264843
Analytical Method: SW6020
Unit: mg/kg
Sample ID: MB/LCS/LCSD-264843
Instrument: ICP-MS5
Matrix: Soil
Extraction Method: SW3050B
QC Summary Report for Metals
Analyte LCS
Result
LCSD
Result
SPK
Val
LCS
%REC
LCSD
%REC

LCS/LCSD
Limits

RPD RPD
Limit
Antimony 49 49 50 99 98 75-125 0.859 20
Arsenic 49 48 50 97 96 75-125 1.55 20
Barium 510 500 500 101 100 75-125 0.677 20
Beryllium 50 51 50 100 101 75-125 0.820 20
Cadmium 50 49 50 100 99 75-125 1.12 20
Chromium 51 50 50 102 101 75-125 1.02 20
Cobalt 50 50 50 101 100 75-125 0.634 20
Copper 51 50 50 102 100 75-125 1.85 20
Lead 49 49 50 99 98 75-125 1.17 20
Mercury 1.3 1.2 1.25 100 100 75-125 0.240 20
Molybdenum 49 50 50 99 99 75-125 0.456 20
Nickel 51 50 50 101 99 75-125 1.66 20
Selenium 51 50 50 101 99 75-125 2.03 20
Silver 46 46 50 92 92 75-125 0.628 20
Thallium 50 50 50 101 100 75-125 0.446 20
Vanadium 50 50 50 101 101 75-125 0.189 20
Zinc 510 500 500 101 99 75-125 1.65 20
Surrogate Recovery
Terbium 540 530 500 107 107 70-130 0.617 20
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP

Page 31 of 41 ends

Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Farallon Consulting
Project: 1071-105; 6756-6792 Central Ave
Date Analyzed: 03/04/2023 - 03/08/2023
Date Prepared: 03/03/2023
WorkOrder: 2303198
BatchID: 264888
Analytical Method: SW8021B/8015Bm
Unit: mg/Kg
Sample ID: MB/LCS/LCSD-264888
Instrument: GC7
Matrix: Soil
Extraction Method: SW5035
QC Summary Report for SW8021B/8015Bm
Analyte MB
Result

MDL RL SPK
Val
MB SS
%REC
MB SS
Limits
TPH(g) (C6-C12) ND 0.55 1.0 - - -
MTBE ND 0.0026 0.050 - - -
Benzene ND 0.0018 0.0050 - - -
Toluene ND 0.0022 0.0050 - - -
Ethylbenzene ND 0.0015 0.0050 - - -
m,p-Xylene ND 0.0026 0.010 - - -
o-Xylene ND 0.00098 0.0050 - - -
Surrogate Recovery
2-Fluorotoluene 0.095 0.1 95 75-134
Analyte LCS
Result
LCSD
Result
SPK
Val
LCS
%REC
LCSD
%REC

LCS/LCSD
Limits

RPD RPD
Limit
TPH(btex) 0.49 0.54 0.60 82 89 82-118 8.60 20
MTBE 0.097 0.094 0.10 97 94 61-119 2.93 20
Benzene 0.10 0.10 0.10 102 102 77-128 0.0649 20
Toluene 0.11 0.10 0.10 107 105 74-132 2.42 20
Ethylbenzene 0.10 0.10 0.10 100 100 84-127 0.250 20
m,p-Xylene 0.21 0.21 0.20 106 106 80-120 0.0512 20
o-Xylene 0.10 0.099 0.10 100 99 80-120 1.12 20
Surrogate Recovery
2-Fluorotoluene 0.095 0.095 0.10 95 95 75-134 0.0490 20 CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP

Page 32 of 41 ends

Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Farallon Consulting
Project: 1071-105; 6756-6792 Central Ave
Date Analyzed: 03/09/2023
Date Prepared: 03/08/2023
WorkOrder: 2303198
BatchID: 265189
Analytical Method: SM2540 C-1997
Unit: mg/L
Sample ID: MB/LCS/LCSD-265189
Instrument: WetChem
Matrix: Water
Extraction Method: SM2540 C-1997
QC Summary Report for Total Dissolved Solids
Analyte MB
Result
MDL RL
Total Dissolved Solids ND 10.0 10.0 - - -
Analyte LCS
Result
LCSD
Result
SPK
Val
LCS
%REC
LCSD
%REC

LCS/LCSD
Limits

RPD RPD
Limit
Total Dissolved Solids 1020 1020 1000 102 102 80-120 0.196 10 CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP

Page 33 of 41 ends

Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Farallon Consulting
Project: 1071-105; 6756-6792 Central Ave
Date Analyzed: 03/06/2023
Date Prepared: 03/03/2023
WorkOrder: 2303198
BatchID: 264876
Analytical Method: SW8015B
Unit: µg/L
Sample ID: MB/LCS/LCSD-264876
Instrument: GC6A
Matrix: Water
Extraction Method: SW3510C/3630C
QC Report for SW8015B w/ Silica Gel Clean-Up
Analyte MB
Result

LCS/LCSD
Limits

RPD RPD
Limit
TPH-Diesel (C10-C23) 1000 1000 1000 102 104 70-130 1.84 20 Surrogate Recovery
C9 610 600 625 97 96 70-130 0.932 20
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP

Page 34 of 41 ends

Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Farallon Consulting
Project: 1071-105; 6756-6792 Central Ave
Date Analyzed: 03/04/2023 - 03/08/2023
Date Prepared: 03/03/2023
WorkOrder: 2303198
BatchID: 264880
Analytical Method: SW8015B
Unit: mg/Kg
Sample ID: MB/LCS/LCSD-264880
2303198-001AMS/MSD
Instrument: GC11A, GC31B
Matrix: Soil
Extraction Method: SW3550B
QC Report for SW8015B w/out SG Clean-Up
Analyte MB
Result

MDL RL SPK
Val
MB SS
%REC
MB SS
Limits
TPH-Diesel (C10-C23) ND 1.2 2.0 - - -
TPH-Motor Oil (C18-C36) ND 5.0 10 - - -
Surrogate Recovery
C9 22 25 89 70-130
Analyte LCS
Result
LCSD
Result
SPK
Val
LCS
%REC
LCSD
%REC

LCS/LCSD
Limits

RPD RPD
Limit
TPH-Diesel (C10-C23) 40 40 40 101 101 70-130 0.0128 20
Surrogate Recovery
C9 23 22 25 92 89 70-130 2.47 20
Analyte MS
Result
MSD
Result
SPK
Val
SPKRef
Val
MS
%REC
MSD
%REC
MS/MSD
Limits

RPD RPD
Limit
MS
DF
TPH-Diesel (C10-C23) 1 37 36 40 ND 93 91 70-130 2.15 20 Surrogate Recovery
C9 1 21 21 25 86 85 70-130 0.833 20
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP

Page 35 of 41 ends

Quality Control Report
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client: Farallon Consulting
Project: 1071-105; 6756-6792 Central Ave
Date Analyzed: 03/03/2023
Date Prepared: 03/03/2023
WorkOrder: 2303198
BatchID: 264875
Analytical Method: SW8015B
Unit: µg/L
Sample ID: MB/LCS/LCSD-264875
Instrument: GC31B
Matrix: Water
Extraction Method: SW3510C
QC Report for SW8015B w/out SG Clean-Up
Analyte MB
Result

LCS/LCSD
Limits

RPD RPD
Limit
TPH-Diesel (C10-C23) 1100 1100 1000 109 112 70-130 2.39 20 Surrogate Recovery
C9 570 570 625 92 91 70-130 0.948 20
CA ELAP 1644 • NELAP 4033ORELAP

Page 36 of 41 ends

McCampbell Analytical, Inc.
1534 Willow Pass Rd
Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701
(925) 252-9262
CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD Page
Lab ID Matrix Collection Date Hold
Requested Tests (See legend below)
Report to:

Peter Sims
330 Franklin Street, Ste. 200
Oakland, CA 94607
(510) 879-6806 FAX:

PO:
03/03/2023
ClientSampID
Project: 1071-105; 6756-6792 Central Ave
WorkOrder: 2303198
1 of 1
Date Logged:

Date Received: 03/02/2023
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Farallon Consulting
Bill to:

Accounts Payable
Farallon Consulting
975 5th Avenue Northwest
Issaquah, WA 98027
Requested TAT: 5 days;
ClientCode: FCOKC
Email: [email protected]
EDF EQuIS Email HardCopy ThirdParty
[email protected]
Excel
CLIP J-flag
cc/3rd Party: [email protected];
WaterTrax
Detection Summary
Dry-Weight
[]
2303198-001 IDW-03022023 Soil 3/2/2023 14:00 A A A A A
2303198-002 F-26 Water 3/2/2023 12:45 C A D A B
2303198-003 F-27 Water 3/2/2023 13:00 C A D A B
2303198-004 F-28 Water 3/2/2023 13:15 C A D A B
Prepared by: Cassandra Gallegos
NOTE: Soil samples are discarded 60 days after receipt unless other arrangements are made (Water samples are 30 days).

Hazardous samples will be returned to client or disposed of at client expense.

Comments:
8260B_S 8270_PNA_W CAM17MS_TTLC_S G-MBTEX_S
PRDisposal Fee TDS_W TPH(DMO)_S
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
9 10
Test Legend:

TPH(DMO)_W
TPH(DMO)WSG_W 11 12
The following SampID: 001A contains testgroup Multi Range_S.

Page 37 of 41 ends

LabID ClientSampID Collection Date
& Time
Date Logged:

Matrix Test Name Containers TAT
/Composites

WORK ORDER SUMMARY
Work Order: 2303198
Comments:

Client Name: FARALLON CONSULTING Project: 1071-105; 6756-6792 Central Ave QC Level: LEVEL 2
Dry- Hold
Weight
Sub
Out
Bottle &
Preservative
3/3/2023
Sediment
Content
CLIP EDF Excel EQuIS Email HardCopy ThirdParty J-flag
Client Contact: Peter Sims
Contact's Email: [email protected]
WaterTrax
Head Test Due Date
Space
U**
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" 001A IDW-03022023 Soil Multi-Range TPH 1 16OZ GJ, Unpres 3/2/2023 14:00 5 days 3/9/2023 SW6020 (CAM 17) 5 days 3/9/2023
SW8260B (VOCs) 5 days 3/9/2023
002A F-26 Water SW8015B (Diesel & Motor Oil) 2 aVOA, Unpres 3/2/2023 12:45 5 days 3/9/2023 2%+ 002B F-26 Water SW8015B (TPH-d,mo w/ S.G. Clean-Up) 2 aVOA, Unpres 3/2/2023 12:45 5 days 3/9/2023 2%+ 002C F-26 Water SW8270C (PAHs/PNAs) 1 1LA Narrow Mouth, 3/2/2023 12:45 5 days Unpres
3/9/2023 2%+
002D F-26 Water SM2540C (TDS) 1 500mL HDPE, 3/2/2023 12:45 5 days unprsv.
3/9/2023 2%+
003A F-27 Water SW8015B (Diesel & Motor Oil) 2 aVOA, Unpres 3/2/2023 13:00 5 days 3/9/2023 2%+ 003B F-27 Water SW8015B (TPH-d,mo w/ S.G. Clean-Up) 2 aVOA, Unpres 3/2/2023 13:00 5 days 3/9/2023 2%+ 003C F-27 Water SW8270C (PAHs/PNAs) 1 1LA Narrow Mouth, 3/2/2023 13:00 5 days Unpres
3/9/2023 2%+
003D F-27 Water SM2540C (TDS) 1 500mL HDPE, 3/2/2023 13:00 5 days unprsv.
3/9/2023 2%+
004A F-28 Water SW8015B (Diesel & Motor Oil) 2 aVOA, Unpres 3/2/2023 13:15 5 days 3/9/2023 2%+

Page 1 of 2 ends

* STLC and TCLP extractions require 2 days to complete; therefore, all TATs begin after the extraction is completed (i.e., One-day TAT yields results in 3 days from sample submission).

Page 38 of 41 ends

LabID ClientSampID Collection Date
& Time
Date Logged:

Matrix Test Name Containers TAT
/Composites

WORK ORDER SUMMARY
Work Order: 2303198
Comments:

Page 2 of 2 ends

* STLC and TCLP extractions require 2 days to complete; therefore, all TATs begin after the extraction is completed (i.e., One-day TAT yields results in 3 days from sample submission).

Page 39 of 41 ends

Page 40 of 41 ends

Sample Receipt Checklist
McCampbell Analytical, Inc. 1534 Willow Pass Road, Pittsburg, CA 94565-1701 Toll Free Telephone: (877) 252-9262 / Fax: (925) 252-9269 http://www.mccampbell.com / E-mail: [email protected] "When Quality Counts" Client Name: Farallon Consulting
WorkOrder №: 2303198
Date Logged: 3/3/2023
Matrix: Soil/Water Logged by: Cassandra Gallegos
Carrier: Client Drop-In
Shipping container/cooler in good condition? Yes No
Custody seals intact on shipping container/cooler? Yes No NA Samples Received on Ice? Yes No
Chain of custody present? Yes No
Chain of custody signed when relinquished and received? Yes No Chain of custody agrees with sample labels? Yes No
Samples in proper containers/bottles? Yes No
Sample containers intact? Yes No
Sufficient sample volume for indicated test? Yes No
All samples received within holding time? Yes No NA
Sample/Temp Blank temperature NA
ZHS conditional analyses: VOA meets zero headspace Yes No NA requirement (VOCs, TPHg/BTEX, RSK)?
pH acceptable upon receipt (Metal: <2; Nitrate 353.2/4500NO3:
<2; 522: <4; 218.7: >8)?
Yes No NA
Temp: 1.3°C
Chain of Custody (COC) Information
Sample IDs noted by Client on COC? Yes No
Date and Time of collection noted by Client on COC? Yes No Sampler's name noted on COC? Yes No
Sample Receipt Information
Sample Preservation and Hold Time (HT) Information
Sample labels checked for correct preservation? Yes No
Project: 1071-105; 6756-6792 Central Ave
(Ice Type: WET ICE )
Comments:
pH tested and acceptable upon receipt (200.7: ≤2; 533: 6 - 8; 537.1: 6 - 8)?
Yes No NA
UCMR Samples:

Page 41 of 41 ends

www.farallonconsulting.com P:\1071 Prologis\1071105 6756 & 6792 Central Ave\Deliverables\2023 Data Gap Inv ltr rpt\2023.09.13_67576 6792 Central Ave_Data Gap Inv_Farallon.docx

ATTACHMENT F

WASTE MANIFESTS

DATA GAP INVESTIGATION AND REQUEST FOR SITE CLOSURE
6756 and 6792 Central Avenue
Newark, California
Farallon PN: 1071-105
67566792/3222843
67566792/3225381
www.farallonconsulting.com P:\1071 Prologis\1071105 6756 & 6792 Central Ave\Deliverables\2023 Data Gap Inv ltr rpt\2023.09.13_67576 6792 Central Ave_Data Gap Inv_Farallon.docx

ATTACHMENT G
TIER 2 – SITE-SPECIFIC CUMULATIVE RISK AND HAZARD CALCULATOR

DATA GAP INVESTIGATION AND REQUEST FOR SITE CLOSURE
6756 and 6792 Central Avenue
Newark, California
Farallon PN: 1071-105
Contaminant 1 Contaminant 2 Contaminant 3 Contaminant 4 Contaminant 5 Contaminant inputs from T2-1: Methyl ethyl ketone Methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE)
Benzo[a]anthracene
[PAH] Naphthalene [PAH] Petroleum - Diesel
Soil Concentration (mg/kg) - dry weight:

Groundwater Concentration (μg/L): 10.00 0.83 0.10 0.11
Indoor Air Concentration (μg/m3):

Soil Gas VI Attenuation Factor (Use 0.03 for Screening): 0.0300 Cancer Risk: Methyl ethyl ketone Methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBEBenzo[a]anthracene [PAH] Naphthalene [PAH] Petroleum - Diesel Cumulative Risk Soil Exposure Risk: -- -- -- -- -- --
Tapwater Exposure Risk: -- -- -- -- -- --
Current* Vapor Intrusion Exposure Risk: -- 4.2E-10 4.2E-10 5.5E-09 -- 6.3E-09 Basis: Groundwater VI Groundwater VI Groundwater VI Groundwater VI -- Groundwater VI Future** Vapor Intrusion Exposure Risk: -- 4.2E-10 4.2E-10 5.5E-09 -- 6.3E-09 Basis: Groundwater VI Groundwater VI Groundwater VI Groundwater VI -- Groundwater VI Noncancer Hazard: Methyl ethyl ketone Methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBEBenzo[a]anthracene [PAH] Naphthalene [PAH] Petroleum - Diesel Cumulative Hazard Soil Exposure Hazard: -- -- -- -- -- --
Tap Water Exposure Hazard: -- -- -- -- -- --
Current* Vapor Intrusion Exposure Hazard: 1.1E-06 1.5E-06 -- 1.5E-04 -- 1.5E-04 Basis: Groundwater VI Groundwater VI Groundwater VI Groundwater VI -- Groundwater VI Future** Vapor Intrusion Exposure Hazard: 1.1E-06 1.5E-06 -- 1.5E-04 -- 1.5E-04 Basis: Groundwater VI Groundwater VI Groundwater VI Groundwater VI -- Groundwater VI Notes:
* Current (VI exposure to current occupants of existing buildings) – Primarily based on indoor air data. See User's Guide Chapter 5 for further information.

In the absence of indoor air data, subslab/soil gas or groundwater data is used to predict current indoor air concentrations.

Subslab/soil gas data is given priority over groundwater data for current exposure calculations. The cumulative risk calculation follows the same hierarchy. ** Future (VI exposure to future occupants of existing or future buildings) – Primarily based on subslab/soil gas data. See User's Guide Chapter 5 for further information.

In the absence of subslab/soil gas data, groundwater data is used to predict future indoor air concentrations. The cumulative risk calculation follows the same hierarchy.

Selected Site Scenario (from T2-1)
Land Use: Commercial or Industrial
Vegetation Level: Minimal
Soil Contamination Depth: Shallow Soil
Groundwater Use: Nondrinking Water
Resource
MCL Priority vs Risk-Based: Yes
Discharge to Surface Water: Saltwater & Freshwater
Subslab/ Soil Gas Concentration (μg/m3
):
2019 (Rev. 2) Table T2-2: Tier 2 – Site-Specific Cumulative Risk and Hazard Calculator Cumulative cancer risk and noncancer hazard are not automatically calculated across pathways because exposure via multiple pathways typically is not simultaneous. This may be performed separately as part of a site-specific evaluation. See the User's Guide Section 3.3 (Addressing Cumulative Risk and Hazard).

Enter Site Data (Leave blank when no data exits)
20239795.6
Acoustical Assessment
6750 Central Avenue Project
City of Newark, California
Prepared by:

Kimley‐Horn and Associates, Inc.
10 S. Almaden Boulevard, Suite 1250
San José, CA 95113
Contact: Noemi Wyss, AICP
213.261.4067
December 2023
City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
Acoustical Assessment
December 2023
Page | ii
20239795.6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Location .......................................................................................................................................1

1.2 Project Description...................................................................................................................................1 2 ACOUSTIC FUNDAMENTALS

2.1 Sound and Environmental Noise..............................................................................................................5

2.2 Groundborne Vibration............................................................................................................................8 3 REGULATORY SETTING

3.1 State of California...................................................................................................................................10

3.2 Local .......................................................................................................................................................10 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS

4.1 Existing Noise Sources............................................................................................................................14

4.2 Sensitive Receptors................................................................................................................................16 5 METHODOLOGY

5.1 Sound Methodology...............................................................................................................................19

5.2 Vibration Methodology..........................................................................................................................19 6 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

6.1 Acoustical Impacts .................................................................................................................................21

6.2 Vibration Impacts...................................................................................................................................29

6.3 Airport Noise ..........................................................................................................................................31

6.4 Cumulative Noise Impacts......................................................................................................................31 7 REFERENCES
References..............................................................................................................................................34 Tables
Table 1: Typical Noise Levels .........................................................................................................................................5 Table 2: Definitions of Acoustical Terms .......................................................................................................................6 Table 3: Human Reaction and Damage to Buildings for Continuous or Frequent Intermittent Vibrations ..................9 Table 4: Land‐Use Compatibility Guidelines for Community Noise in Newark ...........................................................10 Table 5: City of Newark Zoning Ordinance Noise Standards.......................................................................................13 Table 5: Noise Measurements.....................................................................................................................................14 Table 6: Existing Traffic Noise......................................................................................................................................16 Table 7: Noise Receivers..............................................................................................................................................17 Table 8: Existing and Project Traffic Noise...................................................................................................................25 Table 9: Stationary Source Noise Levels......................................................................................................................28 Table 10: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels.......................................................................................30 Figures
Figure 1: Regional Vicinity .............................................................................................................................................2 Figure 2: Project Location..............................................................................................................................................3 Figure 3: Project Site Plan..............................................................................................................................................4 Figure 4: Noise Measurement Locations.....................................................................................................................15 Figure 5: Sensitive Receptor Locations........................................................................................................................18 City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
Acoustical Assessment
December 2023
Page | iii
20239795.6
Appendix
Appendix A: Noise Data

LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
ADT average daily traffic
dBA A‐weighted sound level
CNEL community equivalent noise level
Ldn day‐night noise level
dB decibel
Leq equivalent noise level
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
HVAC heating ventilation and air conditioning
Hz hertz
in/sec inches per second
Lmax maximum noise level
µPa micropascals
Lmin minimum noise level
PPV peak particle velocity
RMS root mean square
sf square feet
VdB vibration velocity level
City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
Acoustical Assessment
December 2023
Page | 1
20239795.6
1 INTRODUCTION
This report documents the results of an Acoustical Assessment completed for the 6750 Central Avenue Project (“project” or “proposed project”). The purpose of this Acoustical Assessment is to evaluate the potential construction and operational noise and vibration levels associated with the project and determine the level of impact the project would have on the environment. The assessment also analyzes the vibration impacts of a nearby railway on the project.

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed project is located at 6750 Central Avenue in Newark, California. Figure 1: Regional Vicinity and Figure 2: Site Vicinity, depict the project site in a regional and local context. The project site is located in an urban area with a mix of surrounding uses including commercial, office, residential and industrial uses. The proposed project’s existing land use designation is General Industrial and existing zoning designation is Employment District. The project site is currently developed with an industrial warehouse, commercial space, and a truck trailer repair yard.

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project intends to redevelop the property as a modern industrial facility. The proposed project would demolish the existing on‐site facilities and redevelop the property with a new approximately 315,390 square feet (sf) warehouse building. The proposed warehouse building would contain approximately 281,584 sf of warehouse space and 33,806 sf of office space (refer to Figure 3: Project Site Plan). The warehouse building would include 46 dock doors located on the southeast façade. The proposed project includes surface parking with 396 automobile (passenger vehicle) spaces.

Access to the project site would be provided by two 40‐foot driveways located on the northwest corner of the site from Central Avenue. The northern driveway would provide access for trucks and trailers, in addition to passenger vehicles. The southern driveway would provide primary access for passenger vehicles. The project includes a stormwater retention area on the southern corner of the project site.

Not to scale
Source: USGS, 2023
Figure 1: Regional Vicinity6750 Central Avenue Project
Project Site
Not to scale
Figure 2: Project Location6750 Central Avenue Project
Source: Nearmap, 2023
Central Avenue
Project Site
Legend
Sycamore Street
Redeker Place
Not to scale
Figure 3: Project Site Plan
6750 Central Avenue Project
Source: Jackson Liles Architecture, March 2023

FUTURE CENTRAL AVE OVERPASS CENTRAL AVE SYCAMORE ST

TRUCK COURT
(N) BUILDING

TRAILER STORAGE

PARKING PARKING

PARKING
1 19
8 15
6 13
16 8

EXTENT OF FUTURE CENTRAL AVE OVERPASS
11 25 STALLS
17 DR-2.0c
1 78 STALLS 44 STALLS
7 STALLS
3 STALLS
6 STALLS
26 STALLS
9 STALLS
20 STALLS
21 STALLS
30 STALLS
14'
25' 19' 19' 26' 19'
TYP
9'
4 6 ACC. STALLS

FOR EASEMENTS,

SEE ENLARGED

EASEMENT SITE
PLAN
5 3 19
11'
8'
5'
8'
7 7
9 19
3 19
3 21
3 12
10 12
8 19
18 111'
78' 78'
(E) ADJACENT BLDG (E) ADJACENT BLDG
(E) ADJACENT BLDG
(E) ADJACENT
BLDG
(E) ADJACENT BLDG
(E) ADJACENT BLDG
(E) ADJACENT
BLDG
196'
(E) ADJACENT BLDG
4 ACC.

STALLS
303' 166'
1000'
340'
40' 139' 40'
122'
14 2
19 TYP
12'
74' TYP

COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT
2 17
2 40'
20 DR-2.6
1 DR-2.6
2 22 STALLS
6 COMPACT STALLS
DR-2.7
1 DR-2.4
1 16
20'
29'
City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
Acoustical Assessment
December 2023
Page | 5
20239795.6
2 ACOUSTIC FUNDAMENTALS

2.1 SOUND AND ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE
Acoustics is the science of sound. Sound can be described as the mechanical energy of a vibrating object transmitted by pressure waves through a medium (e.g. air) to human (or animal) ear. If the pressure variations occur frequently enough (at least 20 times persecond), they can be heard and are called sound.

The number of pressure variations per second is called the frequency of sound and is expressed as cycles per second, or hertz (Hz).

Noise is defined as loud, unexpected, or annoying sound. The fundamental acoustics model consists of a noise source, receptor, and the propagation path between the two. The loudness of the noise source, obstructions, or atmospheric factors affecting the propagation path, determine the perceived sound level and noise characteristics at the receptor. Acoustics deal primarily with the propagation and control of sound. A typical noise environment consists of ambient noise that is the sum of many distant and indistinguishable noise sources. The sound from individual local sources is superimposed on this background noise. These sources can vary from an occasional aircraft or train passing by to continuous noise from traffic on a major highway. Perceptions of sound and noise are highly subjective from person to person.

Measuring sound directly in terms of pressure would require a large range of numbers. To avoid this, the decibel (dB)scale was devised. The dB scale uses the hearing threshold of 20 micropascals (µPa) as a point of reference, defined as 0 dB. Other sound pressures are then compared to this reference pressure, and the logarithm is taken to keep the numbers in a practical range. The dB scale allows a million‐fold increase in pressure to be expressed as 120 dB, and changes in levels correspond closely to human perception of relative loudness. Table 1: Typical Noise Levels provides typical noise levels.

Table 1: Typical Noise Levels
Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor Activities – 110 – Rock Band
Jet fly‐over at 1,000 feet
– 100 –
Gas lawnmower at 3 feet
– 90 –
Diesel truck at 50 feet at 50 miles per hour Food blender at 3 feet – 80 – Garbage disposal at 3 feet
Noisy urban area, daytime
Gas lawnmower, 100 feet – 70 – Vacuum cleaner at 10 feet Commercial area Normal Speech at 3 feet
Heavy traffic at 300 feet – 60 –
Large business office
Quiet urban daytime – 50 – Dishwasher in next room
Quiet urban nighttime – 40 – Theater, large conference room (background) Quiet suburban nighttime
– 30 – Library
Quiet rural nighttime Bedroom at night, concert hall (background) – 20 –
Broadcast/recording studio
– 10 –
Lowest threshold of human hearing – 0 – Lowest threshold of human hearing Source: California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013.

City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
Acoustical Assessment
December 2023
Page | 6
20239795.6
Noise Descriptors
The dB scale alone does not adequately characterize how humans perceive noise. The dominant frequencies of a sound have a substantial effect on the human response to that sound. Several rating scales have been developed to analyze the adverse effect of community noise on people. Because environmental noise fluctuates overtime, these scales considerthat the effect of noise on people islargely dependent on the total acoustical energy content of the noise, as well as the time of day when the noise occurs. Most commonly, environmental sounds are described in terms of equivalent noise level (Leq) that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time‐varying events. While Leq represents the continuous sound pressure level over a given period, the day‐night noise level (Ldn) and Community Equivalent Noise Level (CNEL) are measures of energy average during a 24‐hour period, with dB weighted sound levelsfrom 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Each is applicable to this analysis and defined Table 2: Definitions of Acoustical Terms.

Table 2: Definitions of Acoustical Terms
Term Definitions
Decibel (dB)
A unit describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure. The reference pressure for air is 20.

Sound Pressure Level
Sound pressure is the sound force per unit area, usually expressed in µPa (or 20 micronewtons per square meter), where 1 pascals is the pressure resulting from a force of 1 newton exerted over an area of 1 square meter. The sound pressure level is expressed in dB as 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio between the pressures exerted by the sound to a reference sound pressure (e.g. 20 µPa). Sound pressure level is the quantity that is directly measured by a sound level meter.

Frequency (Hz)
The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below atmospheric pressure. Normal human hearing is between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz. Infrasonic sound are below 20 Hz and ultrasonic sounds are above 20,000 Hz.

A‐Weighted
Sound Level (dBA)
The sound pressure level in dB as measured on a sound level meter using the A‐weighting filter network. The A‐weighting filter de‐emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise.

Equivalent Noise Level (Leq)
The average acoustic energy content of noise for a stated period of time. Thus, the Leq of a time‐varying noise and that of a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during exposure. For evaluating community impacts, this rating scale does not vary, regardless of whether the noise occurs during the day or the night.

Maximum Noise Level (Lmax)
Minimum Noise Level (Lmin)
The maximum and minimum dBA during the measurement period.

Day‐Night Noise Level (Ldn)
A 24‐hour average Leq with a 10 dBA weighting added to noise during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to account for noise sensitivity at nighttime. The logarithmic effect of these additions is that a 60 dBA 24‐hour Leq would result in a measurement of 66.4 dBA Ldn.

Community Noise
Equivalent Level (CNEL)
A 24‐hour average Leq with a 5 dBA weighting during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and a 10 dBA weighting added to noise during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime, respectively. The logarithmic effect of these additions is that a 60 dBA 24‐hour Leq would result in a measurement of 66.7 dBA CNEL.

Ambient Noise Level The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location.

Intrusive
That noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends on its amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence and tonal or informational content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level.

City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
Acoustical Assessment
December 2023
Page | 7
20239795.6
Because sound levels can vary markedly over a short period of time, a method for describing either the sound’s average character (Leq) or the variations’ statistical behavior (Lxx) must be utilized. The scientific instrument used to measure noise is the sound level meter. Sound level meters can accurately measure environmental noise levels to within about plus or minus 1 dBA. Various computer models are used to predict environmental noise levels from sources, such as roadways and airports. The predicted models’ accuracy depends on various factors, such as the distance between the noise receptor and noise source, the character of the ground surface (e.g., hard or soft), and the presence or absence of structures (e.g., walls or buildings) or topography, and how well model inputs reflect these conditions.

A‐Weighted Decibels
The A‐weighted decibel (dBA) sound level scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. The perceived loudness of sounds is dependent on many factors, including sound pressure level and frequency content. However, within the usual range of environmental noise levels, perception of loudness is relatively predictable and can be approximated by dBA values.

There is a strong correlation between dBA and the way the human ear perceives sound. For this reason, the dBA has become the standard tool of environmental noise assessment. All noise levels reported in this document are in terms of dBA, but are expressed as dB, unless otherwise noted.

Addition of Decibels
The dB scale is logarithmic, not linear, and therefore sound levels cannot be added or subtracted through ordinary arithmetic. Two sound levels 10 dB apart differ in acoustic energy by a factor of 10. When the standard logarithmic dB is A‐weighted, an increase of 10 dBA is generally perceived as a doubling in loudness. For example, a 70‐dBA sound is half as loud as an 80‐dBA sound and twice as loud as a 60‐dBA sound. When two identical sources are each producing sound of the same loudness, the resulting sound level at a given distance would be 3 dBA higher than one source under the same conditions. Under the dB scale, three sources of equal loudness together would produce an increase of approximately 5 dBA.

Sound Propagation and Attenuation
Sound spreads (propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern, and the sound level decreases (attenuates) at a rate of approximately 6 dB for each doubling of distance from a stationary or point source. Sound from a line source, such as a highway, propagates outward in a cylindrical pattern. Sound levels attenuate at a rate of approximately 3 dB for each doubling of distance from a line source, such as a roadway, depending on ground surface characteristics. No excess attenuation is assumed for hard surfaces like a parking lot or a body of water. Soft surfaces, such as soft dirt or grass, can absorb sound, so an excess ground‐attenuation value of 1.5 dB per doubling of distance is normally assumed. For line sources, an overall attenuation rate of 3 dB per doubling of distance is assumed.

Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures; generally, a single row of buildings between the receptor and the noise source reduces the noise level by about 5 dBA, while a solid wall or berm reduces noise levels by 5 to 10 dBA. The way older homes in California were constructed generally provides a reduction of exterior‐to‐interior noise levels of about 20 to 25 dBA with closed windows. The exterior‐to‐interior reduction of newer residential units is generally 30 dBA or more.

Human Response to Noise
The human response to environmental noise is subjective and varies considerably from individual to individual. Noise in the community has often been cited as a health problem, not in terms of actual physiological damage, such as hearing impairment, but in terms of inhibiting general well‐being and City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
Acoustical Assessment
December 2023
Page | 8
20239795.6
contributing to undue stress and annoyance. The health effects of noise in the community arise from interference with human activities, including sleep, speech, recreation, and tasks that demand concentration or coordination. Hearing loss can occur at the highest noise intensity levels.

Noise environments and consequences of human activities are usually well represented by median noise levels during the day or night or over a 24‐hour period. Environmental noise levels are generally considered low when the CNEL is below 60 dBA, moderate in the 60 to 70 dBA range, and high above 70 dBA. Examples of low daytime levels are isolated, natural settings with noise levels as low as 20 dBA and quiet, suburban, residential streets with noise levels around 40 dBA. Noise levels above 45 dBA at night can disrupt sleep. Examples of moderate‐level noise environments are urban residential or semi‐ commercial areas (typically 55 to 60 dBA) and commercial locations (typically 60 dBA). People may consider louder environments adverse, but most will accept the higher levels associated with noisier urban residential or residential‐commercial areas (60 to 75 dBA) or dense urban or industrial areas (65 to 80 dBA). Regarding increases in dBA, the following relationships should be noted:
 Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a 1‐dBA change cannot be perceived by humans.
 Outside of the laboratory, a 3‐dBA change is considered a just‐perceivable difference.  A minimum 5‐dBA change isrequired before any noticeable change in community response would be expected. A 5‐dBA increase is typically considered substantial.  A 10‐dBA change is subjectively heard as an approximate doubling in loudness and would almost certainly cause an adverse change in community response.

Effects of Noise on People
Hearing Loss. While physical damage to the ear from an intense noise impulse is rare, a degradation of auditory acuity can occur even within a community noise environment. Hearing loss occurs mainly due to chronic exposure to excessive noise but may be due to a single eventsuch as an explosion. Natural hearing loss associated with aging may also be accelerated from chronic exposure to loud noise. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has a noise exposure standard that is set at the noise threshold where hearing loss may occur from long‐term exposures. The maximum allowable level is 90 dBA averaged over 8 hours. If the noise is above 90 dBA, the allowable exposure time is correspondingly shorter.

Annoyance. Attitude surveys are used for measuring the annoyance felt in a community for noises intruding into homes or affecting outdoor activity areas. In these surveys, it was determined that causes for annoyance include interference with speech, radio and television, house vibrations, and interference with sleep and rest. The Ldn as a measure of noise has been found to provide a valid correlation of noise level and the percentage of people annoyed. People have been asked to judge the annoyance caused by aircraft noise and ground transportation noise. There continues to be disagreement about the relative annoyance of these different sources. A noise level of about 55 dBA Ldn is the threshold at which a substantial percentage of people begin to report annoyance2 .

2.2 GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION
Sources of groundborne vibrations include natural phenomena (earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides, etc.) or man‐made causes (explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment, etc.). Vibration sources may be continuous (e.g., factory machinery) or transient (e.g., 2 Federal Interagency Committee on Noise, Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues, August 1992.

City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
Acoustical Assessment
December 2023
Page | 9
20239795.6
explosions). Ground vibration consists of rapidly fluctuating motions or waves with an average motion of zero. Several different methods are typically used to quantify vibration amplitude. One isthe peak particle velocity (PPV); another is the root mean square (RMS) velocity. The PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration wave and is expressed in terms of inches‐per‐ second (in/sec). The RMS velocity is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal and is expressed in terms of velocity decibels (VdB). The PPV and RMS vibration velocity amplitudes are used to evaluate human response to vibration.

Table 3: Human Reaction and Damage to Buildings for Continuous or Frequent Intermittent Vibrations, displays the reactions of people and the effects on buildings produced by continuous vibration levels. The annoyance levels shown in the table should be interpreted with care since vibration may be found to be annoying at much lower levels than those listed, depending on the level of activity or the individual sensitivity of the individual. To sensitive individuals, vibrations approaching the threshold of perception can be annoying. Low‐level vibrations frequently cause irritating secondary vibration, such as a slight rattling of windows, doors, or stacked dishes. The rattling sound can give rise to exaggerated vibration complaints, even though there is very little risk of actual structural damage. In high noise environments, which are more prevalent where groundborne vibration approaches perceptible levels, this rattling phenomenon may also be produced by loud airborne environmental noise causing induced vibration in exterior doors and windows.

Table 3: Human Reaction and Damage to Buildings for Continuous or Frequent Intermittent Vibrations Maximum PPV
(in/sec)
Vibration Annoyance
Potential Criteria
Vibration Damage Potential
Threshold Criteria FTA Vibration Damage Criteria

0.008 ‐ Extremely fragile historic buildings,
ruins, ancient monuments ‐

0.01 Barely Perceptible ‐ ‐

0.04 Distinctly Perceptible ‐ ‐

0.1 Strongly Perceptible Fragile buildings ‐

0.12 ‐ ‐ Buildings extremely susceptible
to vibration damage

0.2 ‐ ‐ Non‐engineered timber and
masonry buildings

0.25 ‐ Historic and some old buildings ‐

0.3 ‐ Older residential structures Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster)

0.4 Severe ‐ ‐

0.5 ‐ New residential structures, Modern
industrial/commercial buildings
Reinforced‐concrete, steel, or
timber (no plaster)
PPV = peak particle velocity; in/sec = inches per second; FTA = Federal Transit Administration Source: California Department of Transportation, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, 2020 and Federal Transit administration; Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment Manual, 2018.

Ground vibration can be a concern in instances where buildings shake, and substantial rumblings occur.

However, it is unusual for vibration from typical urban sources such as buses and heavy trucks to be perceptible. Common sources for groundborne vibration are planes, trains, and construction activities such as earth‐moving, which requires the use of heavy‐duty earth moving equipment. For the purposes of this analysis, a PPV descriptor with units of inches per second (in/sec) is used to evaluate construction‐ generated vibration for building damage and human complaints.

City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
Acoustical Assessment
December 2023
Page | 10
20239795.6
3 REGULATORY SETTING
To limit population exposure to physically or psychologically damaging as well as intrusive noise levels, the Federal government, the State of California, various county governments, and most municipalities in the state have established standards and ordinances to control noise.

3.1 STATE
California Government Code
California Government Code Section 65302(f) mandates that the legislative body of each county and city adopt a noise element as part of its comprehensive general plan. The local noise element must recognize the land use compatibility guidelines established by the State Department of Health Services. The guidelinesrank noise land use compatibility in terms of “normally acceptable”, “conditionally acceptable”, “normally unacceptable”, and “clearly unacceptable” noise levels for various land use types. Single‐family homes are “normally acceptable” in exterior noise environments up to 60 CNEL and “conditionally acceptable” up to 70 CNEL. Multiple‐family residential uses are “normally acceptable” up to 65 CNEL and “conditionally acceptable” up to 70 CNEL. Schools, libraries, and churches are “normally acceptable” up to 70 CNEL, as are office buildings and business, commercial, and professional uses.

3.2 LOCAL
City of Newark General Plan
The City of Newark General Plan identifies goals, policies, and implementations in the Noise Element. The Noise Element provides a basis for comprehensive local programs to regulate environmental noise and protect citizensfrom excessive exposure. Table 4: Land‐Use Compatibility Guidelinesfor Community Noise in Newark highlights nine land‐use categories and the outdoor noise compatibility guidelines.

Table 4: Land‐Use Compatibility Guidelines for Community Noise in Newark Land‐Use Category
Interior
CNEL or
Ldn (dBA)
Exterior Noise Exposure (CNEL or Ldn), in dBA
Normally
Acceptable1
Conditionally
Acceptable2
Normally
Unacceptable3
Clearly
Unacceptable4
Residential‐Low Density Single‐Family,
Duplex, Mobile Homes 45 <60 55 to 70 70 to 75 >75
Residential‐Multiple Family 45 <65 60 to 70 70 to 75 >75 Transient Lodging, Motels, Hotels 45 <65 60 to 70 70 to 80 >80 Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals,
Nursing Homes 45 <70 60 to 70 70 to 80 >80
Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheater ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ >65 Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ >70 Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks ‐ <70 68 to 75 ‐ >72 Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water
Recreation, Cemeteries ‐ <75 70 to 80 ‐ >80
Office Buildings, Businesses, Commercial,
Professions 50 <70 68 to 75 75 to 85 ‐
Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities,
Agricultural ‐ <75 70 to 80 75 to 85 ‐

1. Normally Acceptable – Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements.

City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
Acoustical Assessment
December 2023
Page | 11
20239795.6

2. Conditionally Acceptable – New construction should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirement is conducted and needed noise insulation features included in the design.

3. Normally Unacceptable – New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.

4. Clearly Unacceptable – New Construction or development generally should not be undertaken.

Source: City of Newark General Plan, 2013.

The Newark General Plan includes the following applicable noise goal and policy:

Goal EH‐6: Maintain the peace and quiet of Newark neighborhoods and promote an environment where noise does not adversely impact sensitive land uses.

Policy EH 6.3: Truck Noise. Establish, maintain, and enforce designated truck routes within the city to reduce noise from truck traffic near residential uses.

Policy EH 6.7: Construction Noise – Addressing Sources of Construction Noise. Reduce noise associated with construction activities by requiring properly maintained mufflers on construction vehicles, requiring the placement of stationary construction equipment as far as possible from developed areas, and requiring temporary acoustical barriers/ shielding to minimize construction noise impacts at adjacent receptors. Special attention should be paid to noise‐sensitive receptors(including residential, hospital,school, and religious land uses).

Goal EH‐7: Ensure that new structures/uses are designed and constructed to preclude excessive, inappropriate, and undesirable noise effects.

Policy EH 7.1: Land Use Planning and Noise Compatibility. Use the noise compatibility guidelines in Table EH‐2 and the future‐conditions noise contour map in Figure EH‐4 to plan for appropriate land uses near existing uses that generate noise. Noise mitigation should be included to ensure that new residential areas and other noise‐sensitive uses are appropriately buffered from significant noise sources.

Policy EH 7.2: Noise Compatibility Strategies. Where land use noise compatibility conflicts currently exist, explore the need for mitigation measures on noise sources that may be adjacent to sensitive receptors. In planning for future developments, promote the use of buffer zones, barrier/shielding measures, and/or sound insulation building techniques to preclude noise impacts to noise‐sensitive land uses.

Policy EH 7.4: Residential Noise Standard – Exterior. Plan for and implement strategies to maintain exterior noise levels that are consistent with the noise compatibility guidelines in Table EH‐2. For residential areas, this limit is 60 dBA Ldn for outdoor living areas. Where this level is exceeded due to freeways, arterials, and/or railroads, the construction of berms, walls, buffer zones, and other noise‐reduction measures to reduce noise to the greatest extent feasible will be required.

City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
Acoustical Assessment
December 2023
Page | 12
20239795.6
Policy EH 7.6: New Noise Sources. Require developments that have the potential to create long‐term noise increases to mitigate potential impact to off‐site receptor properties.

Policy EH 7.7: Acoustical Study Requirement. Require acoustical studies for new developments in areas where the noise levels exceed the ‘normally acceptable’ levels for the proposed land use; based on Table EH‐2. For residential uses, the analysis should include mitigation measures to limit the noise exposure in interior living spaces to 45 dB Ldn, consistent with California Title 24.

Acoustical Studies should have the following minimum attributes:
 Be the responsibility of the development applicant.
 Be prepared by qualified persons experienced in the fields of environmental noise assessment and architectural acoustics.  Include representative noise level measurements with sufficient sampling periods and locations to adequately describe existing local conditions.
 Include estimates for existing and projected (20 years hence) noise levels in terms of (a) Ldn or CNEL and (b) any future noise regulations to be adopted by the City. Those existing and projected noise levels shall be compared to the adopted policies of the Noise Element.
 Include recommended mitigation measures to achieve compliance with the adopted policies and standards of the Noise Element. Where the noise source in question consists of intermittent single events, the report should address the effects of maximum noise levels in sleeping rooms and potential sleep disturbance issues.
 Include estimates for interior and exterior noise exposure after the prescribed mitigation measures have been implemented.
 Describe a post‐project assessment program that could be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures.

The Newark General Plan includes the following action element for vibration:

Action EH‐7.D: Vibration‐Intensive Construction. Implement a standard operating procedure that requires the evaluation of potential vibration impacts for individual projects which use vibration‐intensive construction activities, such as pile drivers, jack hammers, and vibratory rollers, near sensitive receptors. If construction‐related vibration is determined to be perceptible (i.e., in excess of Federal Transit Administrations vibration annoyance criterion) at vibration‐sensitive uses, then additional requirements, such as the use of less‐vibration intensive equipment or construction techniques, shall be implemented.

City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
Acoustical Assessment
December 2023
Page | 13
20239795.6
Action EH‐7.E: New Development Near Railroads. Implement a standard operating procedure that requires the evaluation of potential vibration impacts for new development that occurs within 200 feet of a railroad track, in accordance with the FTA’s vibration screening distances. In such instances, the project property owner/developers shall retain an acoustical engineer to conduct an acoustic analysis and identify, where appropriate, site design features and/or required building construction improvements to ensure that vibration impacts would remain below acceptable levels for residential uses.

City of Newark Municipal Code
According to Newark Municipal Code, Section 17.24.100, construction hours are limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Monday through Saturday and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and Holidays.

The Municipal Code does establish quantitative noise limits for construction activities in the City.

Construction noise level shall not exceed 86 dBA at any point outside the property plane and no piece of equipment is allowed to produce a noise level of 83 dBA at a distance of 25 feet from the source.

The Municipal Code also includes noise limits based on the location and type of land use. Error! Reference source not found. shows the standards for maximum noise level at the property line. As stated in in Municipal Code Section 17.24.120, vibrations from temporary construction, demolition, and vehicles that enter and leave the subject parcel are exempt from the City’s discernable vibration standard.

Table 5: City of Newark Zoning Ordinance Noise Standards Land Use Types Maximum Noise Level in
Decibels at Property Line
Residential between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. 70
Residential between 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 60
Commercial/Industrial 24 hours a day 70
Public Property 24 hours a day 60
Source: City of Newark Municipal Code section 17.24.100.

City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
Acoustical Assessment
December 2023
Page | 14
20239795.6
4 EXISTING CONDITIONS

4.1 EXISTING NOISE SOURCES
The City of Newark (including the project site) is impacted by various noise sources. Mobile sources of noise, especially cars, trucks, and rail transport, are the most common and significant sources of noise in most communities. Other sources of noise are the various land uses (i.e., residential, commercial, institutional, and recreational and parks activities) throughout the City that generate stationary‐source noise.

Noise Measurements
To determine ambient noise levels in the project area, three short‐term (10‐minute) noise measurements and one long‐term (24‐hour) noise measurement were taken using a Larson Davis SoundExpert LxT Type I integrating sound level meter on January 25 through January 26, 2023; refer to Appendix A for existing noise measurement data.

As shown in Figure 4: Noise Measurement Locations, short‐term measurement 1 (ST‐1) was taken to represent the ambient noise level at the Church northwest of the project site on Sycamore Street, ST‐2 was taken to represent existing noise levels at the industrial uses northeast of the project site, and ST‐3 was taken to represent the existing noise level at the industrial uses to the southwest. Long‐term measurement 1 (LT‐1) wastaken to represent existing ambient noise levels at the projectsite. The primary noise sources during the noise measurements were traffic along Central Avenue, Sycamore Street, and stationary noise at industrial operations nearby. Table 6: Noise Measurements providesthe ambient noise levels measured at these locations.

Table 6: Noise Measurements
Site
No. Location Leq (dBA) Lmin (dBA) Lmax (dBA) Ldn (dBA)1 Time Date ST‐1 Newark Community Church 59.7 51.0 74.5 ‐ 2:00 p.m. to 2:10 p.m.
1/25/2023
ST‐2 6950 Central Avenue 59.0 55.1 64.7 ‐ 2:19 p.m. to 2:29 p.m.
1/25/2023
ST‐3 7025 Central Avenue 72.1 55.4 84.5 ‐ 2:37 p.m. to 2:47 p.m.
1/25/2023
LT‐1 Project Site 69.6 51.6 96.1 73.6 3:21 p.m. to
3:21 p.m.
1/25/2023 –
1/26/2023

1. Ldn for short‐term measurements are approximated based on the day‐night variation in the long‐term measurement.

Source: Noise Measurements taken by Kimley‐Horn on January 25th through 26th, 2023.

6750 Central Avenue Project Not to scale
Figure 4: Noise Measurement LocaƟ ons
Source: Nearmap, 2023
Legend
Long Term Noise Measurement LocaƟ on
Short Term Noise Measurement LocaƟ onProject Site
ST-2
ST-1
LT-1
ST-3
Central Avenue Sycamore Street
Redeker Place
City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
Acoustical Assessment
December 2023
Page | 16
20239795.6
Existing Mobile Noise
Existing roadway noise levels were calculated for the roadway segments in the project vicinity. This task was accomplished using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA‐RD‐77‐108) and existing traffic volumes provided by Kimley‐Horn (2023). The noise prediction model calculates the average noise level at specific locations based on traffic volumes, average speeds, roadway geometry, and site environmental conditions. The average vehicle noise rates (also referred to as energy rates) used in the FHWA model have been modified to reflect average vehicle noise rates identified for California by Caltrans. The Caltrans data indicates that California automobile noise is

0.8 to 1.0 dBA higher than national levels and that medium and heavy truck noise is 0.3 to 3.0 dBA lower than national levels. The average daily noise levels along roadway segments in proximity to the project site are included in Table 7: Existing Traffic Noise.

Table 7: Existing Traffic Noise
The project site is primarily surrounded by industrial and commercial uses. The existing mobile noise in the project area are generated along Central Avenue and Sycamore Street west of the project site.

Existing Stationary Noise
The primary sources of stationary noise in the project vicinity are those associated with the operations of nearby existing commercial and industrial surrounding of the project site. The noise associated with these sources may represent a single‐event noise occurrence, short‐term noise, or long‐term/continuous noise.

4.2 NEARBY RECEPTORS
Noise exposure standards and guidelines for various types of land uses reflect the varying noise sensitivities associated with each of these uses. Residences, hospitals, schools, guest lodging, libraries, and churches are treated as the most sensitive to noise intrusion and therefore have more stringent noise exposure targets than do other uses, such as manufacturing or agricultural uses that are not subject to impacts such as sleep disturbance.

As shown in Table 8: Noise Receivers, sensitive receptors near the project site include single‐family residences and a church, refer to Figure 5: Sensitive Receptor Locations. Table 8 also highlights nearby Roadway Segment ADT dBA Ldn 1
Sycamore Street
Central Avenue to Clark Avenue 4,900 57.1
Central Avenue
Morton Avenue to Sycamore Street 13,160 62.8
Sycamore Street to West Project Driveway 16,360 63.7
West Project Driveway to East Project Driveway 16,360 63.7 East Project Driveway to Cherry Street 17,090 63.9
ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A‐weighted decibels; Ldn = day‐night noise level

1. Traffic noise levels are at 100 feet from the roadway centerline. The actual sound level at any receptor location is dependent upon such factors as the source‐to‐receptor distance and the presence of intervening structures, barriers, and topography.

Source: Based on data provided by Kimley‐Horn (2023). Refer to Appendix A for traffic noise modeling assumptions and results.

City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
Acoustical Assessment
December 2023
Page | 17
20239795.6
non‐sensitive receivers such as commercial and industrial uses. These distances are from the project site to the sensitive receptor property line.

Table 8: Noise Receivers
Receptor Description Distance and Direction from the Project Site1 Industrial Building 40 feet to the north
Commercial Building 100 feet northwest
Single Family Residential 670 feet northeast
Newark Community Church 800 feet northwest
Single Family Residential 930 feet northeast

1. Distances are measured from the project site boundary to the property line. 6750 Central Avenue Project Not to scale
Figure 5: SensiƟ ve Receptor LocaƟ ons
Legend
^ĞŶƐŝƟǀĞZĞĐĞƉƚŽƌ>ŽĐĂƟŽŶ 1
WƌŽũĞĐƚƐŝƚĞ
1 2
3 Single Family Residence ingle Family Residence
Single Family Residence ingle Family Residence
Church
Source: Nearmap, 2023
City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
Acoustical Assessment
December 2023
Page | 19
20239795.6
5 METHODOLOGY

5.1 SOUND METHODOLOGY
Construction
Construction noise estimates are based upon noise levels on typical noise levels generated by construction equipment published by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and FHWA. Construction noise is assessed in dBA Leq. This unit is appropriate because Leq can be used to describe noise level from operation of each piece of equipment separately, and levels can be combined to represent the noise level from all equipment operating during a given period.

Reference noise levels are used to estimate noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors based on a standard noise attenuation rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance (line‐of‐sight method of sound attenuation for point sources of noise). Construction noise level estimates do not account for the presence of intervening structures or topography, which may reduce noise levels at receptor locations. Therefore, the noise levels presented herein represent a conservative, reasonable worst‐case estimate of actual temporary construction noise.

The City of Newark has a construction equipment noise threshold of 86 dBA at any point outside the property line between the times of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Monday through Saturday and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and Holidays. The City also has an ordinance providing that no piece of equipment is allowed to produce a noise level of 83 dBA at a distance of 25 feet from the source.

Operations
The analysis of the existing and future noise environments is based on noise prediction modeling and empirical observations. Reference noise level data are used to estimate the project operational noise impacts from stationary sources. Noise levels are collected from field noise measurements and other published sources from similar types of activities are used to estimate noise levels expected with the project’s stationary sources. The reference noise levels are used to represent a worst‐case noise environment as noise level from stationary sources can vary throughout the day.

Operational noise is evaluated based on the standards within the City’s General Plan. Per Table EH‐2 in the City of Newark General Plan, normally acceptable exterior noise levels of up to 55 dBA Ldn are acceptable for single‐family residential uses, levels up to 60 dBA Ldn are acceptable for churches, levels up to 68 dBA Ldn are acceptable for commercial uses, and levels up to 70 dBA Ldn are acceptable for industrial uses. The General Plan also establishes an interior 45 dBA Ldn noise standard for residences and churches and notes that an untrained human ear typically cannot detect a difference in sound levels of less than 3 dB. The traffic noise levelsin the project vicinity were calculated using the FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA‐RD‐77‐108).

5.2 VIBRATION METHODOLOGY
Groundborne vibration levels associated with construction‐related activities for the project were evaluated utilizing typical groundborne vibration levels associated with construction equipment, obtained from FTA published data for construction equipment. Potential groundborne vibration impacts related to structural damage and human annoyance were evaluated, considering the distance from construction activities to nearby land uses and typically applied criteria for structural damage and human annoyance.

City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
Acoustical Assessment
December 2023
Page | 20
20239795.6
Per FTA guidance, a vibration limit of 12.7 millimeters per second (mm/sec; 0.5 inch/sec) PPV is used for buildings that are structurally sound and designed to modern engineering standards. A conservative vibration limit of five mm/sec (0.2 inches/sec) PPV has been used for buildings that are found to be structurally sound but where structural damage is a major concern.

City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
Acoustical Assessment
December 2023
Page | 21
20239795.6
6 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

6.1 ACOUSTICAL IMPACTS
Threshold 6.1 Would the Project generate 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 noise typically occurs intermittently and varies depending on the nature or phase of construction (e.g. land clearing, grading, excavation, paving). Noise generated by construction equipment, including earth movers, material handlers, and portable generators, can reach high levels. During construction, exterior noise levels could affect the residential neighborhoods and other sensitive receptors surrounding the construction site. Project construction would occur approximately 670 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor to the northeast. Construction activities would occur throughout the projectsite and would not be concentrated at a single point nearsensitive receptors. Noise levelstypically attenuate (or drop off) at a rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance from point sources, such as industrial machinery. During construction, exterior noise levels could affect the residential neighborhoods near the construction site.

Construction activities associated with development of the project would include demolition, site preparation, grading, paving, building construction, and architectural coating. Such activities may require dozers and tractors during site preparation; graders, dozers, and tractors during grading; cranes, forklifts, generators, tractors, and welders during building construction; pavers,rollers, mixers, tractors, and paving equipment during paving; and air compressors during architectural coating. Grading and excavation phases of project construction tend to be the shortest in duration and create the highest construction noise levels due to the operation of heavy equipment required to complete these activities. It should be noted that only a limited amount of equipment can operate near a given location at a particular time.

Equipment typically used during the grading and excavation stage includes heavy‐duty trucks, backhoes, bulldozers, excavators, front‐end loaders, and scrapers. Operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full‐power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Other primary sources of noise would be shorter‐duration incidents,such as placing large pieces of equipment or the hydraulic movement of machinery lifts, which would last less than one minute. According to the applicant, no pile‐driving would be required during construction.

The City of Newark General Plan has not adopted a quantitative construction noise threshold. However, the Newark Municipal Code limits construction equipment noise levels to 86 dBA at the property line and, for individual pieces of equipment, 83 dBA at 25 feet from the source. It should be noted that there are no sensitive receptors located within 25 feet of the anticipated construction area or adjacent to the project property line. The closest sensitive receptors would be the residences northeast located approximately 670 feet away from the project site. The loudest piece of equipment (used during demolition) would produce a noise level of 65 dBA at 670 feet without accounting for any noise attenuation from nearby buildings or structures, as well as vegetation. These off‐site noise attenuating elements include multi‐story industrial buildings, multi‐story commercial buildings, and trees located north and west of the project site. Typically, a solid wall or berm can reduce noise level by about 5 to 15 City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
Acoustical Assessment
December 2023
Page | 22
20239795.6
dBA.3 Thus, due to nearby attenuating structures, noise levels would be reduced below 65 dBA and the construction noise would be below the Normally Acceptable Level for residences and churches as described in Table 4. At the closest industrial use, located 40 feet northwest from the edge of the project site, the loudest piece of equipment would produce a noise level of 90 dBA without accounting for any noise attenuation from nearby buildings or structures. As mentioned previously, actual construction‐ related noise activities would be lower than the conservative levels described above and would cease upon completion of construction. Due to the variability of construction activities and equipment for the project, overall construction noise levels would be intermittent and would fluctuate over time. These assumptions represent the worst‐case noise scenario because construction activities would typically be spread throughout the project site, and thus some equipment would be farther away from the affected receptors.

Further, construction activities would be limited to daytime hours and would conform to the time‐of‐day restrictions of the City’s Municipal Code. Construction activities also would be subject to a routine construction management plan, which constitutes a "noise source control" that is uniformly applicable to construction sites near receptors under Newark Municipal Code section 17.24.100(B) and policies in the City's General Plan, such as Policy EH‐607. (See, e.g., General Plan Noise Element, pp. EH‐28 to EH‐30, EH‐ 41). Construction noise management plans are common conditions of approval in the City of Newark and are intended to generally minimize the detrimental noise impacts of construction. (See "Environmental Checklist for Streamlined Review, Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15168 and 15183" for 38600 Cedar Boulevard Residential Development Project (July 2023), p. 53; see also Berkeley Hillside Pres. v. City of Berkeley (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 943, 959 [project exempt from CEQA where generally applicable construction management plan ensured compliance with city noise standards]; Walters v. City of Redondo Beach (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 809, 815‐823 [project exempt from CEQA where noise control measures ensured compliance with city ordinance standards].) Implementation of the construction management plan below would ensure that construction noise levels remain consistent with the municipal code’s quantitative noise level requirements. The plan would require the project to use noise reduction technology on construction equipment, construct temporary sound barriers at the project property line, and prohibit the idling of stationary equipment. With implementation of the construction noise management plan, noise levels associated with construction would be significantly reduced and would never exceed 86 decibels outside the project site. Therefore, construction noise impacts to nearby receptors would be consistent with the Newark General Plan and Newark Municipal Code, and would be less than significant.

Construction Noise Management Plan
Prior to Grading Permit issuance, the Applicantshall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City of Newark Director of Public Works or City Engineer that the Project complies with the following:
i. Constructsolid plywood fences around ground level construction sites adjacent to the project property line, resulting in a decibel reduction of 5‐15 dBA. 3 Federal Highway Administration, Highway Traffic and Construction Noise ‐ Problem and Response, April 2006.

City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
Acoustical Assessment
December 2023
Page | 23
20239795.6
ii. Equip all internal combustion engine‐driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. This would provide at least a 10 dBA reduction to individual equipment noise.4

iii. Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. iv. Locate stationary noise‐generating equipment such as air compressors or portable power generators as far as possible from the project property line. Construct temporary noise barriers to screen stationary noise‐generating equipment at the project property line. v. Utilize “quiet” air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists. vi. Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point where they are not audible at existing residences bordering the Project site.
vii. Notify all adjacent business, residences, and other noise‐sensitive land uses of the construction schedule, in writing, and provide a written schedule of “noisy” construction activities to the adjacent land uses and nearby residences. viii. If complaints are received or excessive noise levels cannot be reduced using the measures above, erect a temporary noise control blanket barrier along surrounding building facades that face the construction sites.
ix. Designate a “disturbance coordinator” who shall be responsible for responding to any complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., bad muffler, etc.) and shall require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule.

Implementation of the foregoing construction noise management plan would collectively reduce construction noise by 20 to 30 decibels. Construction noise levels would be below 45 dBA at the closest residence and church, and below 70 dBA at the closest industrial receptor which is consistent with the Normally Acceptable Levels described in Table 4. With the reduction accounting for the mufflers and the surrounding walls from the construction noise management plan (approximately a 20 dBA reduction), no construction equipment would produce a noise level more than 83 dBA at 25 feet. The loudest piece of equipment would produce a noise level of 74 dBA at 25 feet and construction noise levels would not exceed 86 dBA at the project property line. Thus, construction noise would be consistent with the Newark General Plan and Newark Municipal Code, and would be less than significant.

Construction Traffic Noise
Construction noise may be generated by large trucks moving materials to and from the project site. Large trucks would be necessary to deliver building materials as well as remove dump materials. Because of the logarithmic nature of noise levels, a doubling of the traffic volume (assuming that the speed and vehicle mix do not also change) would result in a noise level increase of 3 dBA. In general, a traffic noise increase of less than 3 dBA is barely perceptible to people, while a 5‐dBA increase is readily noticeable (Caltrans, 4 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, 1971.

City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
Acoustical Assessment
December 2023
Page | 24
20239795.6
2013). Central Avenue, from Morton Avenue to Sycamore Street, has an average daily trip volume of 11,570 vehicles (Table 7). Construction is not anticipated to generate 11,570 trips along Central Avenue and would, therefore, not double the existing average daily trip volume along Central Avenue. Thus, construction related traffic noise would not be noticeable and would not generate traffic noise above the 83 dBA construction noise threshold listed in the City’s Municipal Code.

Operations
Implementation of the project would create new sources of noise in the project vicinity. The major noise sources associated with the project that would potentially impact existing and future nearby residences include the following:
• Off‐site traffic noise;
• Mechanical equipment (i.e., trash compactors, air conditioners, etc.); • Delivery trucks on the project site, and approaching and leaving the loading areas; • Activities at the loading areas (i.e., maneuvering and idling trucks, loading/unloading, and equipment noise);
• Parking areas (i.e., car door slamming, car radios, engine start‐up, and car pass‐by); and • Landscape maintenance activities.

As discussed above, the closest sensitive receptors are located approximately 670 feet to the northeast of the project site. The City of Newark normally acceptable noise standards for residential uses and churches is 55 dBA Ldn and 60 dBA Ldn respectively. For commercial and industrial uses, the normally acceptable noise standard is 68 dBA Ldn and 70 dBA Ldn. The Newark Municipal Code section 17.24.100 limits noise levels from industrial uses to 70 dBA at the property line. The nearest industrial land use is approximately 40 feet from the project site. The General Plan also notes that an untrained human ear typically cannot detect a difference in sound levels of less than 3 dB.

Off‐Site Traffic Noise
Implementation of the project would generate increased traffic volumes along study roadway segments.

The project is expected to generate a net increase of average daily trips, which would result in noise increases on project area roadways. In general, a traffic noise increase of less than 3 dBA is barely perceptible to people, while a 5‐dBA increase is readily noticeable (Caltrans, 2013). Generally, traffic volumes on project area roadways would have to approximately double for the resulting traffic noise levels to increase by 3 dBA. Therefore, permanent increases in ambient noise levels of less than 3 dBA would not be a perceivable noise increase.

Asshown in Table 9: Existing and Project Traffic Noise, the existing traffic‐generated noise level on project area roadways is between 57.1 dBA Ldn and 63.9 dBA Ldn at 100 feet from the centerline. As previously described, Ldn is 24‐hour average noise level with a 10 dBA “weighting” added to noise during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime, respectively.

Traffic noise levels for roadways primarily affected by the project were calculated using the FHWA’s Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA‐RD‐77‐108). Traffic noise modeling was conducted for conditions with and without the project, based on traffic volumes (Kimley‐Horn, 2023). As noted in Table 9, project noise levels 100 feet from the centerline would range from 57.1 dBA Ldn to 64.8 dBA Ldn. This would result City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
Acoustical Assessment
December 2023
Page | 25
20239795.6
in resulting noise levels below the normally acceptable levels for both industrial uses of 70 Ldn and commercial uses of 68 Ldn. According to the traffic analysis prepared, the project would generate net new 3,339 daily PCE trips.

Table 9: Existing and Project Traffic Noise
Roadway Segment
Existing Conditions2 With Project Change from
No Project
Conditions
Perceivable
ADT dBA Ldn1 ADT dBA Ldn1
Sycamore Street
Central Avenue to Clark Avenue 4,900 57.1 4,900 57.1 0.0 No Central Avenue
Morton Avenue to Sycamore Street 13,160 62.8 13,570 62.9 0.1 No Sycamore Street to West Project Driveway 16,360 63.7 16,910 63.9 0.2 No West Project Driveway to East Project
Driveway 16,360 63.7 20,130 64.6 0.9 No
East Project Driveway to Cherry Street 17,090 63.9 20,850 64.8 0.9 No ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A‐weighted decibels; Ldn = day‐night noise levels

2. Existing ADT shows an elevated trip count which accounts for trips associated with the existing use on‐site at the time of analysis. The difference between the elevated ADT and the baseline existing ADT is negligible and would not cause the operational traffic noise level increase to be perceivable.

Source: Based on data from the Transportation Analysis (Kimley‐Horn, 2023). Refer to Appendix A for traffic noise modeling assumptions and results.

Stationary Noise Sources
Implementation of the project would create new sources of noise in the project vicinity from mechanical equipment, truck loading areas, parking lot noise, and landscape maintenance. Table 10: Stationary Source Noise Levelsshowsthe noise levels generated by variousstationary noise sources and the resulting noise level at the nearest receiver.5 Table 10 also show the project’s compliance with the exterior and interior noise standards listed in Table 4. Each stationary source is discussed below.

Mechanical Equipment
Regarding mechanical equipment, the project would generate stationary‐source noise associated with heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units. HVAC units typically generate noise levels of approximately 55 dBA at 50 feet. The project property line would be located approximately 75 feet away and would experience a noise level of 52 dBA which is consistent with the 70 dBA municipal code standard.

The closest sensitive receptors to the HVAC units would be the residential area 670 feet northeast of the project site. Note that HVAC units would be mounted on the building and set back from the property line.

At the distance of 670 feet, the project’s mechanical equipment noise levels would be 30 dBA. On the 24‐ hour Ldn scale and assuming the units would operate intermittently, the noise level would be 33 dBA Ldn and would be below the City’s normally acceptable residential noise standard of 55 dBA Ldn. Typically, a conservative estimate for interior noise levels would be a 10 dBA reduction of the exterior noise level.6 Therefore, interior noise levels produced by mechanical equipment on the project site at the closest 5 Distances are measured from the project site boundary to the property line of the nearest receiver. 6 Federal Highway Administration, Technique for Reviewing Noise Analyses and Associated Noise Reports, June 2018.

City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
Acoustical Assessment
December 2023
Page | 26
20239795.6
sensitive receptor would reach 23 dBA Ldn which is below the 45 dBA Ldn interior noise standard listed in the noise compatibility guidelines from the Newark General Plan. At the nearest industrial receptor 150 feet northwest, noise levels would be 46 dBA Ldn which is also below the 70 dBA noise standard. At the nearest commercial receptor 170 feet northeast, noise levels would be 44 dBA Ldn which is also below the 68 dBA Ldn noise standard Therefore, mechanical equipment would produce noise levels consistent with Policy EH‐7.7 and Table EH‐2 in the Newark General Plan.

Loading Area Noise
The project is an industrial development that potential could include deliveries. The primary noise associated with deliveries is the arrival and departure of trucks. Operations of proposed project would potentially require a mixture of deliveriesfrom vans, light trucks, and heavy‐duty trucks. Normal deliveries typically occur during daytime hours. During loading and unloading activities, noise would be generated by the trucks’ diesel engines, exhaust systems, and brakes during low gear shifting’ braking activities; backing up toward the docks/loading areas; dropping down the dock ramps; and maneuvering away from the docks. The project is surrounded by industrial uses to the east, west, and south.

The closest residential receptors would be approximately 1,000 feet northwest of the project’s loading area. While there would be temporary noise increases during truck maneuvering and engine idling, these impacts would be of short duration and infrequent. Additionally, loading noise levels would be further attenuated by intervening structures. Table 10 showsthat trucks and loading area noise would not exceed the City’s General Plan normally acceptable noise levels. Typically, heavy truck operations generate a noise level of 61 dBA at a distance of 50 feet, which would be approximately 68 dBA Ldn. The project property line would be located 55 feet away from loading dock areas. Noise generated by loading dock activities would reach 67 dBA at the project property line which is below the 70 dBA municipal code standard. At the nearest residential receptors, the project’s loading area noise levels would be 42 dBA Ldn which is below the City’s normally acceptable residential noise standard of 55 dBA. Due to the noise reduction from building attenuation, interior noise levels produced by loading area noise would reach 32 dBA Ldn at the closest sensitive receptor which is below the 45 dBA Ldn interior noise standard listed in the noise compatibility guidelines. At the nearest industrial receptor 200 feet northeast of the project’s loading area, exterior noise levels would be 56 dBA Ldn which is also below the normally acceptable 70 dBA noise standard. At the nearest commercial building, approximately 420 feet northwest of the loading dock area, noise levels would be 50 dBA Ldn which is below the 68 dBA Ldn noise standard. Therefore, loading areas would produce levels consistent with Policy EH‐7.7 and Table EH‐2 in the Newark General Plan.

Parking Areas
Traffic associated with parking areas is typically not of sufficient volume to exceed community noise standards, which are based on a time‐averaged scale such as the CNEL or Ldn scale. However, the instantaneous maximum sound levels generated by a car door slamming, engine starting up and car pass‐ bys may be an annoyance to nearby noise‐sensitive receptors. Parking lot noise can also be considered a “stationary” noise source. The instantaneous maximum sound levels generated by a car door slamming, engine starting up, and car pass‐bys range from 53 to 61 dBA at 50 feet and may be an annoyance to noise‐sensitive receptors. Conversationsin parking areas may also be an annoyance to sensitive receptors.

Sound levels of speech typically range from 33 dBA at 48 feet for normal speech to 50 dBA at 50 feet for very loud speech. It should be noted that parking lot noise are instantaneous noise levels compared to noise standards in the Ldn scale, which are averaged over time. As a result, actual noise levels over time resulting from parking lot activities would be far lower. The project parking lot is located adjacent to the project property line and would generate a noise level of 68 dBA which is below the 70 dBA municipal City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
Acoustical Assessment
December 2023
Page | 27
20239795.6
code standard. The nearest residential property line would be located approximately 670 feet away from the project’s parking areas. As Table 10 shows, noise generated from the parking lot would be at 40 dBA Ldn at closest residential receptor 670 feet northeast, which would not exceed the normally acceptable 55 dBA noise standard listed in Table EH‐2 of the City’s General Plan. Due to the reduction of noise from building attenuation, the project’s parking areas would produce an interior noise level of 30 dBA Ldn at the nearest residential receptor which is below the 45 dBA Ldn interior noise standard listed in the noise compatibility guidelines from the Newark General Plan. At the nearest industrial receptor property line located 40 feet northeast of the parking area, noise levels would be 64 dBA which is below the City’s 70 dBA industrial standard. At the nearest commercial receptor, located 100 feet to the northwest, parking lot noise would produce a noise level of 56 dBA Ldn which is below the 68 dBA Ldn noise standard.

Therefore, noise produced in parking areas would produce noise levels consistent with Policy EH‐7.7 and Table EH‐2 in the Newark General Plan.

Landscape Maintenance Activities
Development and operation of the project includes new landscaping that would require periodic maintenance. Noise generated by a gasoline‐powered lawnmower is estimated to be approximately 70 dBA at a distance of five feet. Landscape maintenance activities would be 50 dBA at 50 feet away.

Maintenance activities would operate during daytime hours for brief periods of time and would not permanently increase ambient noise levels in the project vicinity and would be consistent with activities that currently occur at the surrounding uses. Landscape maintenance would occur adjacent to the project property line. However, noise levels would reach approximately 63 dBA and would not exceed the 70 dBA municipal code standard. Table 10 shows that landscape maintenance noise would be at 20 dBA Ldn at the closest residential receptor 670 feet away. Due to the reduction of noise from building attenuation, interior noise levels produced by landscape maintenance activities on the project site at the nearest sensitive receptor would be 10 dBA Ldn which is below the 45 dBA Ldn interior noise standard listed in the noise compatibility guidelinesfrom the Newark General Plan. Therefore, landscape maintenance activities would be consistent with Policy EH‐7.7 and Table EH‐2 in the Newark General Plan.

Summary
As shown in Table 10, stationary sources would not exceed the City of Newark General Plan Land Use Compatibility Standards at the adjacent industrial use or nearest residential use. Additionally, noise levels would be further attenuated by intervening terrain and structures. Noise impacts from mechanical equipment, loading area, parking area, and landscape maintenance would below the allowable noise levels listed in Table EH‐2 of the City’s General Plan. Therefore, the project’s operational noise would be consistent with Policy EH‐7.7 in the Newark General Plan.

City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
Acoustical Assessment
December 2023
Page | 28
20239795.6
Table 10: Stationary Source Noise Levels
Nearest Land Use Distance (feet)1 Reference Level at 50 ft (dBA Ldn)2 Noise Level at Receiver (dBA Ldn) Exterior Noise Standard6 Exceed Standard Mechanical EquipmentProperty Line 75
55 dBA3
52 dBA 70 dBA No
Industrial (northeast) 150 46 dBA 70 dBA NoCommercial (northwest) 170 44 dBA 68 dBA NoResidence (northeast) 670 33 dBA 55 dBA NoChurch (northwest) 800 31 dBA 60 dBA NoLoading AreaProperty Line 55 68 dBA3
67 dBA 70 dBA No
Industrial (northeast) 200 56 dBA 70 dBA NoCommercial (northwest) 420 50 dBA 68 dBA NoResidence (northeast) 1,000 42 dBA 55 dBA NoChurch (northwest) 1,250 40 dBA 60 dBA NoParking AreaProperty Line 25 62 dBA4
68 dBA 70 dBA No
Industrial (northeast) 40 64 dBA 70 dBA NoCommercial (northwest) 100 56 dBA 68 dBA NoResidence (northeast) 670 40 dBA 55 dBA NoChurch (northwest) 800 38 dBA 60 dBA NoLandscape MaintenanceProperty Line 5 43 dBA5
63 dBA 70 dBA No
Industrial (northeast) 40 45 dBA 70 dBA NoCommercial (northwest) 100 37 dBA 68 dBA NoResidence (northeast) 670 20 dBA 55 dBA NoChurch (northwest) 800 19 dBA 60 dBA No1. The distance is from the location of the operational noise source to the receptor property line.

2. Reference levels are adjusted for the Ldn scale and an acoustical usage factor to represent 24‐hour noise levels. Mechanical, truck, and parking is conservatively assumed to occur anytime during the 24‐hour period and landscape maintenance would only occur during the daytime.

3. Elliott H. Berger, Rick Neitzel, and Cynthia A. Kladden, Noise Navigator Sound Level Database with Over 1700 Measurement Values, July 6, 2010.

4. Kariel, H. G., Noise in Rural Recreational Environments, Canadian Acoustics 19(5), 3‐10, 1991.

5. U.S. EPA, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, 1971.

6. Table EH‐2 of the Newark General Plan establishes normally acceptable noise standards of 55 dBA for residential zones, 60 dBA for churches, and 70 dBA for industrial. The Newark Municipal Code states the noise levels cannot exceed 70 dBA at an industrial‐zoned property line.

City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
Acoustical Assessment
December 2023
Page | 29
20239795.6

6.2 VIBRATION IMPACTS
Threshold 6.2 Would the Project generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Construction
Increases in ground‐borne vibration levels attributable to the project would be primarily associated with construction‐related activities. Construction on the project site would have the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary ground‐borne vibration, depending on the specific construction equipment used and the operations involved. Ground vibration generated by construction equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes in magnitude with increases in distance. The effect on buildings located in the vicinity of the construction site often varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and construction characteristics of the receiver building(s). The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Ground‐borne vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that damage structures.

The FTA has published standard vibration velocities for construction equipment operations. In general, depending on the building category of the nearest buildings adjacent to the potential pile driving area, the potential construction vibration damage criteria vary. For example, for a building constructed with reinforced concrete with no plaster, the FTA guidelines show that a vibration level of up to 0.50 inch per second (in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV) is considered safe and would not result in any construction vibration damage. In general, the FTA architectural damage criterion for continuous vibrations (i.e., 0.2 in/sec) appears to be conservative.

Table 11: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels, lists vibration levels at 25 feet and 165 feet for typical construction equipment. Ground‐borne vibration generated by construction equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes in magnitude with increases in distance. As indicated in Table 11, based on FTA data, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment operations that would be used during project construction range from 0.0002 to 0.0052 in/sec PPV at 165 feet from the source of activity. Project construction would occur approximately 165 feet from the nearest off‐site use, the industrial building located to the northeast, and approximately 670 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor located to the southwest. Therefore, the nearest sensitive receptor would not experience perceptible vibration levels.

City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
Acoustical Assessment
December 2023
Page | 30
20239795.6
Table 11: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels Equipment Peak Particle Velocity
At 25 feet (in/sec)
Peak Particle Velocity
At 165 feet (in/sec)
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.0052
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.0045
Rock Breaker 0.059 0.0035
Jackhammer 0.035 0.0021
Small Bulldozer/Tractors 0.003 0.0002

1. Calculated using the following formula: PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5, where: PPVequip = the peak particle velocity in in/sec of the equipment adjusted for the distance; PPVref = the reference vibration level in in/sec from Table 7‐4 of the Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018; D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver.

Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018.

As shown in Table 11, the highest vibration levels are achieved with the large bulldozer operations. This construction activity is expected to take place during grading. As discussed above, project construction would occur approximately 165 feet from the closest structure. Therefore, construction equipment vibration velocities would not exceed the FTA’s vibration threshold of 0.2 in/sec ppv and, therefore, is consistent with Action EH‐7.D of the General Plan. In general, other construction activities would occur throughout the project site and would not be concentrated at the point closest to the nearest structure.

Therefore, vibration impacts associated with the project would not be perceivable.

Operations
The project would not generate ground‐borne vibration that could be felt at surrounding uses. Project operations would not involve railroads or substantial heavy truck operations, and therefore would not result in vibration impacts at surrounding uses. As a result, impacts from vibration associated with project operation would not be perceivable.

The FTA and the City of Newark do not classify industrial structures as a sensitive land use category that is susceptible to groundborne vibration and noise. Therefore, the project would not be impacted by vibration generated through the nearby railroad track.

The City of Newark requires a vibration assessment for building located within 200 feet of a railroad, and for new residential uses, requires compliance with the vibration thresholds listed in the City’s General Plan (per General Plan Action EH‐7.E). The closest railroad is located 10 feet southwest from the edge of the project property and is approximately 60 feet from the proposed building. The level of impact from railway vibration is influenced by multiple factors including train type, receiver building type, and geological factors. The FTA provides guidance and a reference vibration level for different types of trains at 50 feet. The highest level of vibration identified by the FTA are upper range commuter railsthat produce a vibration velocity of 85 VdB at 50 feet. Common commuter rails and rapid transit trains produce a level between 70 VdB and 75 VdB at 50 feet. The FTA notes that damage for typical buildings occurs at 100 VdB and a vibration level of 85 VdB in a residence can result in strong annoyance.7 The FTA’s vibration screening procedure applies to high sensitivity buildings, residential buildings, and institutional buildings.

Industrial buildings such as the proposed project are not considered vibration sensitive.8 7 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, page 113, 2018. 8 The FTA notes that if no vibration‐sensitive land uses are identified, no further vibration analysis is needed (Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, page 136, 2018).

City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
Acoustical Assessment
December 2023
Page | 31
20239795.6
As mentioned previously, the project building is located 60 feet away from the operation of the railroad track. Therefore, the building would be below the 100 VdB building damage threshold defined in the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. Additionally, due to the distance, future receptors inside the proposed industrial building also would not experience vibration levels exceeding the 85 VdB annoyance level. Notwithstanding that, and as noted above, industrial uses are not considered vibration‐ sensitive.

6.3 AIRPORT NOISE
Threshold 6.3 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 levels?
The project site is not located within the two miles of a public airport or public airport use. The nearest airport to the project site is the Hayward Executive Airport located approximately 10 miles north of the project site. Therefore, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive airport‐ or airstrip‐related noise levels and impacts would be less than significant.

6.4 CUMULATIVE NOISE IMPACTS
Noise by definition is a localized phenomenon, and drastically reduces as distance from the source increases. The future noise impacts involve development of the project in combination with ambient growth and other related development projects. As noise levels decrease as distance from the source increases, only projects in the nearby area could combine with the project to potentially result in future noise impacts.

Future Newark Noise Regulations
The Newark General Plan Policy EH‐7.7 requires an analysis of the project with the future adopted noise policies. The City of Newark General Plan Tune Up EIR from 2013 considered the current noise standards listed in the General Plan to evaluate the City’s development through 2035. Therefore, the current noise standards listed in the City of Newark General Plan are not anticipated to be updated in the near future as the current standards were analyzed and approved in the General Plan Tune Up EIR for the City’s buildout till 2035.

Cumulative Construction Noise
The project’s construction activities would not result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels. The City permits construction hours within the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Monday through Saturday and 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. The project would contribute to other proximate construction noise impacts if construction activities were conducted concurrently. However, based on the noise analysis above, the project’s construction‐related noise impacts would be consistent with the City’s regulations outlined in this study.

Construction activities at any future planned and approved projects would be required to take place during daytime hours, and the City and project applicants would be required to evaluate construction noise impacts and implement mitigation, if necessary, to minimize noise impacts. Each project would be required to comply with the applicable City of Newark General Plan and Municipal Code limitations on City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
Acoustical Assessment
December 2023
Page | 32
20239795.6
allowable noise levels and hours of construction. Therefore, project construction would not contribute to future noise impacts and impacts in this regard are not considerable.

Cumulative Operational Noise
Future noise impacts describe how much noise levels are projected to increase over existing conditions with the development of the project and other foreseeable projects. Future noise impacts would occur primarily as a result of increased traffic on local roadways due to buildout of the project and other projects in the vicinity. However, noise from generators and other stationary sources could also generate additional noise levels. The Newark General Plan Policy EH‐7.7 requires an estimate of future noise levels 20 years in the future. These future noise levels would be compared to the noise level standards established in Table EH‐2 of the General Plan.

Stationary Noise
As discussed above, impacts from the project’s operations would be below the thresholds listed in the General Plan. Due to site distance, intervening land uses, and the fact that noise dissipates as it travels away from its source, noise impacts from on‐site activities and other stationary sources would be limited to the project site and vicinity. After review of the City of Newark current project list and specific plan list, there is one project, the Central Avenue Overpass, that is within 2,000 feet of the project vicinity and would impact future noise levels.9,10 As mentioned previously, the City of Newark has planned and funded the construction of an overpass on Central Avenue that would start on the northwest face of the project site. This overpass construction would extend along the project frontage from Sycamore Street to Morton Avenue. This structure would attenuate any operational stationary noise produced on‐site and would reduce the impact at nearby receptors across Central Avenue. Therefore, future stationary noise levels would be lower than the levels listed above. Stationary equipment on‐site would also include improved technology 20 years in the future which would further reduce noise generated by the project. Therefore, future stationary equipment noise levels are estimated to be below the noise levels listed above and future impacts related to stationary noise would be below normally acceptable noise standards listed in Table EH‐2 of the Newark General Plan. Thus, future operational noise impacts from related projects, in conjunction with project‐specific noise impacts, would be consistent with the City’s General Plan.

Traffic Noise
As discussed above, project related traffic noise increases would not be perceivable with implementation of the project. As mentioned previously, there is only one project nearby that would impact future noise.

However, the implementation of the Central Avenue Overpass would not result in an increase of traffic noise in the surrounding area. As mentioned previously, the City of Newark has planned and funded the construction of an overpass on Central Avenue that would be built over the nearby railroad track. The existing ambient noise includes traffic noise generated from driving over railroad tracks. Therefore, construction of the overpass would no longer contribute to noise in the area. Furthermore, the overpass would not generate additional future trips on Central Avenue. The Overpass project is anticipated to provide roadway traffic congestion relief and a reduction in conflicts between rail traffic and the general public.11 Additionally, the future sale and use of EV trucks and cars would further reduce noise levels on 9 City of Newark, Specific Plans and Master Plans, Accessed at https://www.newark.org/departments/community‐ development/specific‐plans‐master‐plans. 10 City of Newark, Projects Under Environmental Review, Accessed at https://www.newark.org/departments/community‐ development/planning‐division/projects‐under‐environmental‐review. 11 Alameda County Transportation Commission, Dumbarton Corridor Improvements (Central Avenue Overpass), July 2018.

City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
Acoustical Assessment
December 2023
Page | 33
20239795.6
the surrounding roadwaysin the next 20 years. Therefore, future traffic noise surrounding the project site are estimated to remain below the noise standards listed in the Newark General Plan. Thus, the future operational traffic noise impacts from related projects, in conjunction with project‐specific noise impacts, would be consistent with the City’s General Plan.

City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
Acoustical Assessment
December 2023
Page | 34
20239795.6
7 REFERENCES

1. Alameda County Transportation Commission, Dumbarton Corridor Improvements (Central Avenue Overpass), July 2018.

2. California Department of Transportation, Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, 2020.

3. California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, 2013.

4. City of Newark, City of Newark General Plan, 2013.

5. City of Newark, General Plan Tune Up Draft Program EIR, 2013.

6. City of Newark, Municipal Code, 2022.

7. City of Newark, Projects Under Environmental Review, Accessed at https://www.newark.org/departments/community‐development/planning‐division/projects‐under‐ environmental‐review.

8. City of Newark, Specific Plans and Master Plans, Accessed at https://www.newark.org/departments/community‐development/specific‐plans‐master‐plans.

9. Elliott H. Berger, Rick Neitzel, and Cynthia A. Kladden. Noise Navigator Sound Level Database with Over 1700 Measurement Values, July 6, 2010.

10. Kariel, H. G., Noise in Rural Recreational Environments, Canadian Acoustics 19(5), 3‐10, 1991.

11. Federal Highway Administration, Highway Traffic and Construction Noise ‐ Problem and Response, April 2006.

12. Federal Highway Administration, Technique for Reviewing Noise Analyses and Associated Noise Reports, June 2018.

13. Federal Interagency Committee on Noise, Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues, 1992.

14. Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018.

15. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Protective Noise Levels (EPA 550/9‐79‐100), 1979. 20239795.6
Appendix A
Noise Data
Noise Measurement Field Data
Project:   Job Number: 097276201
Site No.:   Date: 1/25/2023
Analyst:   Time: 2:00 PM
Location:

Noise Sources:

Comments:

Results (dBA):

Leq: Lmin: Lmax: Peak:

Measurement 1: 59.7 51.0 74.5 98.7
Sound Level Meter: LD SoundExpert LxT Temp. (degrees F): 64° Calibrator: CAL200 Wind (mph): 8
Response Time: Slow Sky: Clear
Weighting: A Bar. Pressure: 30.31"
Microphone Height: 5 feet Humidity: 33%
Photo:

Equipment Weather
6750 Central Avenue Project
1 Tanay Pradhan
Church on at Clark Avenue and Sycamore Street
Traffic along Clark Avenue and Sycamore Street, Industrial Noise

!" #$%&# '

!$$$($)%*+$+%$,+-
,&-)+$*
!" #$%&#
./

01 $$$($)% 2 +#&$&
3

4

5 /
"4

0
+$+%*$,*+-
,&6-)6+$ "
$6,$6$$#$
1.
+$+%*$,*+-
,-6$)6+$

$6,$6$$#$ 7
$6$$6$$#$
7*'
/
+$++*$(*,(
,+6-%6$( 7
*'
/

'
/

"8
***
9:9
;8

<= ->#)
.?

<1 @)#-
.? 01< ***
.?
1< (+#+
A7BC

D
E >@#)
.?+$+%*$,*+-
,-6$%6$)

<0 )&#-
.?+$+%*$,*+-
,&6-@6+&

<0 -,#$
.?+$+%*$,*+-
,&6-@6$+

<= ->#)
.?

'= ()#>
.?
'=
*

<= @#+
.?

<F= (,#)
.?
<F=
*

<= +#$
.?
14.4'
"

<0
G
@-#$
.? $$6$$6$$#$

<0
G
,,-#$
.? $$6$$6$$#$

D
E
G
,%-#$
.? $$6$$6$$#$

D
E
G
,%)#$
.? $$6$$6$$#$

D
E
G
,&$#$
.? $$6$$6$$#$
'
H

IC
->#)
.?->#)
.?$#$
.?

"H
18

IC
->#)
.?->#)
.?***
.?***
.?
<H
" <'D
8

0

8

0

= ->#)
.?()#>
.?***
.?

JK )&#-
.?+$+%*$,*+-
,&6-@6+&***
.?

***
.?

0JK -,#$
.?+$+%*$,*+-
,&6-@6$+***
.?

***
.?

7EJK ***
.?

***
.?

>@#)
.?+$+%*$,*+-
,-6$%6$)
;8

.'
"
;?<
'
;?<
"

$$6$$6$$#$- $6$$6,%#,
0 4

<0
-#$ (-#(
.?

<0
,$#$ (+#(
.?

<0
%%#% -(#(
.?

<0
-$#$ -&#>
.?

<0
((#( -%#@
.?

<0
>$#$ -+#(
.?
Noise Measurement Field Data
Project:   Job Number: 097276201
Site No.:   Date: 1/25/2023
Analyst:   Time: 2:19 PM
Location:

Noise Sources:

Comments:

Results (dBA):

Leq: Lmin: Lmax: Peak:

Measurement 1: 59.0 55.1 64.7 103.3
Sound Level Meter: LD SoundExpert LxT Temp. (degrees F): 65° Calibrator: CAL200 Wind (mph): 6
Response Time: Slow Sky: Clear
Weighting: A Bar. Pressure: 30.31"
Microphone Height: 5 feet Humidity: 32%
Photo:

Equipment Weather
6750 Central Avenue Project
2 Tanay Pradhan
Parking lot northeast of the Project Site
Traffic along Central Avenue, Industrial Noise, Parking Lot Noise

!" #$%&# '

!$$$($)%*+$+%$,+&
,&,(&-*
!" #$%&#
./

01 $$$($)% 2 +#3$3
4

5

6 /
"5

0
+$+%*$,*+&
,&7,(7&- "
$7,$7$$#$
1.
+$+%*$,*+&
,&7+(7&-

$7,$7$$#$ 8
$7$$7$$#$
8*'
/
+$++*$(*,(
,+7&%7$( 8
*'
/

'
/

"9
***
:;:
<9

=> &-#$
.?

=1 @(#@
.? 01= ***
.?
1= &%#$
A8BC

D
E ,$%#%
.?+$+%*$,*+&
,&7+(7&+

=0 (3#)
.?+$+%*$,*+&
,&7++733

=0 &&#,
.?+$+%*$,*+&
,&7++7,@

=> &-#$
.?

'> )+#,
.?
'>
*

=> ,%#,
.?

=F> ($#&
.?
=F>
*

=> ,#&
.?
15.5'
"

=0
G
@&#$
.? $$7$$7$$#$

=0
G
,,&#$
.? $$7$$7$$#$

D
E
G
,%&#$
.? $$7$$7$$#$

D
E
G
,%)#$
.? $$7$$7$$#$

D
E
G
,3$#$
.? $$7$$7$$#$
'
H

IC
&-#$
.?&-#$
.?$#$
.?

"H
19

IC
&-#$
.?&-#$
.?***
.?***
.?
=H
" =' D
9

0

9

0

> &-#$
.?)+#,
.?***
.?

JK (3#)
.?+$+%*$,*+&
,&7++733***
.?

***
.?

0JK &&#,
.?+$+%*$,*+&
,&7++7,@***
.?

***
.?

8EJK ***
.?

***
.?

,$%#%
.?+$+%*$,*+&
,&7+(7&+
<9

.'
"
<?=
'
<?=
"

$$7$$7$$#$+%$7$$7&-#)
0 5

=0
&#$ (,#)
.?

=0
,$#$ ($#-
.?

=0
%%#% &-#%
.?

=0
&$#$ &@#(
.?

=0
((#( &)#@
.?

=0
-$#$ &(#&
.?
Noise Measurement Field Data
Project:   Job Number: 097276201
Site No.:   Date: 1/25/2023
Analyst:   Time: 2:37 PM
Location:

Noise Sources:

Comments:

Results (dBA):

Leq: Lmin: Lmax: Peak:

Measurement 1: 72.1 55.4 84.5 109.6
Sound Level Meter: LD SoundExpert LxT Temp. (degrees F): 65° Calibrator: CAL200 Wind (mph): 6
Response Time: Slow Sky: Clear
Weighting: A Bar. Pressure: 30.31"
Microphone Height: 5 feet Humidity: 32%
Photo:

Equipment Weather
6750 Central Avenue Project
3 Tanay Pradhan
Central Avenue southwest of the Project site
Traffic along Central Avenue an, Industrial Noise
Noise generated by cars going over railroad tracks

!" #$%&# '

!$$$&$(%)*$*%$+*,
+,%-+.)
!" #$%&#
/0

12 $$$&$(% 3 *#-$-
4

5

6 0
"5

1
*$*%)$+)*,
+,7%-7+. "
$7+$7$$#$
2/
*$*%)$+)*,
+,7--7+.

$7+$7$$#$ 8
$7$$7$$#$
8)'
0
*$**)$&)+&
+*7,%7$& 8
)'
0

'
0

"9
)))
:;:
<9

=> (*#+
/?

=2 @@#@
/? 12= )))
/?
2= +#+
8AB

C
D +$@#&
/?*$*%)$+)*,
+,7-%7$.

=1 .-#,
/?*$*%)$+)*,
+,7-%7$@

=1 ,,#-
/?*$*%)$+)*,
+,7-$7+.

=> (*#+
/?

'> (.#.
/?
'>
)

=> &#(
/?

=E> (-#.
/?
=E>
)

=> *#(
/?
25/5'
"

=1
F
.,#$
/? $$7$$7$$#$

=1
F
++,#$
/? $$7$$7$$#$

C
D
F
+%,#$
/? $$7$$7$$#$

C
D
F
+%(#$
/? $$7$$7$$#$

C
D
F
+-$#$
/? $$7$$7$$#$
'
G

HB
(*#+
/?(*#+
/?$#$
/?

"G
29

HB
(*#+
/?(*#+
/?)))
/?)))
/?
=G
" =' C
9

1

9

1

> (*#+
/?(.#.
/?)))
/?

IJ .-#,
/?*$*%)$+)*,
+,7-%7$@)))
/?

)))
/?

1IJ ,,#-
/?*$*%)$+)*,
+,7-$7+.)))
/?

)))
/?

8DIJ )))
/?

)))
/?

+$@#&
/?*$*%)$+)*,
+,7-%7$.
<9

/'
"
<?=
'
<?=
"

$$7$$7$$#$-@$7$-7+-#(
1 5

=1
,#$ ((#*
/?

=1
+$#$ (,#,
/?

=1
%%#% (+#,
/?

=1
,$#$ &@#-
/?

=1
&&#& &(#(
/?

=1
@$#$ &%#%
/?
Noise Measurement Field Data
Project:   Job Number: 097276201
Site No.:   Date: 1/25/2023
Analyst:   Time: 3:21 PM
Location:

Noise Sources:

Comments:

Results (dBA):

Leq: Lmin: Lmax: Peak:

Measurement 1: 69.6 51.9 96.1 117.0
Sound Level Meter: LD SoundExpert LxT Temp. (degrees F):

Calibrator: CAL200 Wind (mph): <10
Response Time: Slow Sky: Clear
Weighting: A Bar. Pressure: 30.31"
Microphone Height: 5 feet Humidity: 33%
Photo:

Equipment Weather
6750 Central Avenue Project
LT‐1
Tanay Pradhan
Intersection of Central Avenue and Sycamore Street
Traffic along Central Avenue and Sycamore Street, Industrial Noise

!" #$%&# '

!$$$($&%)*$*%$+*,
+(+-%-)
!" #$%&#
./

01 $$$($&% 2 *#3$3
4

5

6 /
"5

0
*$*%)$+)*,
+(7+-7%- "
*37$$7$$#$
1.
*$*%)$+)*(
+(7+-7%-

*37$$7$$#$ 8
$7$$7$$#$
8)'
/
*$**)$()+(
+*7,%7$( 8
)'
/

'
/

"9
)))
:;:
<9

=> (?#(
.@

=1 ++?#$
.@ 01= )))
.@
1= -&#(
8AB

C
D ++&#$
.@*$*%)$+)*,
*$7+*7$*

=0 ?(#+
.@*$*%)$+)*(
+%73+7%%

=0 ,+#?
.@*$*%)$+)*(
+(7+-7*$

=> (?#(
.@

'> &&#3
.@
'>
)

=> &#-
.@

=E> &+#(
.@
=E>
)

=> *#$
.@
15.5'
"

=0
F
-,#$
.@ ,$$7$*7*?#?

=0
F
++,#$
.@ $$7$$7$$#$

C
D
F
+%,#$
.@ $$7$$7$$#$

C
D
F
+%&#$
.@ $$7$$7$$#$

C
D
F
+3$#$
.@ $$7$$7$$#$
'
G

HB
&%#(
.@&$#?
.@$#$
.@

"G
19

HB
&3#+
.@&+#+
.@(?#(
.@((#+
.@
=G
" =' C
9

0

9

0

> (?#(
.@&&#3
.@)))
.@

IJ ?(#+
.@*$*%)$+)*(
+%73+7%%)))
.@

)))
.@

0IJ ,+#?
.@*$*%)$+)*(
+(7+-7*$)))
.@

)))
.@

8DIJ )))
.@

)))
.@

++&#$
.@*$*%)$+)*,
*$7+*7$*
<9

.'
"
<@=
'
<@=
"

$$7$$7$$#$*?,&37+$73*#,
0 5

=0
,#$ &3#?
.@

=0
+$#$ &*#-
.@

=0
%%#% (&#&
.@

=0
,$#$ (,#+
.@

=0
((#( (*#-
.@

=0
?$#$ ,?#3
.@
FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) with California Vehicle Noise (CALVENO) Emission Levels Project Name: 6750 Central Avenue Project
Project Number:

Scenario: Existing
Ldn/CNEL: Ldn
Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution: Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.70% 12.70% 9.60%
Medium-Duty Trucks 87.43% 5.05% 7.52%
Heavy-Duty Trucks 89.10% 2.84% 8.06%
Vehicle Mix Distance from Centerline of Roadway
Median ADT Speed Alpha Medium Heavy Ldn at Distance to Contour # Roadway Segment Lanes Width Volume (mph) Factor Trucks Trucks 100 Feet 70 Ldn 65 Ldn 60 Ldn 55 Ldn 1 Sycamore St Central Ave to Clark Ave 2 11 4,900 35 0 2.0% 1.0% 57.1 - - 51 160 2 Central Ave Morton Ave to Sycamore St 4 25 13,160 40 0 2.0% 1.0% 62.8 - 60 189 598 3 Central Ave Sycamore St to West Project Driveway 4 25 16,360 40 0 2.0% 1.0% 63.7 - 74 235 743 4 Central Ave West Project Driveway to East Project Driveway 4 25 16,360 40 0 2.0% 1.0% 63.7 - 74 235 743 5 Central Ave East Project Driveway to Cherry St 4 25 17,090 40 0 2.0% 1.0% 63.9 - 78 246 776 1 Distance is from the centerline of the roadway segment to the receptor location. "-" = contour is located within the roadway right-of-way. 1 FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) with California Vehicle Noise (CALVENO) Emission Levels Project Name: 6750 Central Avenue Project
Project Number:

Scenario: Existing Plus Project
Ldn/CNEL: Ldn
Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution: Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.70% 12.70% 9.60%
Medium-Duty Trucks 87.43% 5.05% 7.52%
Heavy-Duty Trucks 89.10% 2.84% 8.06%
Vehicle Mix Distance from Centerline of Roadway
Median ADT Speed Alpha Medium Heavy Ldn at Distance to Contour # Roadway Segment Lanes Width Volume (mph) Factor Trucks Trucks 100 Feet 70 Ldn 65 Ldn 60 Ldn 55 Ldn 1 Sycamore St Central Ave to Clark Ave 2 11 4,900 35 0 2.0% 1.0% 57.1 - - 51 160 2 Central Ave Morton Ave to Sycamore St 4 25 13,570 40 0 2.0% 1.0% 62.9 - 62 195 616 3 Central Ave Sycamore St to West Project Driveway 4 25 16,910 40 0 2.0% 1.0% 63.9 - 77 243 768 4 Central Ave West Project Driveway to East Project Driveway 4 25 20,130 40 0 2.0% 1.0% 64.6 - 91 289 915 5 Central Ave East Project Driveway to Cherry St 4 25 20,850 40 0 2.0% 1.0% 64.8 - 95 300 947 1 Distance is from the centerline of the roadway segment to the receptor location. "-" = contour is located within the roadway right-of-way. 1 19410920.2
General Plan Noise Policy Consistency Analysis
6750 Central Avenue Project
City of Newark, California
Prepared by:

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
10 S. Almaden Boulevard, Suite 1250
San José, CA 95113
Contact: Ms. Noemi Wyss
669.800.4152
March 2023
City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
General Plan Noise Policy Consistency Analysis
March 2023
Page | ii
19410920.2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Location .......................................................................................................................................1

1.2 Project Description...................................................................................................................................1 2 ACOUSTIC FUNDAMENTALS

2.1 Sound and Environmental Noise..............................................................................................................5

2.2 Groundborne Vibration............................................................................................................................8 3 REGULATORY SETTING

3.1 State of California...................................................................................................................................10

3.2 Local .......................................................................................................................................................10 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS

4.1 Existing Noise Sources............................................................................................................................13

4.2 Sensitive Receptors................................................................................................................................15 5 METHODOLOGY

5.1 Sound Methodology...............................................................................................................................18

5.2 Vibration Methodology ..........................................................................................................................18 6 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

6.1 Sound Impacts........................................................................................................................................19

6.2 Vibration Impacts...................................................................................................................................24

6.3 Future Noise Impacts .............................................................................................................................24 7 REFERENCES
References..............................................................................................................................................27 Tables
Table 1: Typical Noise Levels .........................................................................................................................................5 Table 2: Definitions of Acoustical Terms .......................................................................................................................6 Table 3: Human Reaction and Damage to Buildings for Continuous or Frequent Intermittent Vibrations...................9 Table 4: Land-Use Compatibility Guidelines for Community Noise in Newark ...........................................................10 Table 5: Noise Measurements.....................................................................................................................................13 Table 6: Existing Traffic Noise......................................................................................................................................15 Table 7: Noise Receivers..............................................................................................................................................16 Table 8: Existing and Project Traffic Noise...................................................................................................................20 Table 9: Stationary Source Noise Levels......................................................................................................................23 Exhibits
Figure 1: Regional Vicinity .............................................................................................................................................2 Figure 2: Project Location..............................................................................................................................................3 Figure 3: Project Site Plan..............................................................................................................................................4 Figure 4: Noise Measurement Locations.....................................................................................................................14 Figure 5: Sensitive Receptor Locations........................................................................................................................17 Appendix
Appendix A: Noise Data
City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
General Plan Noise Policy Consistency Analysis
March 2023
Page | iii
19410920.2

LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
ADT average daily traffic
dBA A-weighted sound level
CNEL community equivalent noise level
Ldn day-night noise level
dB decibel
Leq equivalent noise level
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
HVAC heating ventilation and air conditioning
Hz hertz
in/sec inches per second
Lmax maximum noise level
µPa micropascals
Lmin minimum noise level
PPV peak particle velocity
RMS root mean square
sf square feet
VdB vibration velocity level
City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
General Plan Noise Policy Consistency Analysis
March 2023
Page | 1
19410920.2
1 INTRODUCTION
This analysis is in response to the City of Newark's request for compliance with General Plan Policy EH-7.7 and Action EH-7.E for the 6750 Central Avenue Project (“project” or “proposed project”). The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the project’s noise compatibility with surrounding land uses and the vibration impacts from a nearby railway on the project.

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project intends to redevelop the property as a modern industrial facility. The proposed project would demolish the existing on-site facilities and redevelop the property with a new approximately 315,390 square feet (sf) warehouse building. The proposed warehouse building would contain approximately 281,584 sf of warehouse space and 33,806 sf of office space (refer to Figure 3: Project Site Plan). The warehouse building would include 48 dock doors located on the southeast façade. The proposed project includes surface parking with 401 automobile (passenger vehicle) spaces.

Access to the project site would be provided by two 40-foot driveways located on the northwest corner of the site from Central Avenue. The northern driveway would provide access for trucks and trailers, in addition to passenger vehicles. The southern driveway would provide primary access for passenger vehicles. The project includes a stormwater retention area on the southern corner of the project site.

It should be noted that the City of Newark has approved and funded the installation of an overpass along the project frontage on Central Avenue. This roadway improvement would construct a four-lane grade separation structure that extends from Sycamore Street to Morton Avenue above the railway south of the project site.
1 This construction and operation of this roadway improvement would alter noise and vibration levels in the surrounding area and is the impact of its installation is analyzed in the discussion below.
1 Alameda County Transportation Commission, Dumbarton Corridor Improvements (Central Avenue Overpass), July 2018. 6750 Central Avenue Project Not to scale
Source: USGS, 2023
Figure 1: Regional LocaƟ on Map
Project Site
6750 Central Avenue Project Not to scale
Figure 2: Project Vicinity Map
Source: Nearmap, 2023
Central Avenue Central Avenue
Project Site
Legend
Sycamore Street Sycamore Street
Redeker Place Redeker Place
6750 Central Avenue Project Not to scale
Figure 3: Conceptual Site Plan
Source: Jackson Liles Architecture, March 2023
)8785(&(175$/$9(29(53$66 &(175$/$9(
6<&$025(67
758&.&2857

1 %8,/',1*
75$,/(56725$*(
3$5.,1* 3$5.,1*
3$5.,1*

(;7(172))8785(&(175$/$9(29(53$66

67$//6

'5F
67$//6 67$//6
67$//6
67$//6
67$//6

67$
/
/
6 6
7$
/
/
6 67$//6
67$//6
67$//6

7<3

$&&67$//6
)25($6(0(1766(((1/$5*('($6(0(176,7(3/$1

(
$'-$&(17%/'*
(
$'-$&(17%/'*

(
$'-$&(17%/'*

(
$'-$&(17
%/'*

(
$'-$&(17%/'*

(
$'-$&(17
%/'*

(
$'-$&(17%/'*
$&&
67$//6

7<3

C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T C O M P A C T &203$&767$//6 &203$&767$//6

7<3

C
O
M
P
A
C
T
C
O
M
P
A
C
T
C
O
M
P
A
C
T
C
O
M
P
A
C
T
C
O
M
P
A
C
T
C
O
M
P
A
C
T

'5

'5

67$//6

&
2 0
3 $
&
7 6
7$
/
/
6 '5

'5

315,390 sf
City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
General Plan Noise Policy Consistency Analysis
March 2023
Page | 5
19410920.2
2 ACOUSTIC FUNDAMENTALS

The number of pressure variations per second is called the frequency of sound and is expressed as cycles per second, or hertz (Hz).

Measuring sound directly in terms of pressure would require a large range of numbers. To avoid this, the decibel (dB) scale was devised. The dB scale uses the hearing threshold of 20 micropascals(µPa) as a point of reference, defined as 0 dB. Other sound pressures are then compared to this reference pressure, and the logarithm is taken to keep the numbers in a practical range. The dB scale allows a million-fold increase in pressure to be expressed as 120 dB, and changes in levels correspond closely to human perception of relative loudness. Table 1: Typical Noise Levels provides typical noise levels.

Table 1: Typical Noise Levels
Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor Activities – 110 – Rock Band
Jet fly-over at 1,000 feet
– 100 –
Gas lawnmower at 3 feet
– 90 –
Diesel truck at 50 feet at 50 miles per hour Food blender at 3 feet – 80 – Garbage disposal at 3 feet
Noisy urban area, daytime
Gas lawnmower, 100 feet – 70 – Vacuum cleaner at 10 feet Commercial area Normal Speech at 3 feet
Heavy traffic at 300 feet – 60 –
Large business office
Quiet urban daytime – 50 – Dishwasher in next room
Quiet urban nighttime – 40 – Theater, large conference room (background) Quiet suburban nighttime
– 30 – Library
Quiet rural nighttime Bedroom at night, concert hall (background) – 20 –
Broadcast/recording studio
– 10 –
Lowest threshold of human hearing – 0 – Lowest threshold of human hearing Source: California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013.

City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
General Plan Noise Policy Consistency Analysis
March 2023
Page | 6
19410920.2
Noise Descriptors
The dB scale alone does not adequately characterize how humans perceive noise. The dominant frequencies of a sound have a substantial effect on the human response to that sound. Several rating scales have been developed to analyze the adverse effect of community noise on people. Because environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales consider that the effect of noise on people is largely dependent on the total acoustical energy content of the noise, as well as the time of day when the noise occurs. Most commonly, environmental sounds are described in terms of equivalent noise level (Leq) that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time-varying events. While Leq represents the continuous sound pressure level over a given period, the day-night noise level (Ldn) and Community Equivalent Noise Level (CNEL) are measures of energy average during a 24-hour period, with dB weighted sound levels from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Each is applicable to this analysis and defined Table 2: Definitions of Acoustical Terms.

A-Weighted
Sound Level (dBA)
The sound pressure level in dB as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise.

Equivalent Noise Level (Leq)
The average acoustic energy content of noise for a stated period of time. Thus, the Leq of a time-varying noise and that of a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during exposure. For evaluating community impacts, this rating scale does not vary, regardless of whether the noise occurs during the day or the night.

Maximum Noise Level (Lmax)
Minimum Noise Level (Lmin)
The maximum and minimum dBA during the measurement period.

Day-Night Noise Level (Ldn)
A 24-hour average Leq with a 10 dBA weighting added to noise during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to account for noise sensitivity at nighttime. The logarithmic effect of these additions is that a 60 dBA 24-hour Leq would result in a measurement of 66.4 dBA Ldn.

Community Noise
Equivalent Level (CNEL)
A 24-hour average Leq with a 5 dBA weighting during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and a 10 dBA weighting added to noise during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime, respectively. The logarithmic effect of these additions is that a 60 dBA 24-hour Leq would result in a measurement of 66.7 dBA CNEL.

Ambient Noise Level The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location.

City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
General Plan Noise Policy Consistency Analysis
March 2023
Page | 7
19410920.2
Because sound levels can vary markedly over a short period of time, a method for describing either the sound’s average character (Leq) or the variations’ statistical behavior (Lxx) must be utilized. The scientific instrument used to measure noise is the sound level meter. Sound level meters can accurately measure environmental noise levels to within about plus or minus 1 dBA. Various computer models are used to predict environmental noise levels from sources, such as roadways and airports. The predicted models’ accuracy depends on various factors, such as the distance between the noise receptor and noise source, the character of the ground surface (e.g., hard or soft), and the presence or absence of structures (e.g., walls or buildings) or topography, and how well model inputs reflect these conditions.

A-Weighted Decibels
The A-weighted decibel (dBA) sound level scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. The perceived loudness of sounds is dependent on many factors, including sound pressure level and frequency content. However, within the usual range of environmental noise levels, perception of loudness is relatively predictable and can be approximated by dBA values.

Addition of Decibels
The dB scale is logarithmic, not linear, and therefore sound levels cannot be added or subtracted through ordinary arithmetic. Two sound levels 10 dB apart differ in acoustic energy by a factor of 10. When the standard logarithmic dB is A-weighted, an increase of 10 dBA is generally perceived as a doubling in loudness. For example, a 70-dBA sound is half as loud as an 80-dBA sound and twice as loud as a 60-dBA sound. When two identical sources are each producing sound of the same loudness, the resulting sound level at a given distance would be 3 dBA higher than one source under the same conditions. Under the dB scale, three sources of equal loudness together would produce an increase of approximately 5 dBA.

Sound Propagation and Attenuation
Sound spreads (propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern, and the sound level decreases (attenuates) at a rate of approximately 6 dB for each doubling of distance from a stationary or point source. Sound from a line source, such as a highway, propagates outward in a cylindrical pattern. Sound levels attenuate at a rate of approximately 3 dB for each doubling of distance from a line source, such as a roadway, depending on ground surface characteristics. No excess attenuation is assumed for hard surfaces like a parking lot or a body of water. Soft surfaces, such as soft dirt or grass, can absorb sound, so an excess ground-attenuation value of 1.5 dB per doubling of distance is normally assumed. For line sources, an overall attenuation rate of 3 dB per doubling of distance is assumed.

Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures; generally, a single row of buildings between the receptor and the noise source reduces the noise level by about 5 dBA, while a solid wall or berm reduces noise levels by 5 to 10 dBA. The way older homes in California were constructed generally provides a reduction of exterior-to-interior noise levels of about 20 to 25 dBA with closed windows. The exterior-to-interior reduction of newer residential units is generally 30 dBA or more.

Human Response to Noise
The human response to environmental noise is subjective and varies considerably from individual to individual. Noise in the community has often been cited as a health problem, not in terms of actual physiological damage, such as hearing impairment, but in terms of inhibiting general well-being and City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
General Plan Noise Policy Consistency Analysis
March 2023
Page | 8
19410920.2
contributing to undue stress and annoyance. The health effects of noise in the community arise from interference with human activities, including sleep, speech, recreation, and tasks that demand concentration or coordination. Hearing loss can occur at the highest noise intensity levels.

Noise environments and consequences of human activities are usually well represented by median noise levels during the day or night or over a 24-hour period. Environmental noise levels are generally considered low when the CNEL is below 60 dBA, moderate in the 60 to 70 dBA range, and high above 70 dBA. Examples of low daytime levels are isolated, natural settings with noise levels as low as 20 dBA and quiet, suburban, residential streets with noise levels around 40 dBA. Noise levels above 45 dBA at night can disrupt sleep. Examples of moderate-level noise environments are urban residential or semicommercial areas (typically 55 to 60 dBA) and commercial locations (typically 60 dBA). People may consider louder environments adverse, but most will accept the higher levels associated with noisier urban residential or residential-commercial areas (60 to 75 dBA) or dense urban or industrial areas (65 to 80 dBA). Regarding increases in dBA, the following relationships should be noted:
• Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a 1-dBA change cannot be perceived by humans.
• Outside of the laboratory, a 3-dBA change is considered a just-perceivable difference. • A minimum 5-dBA change is required before any noticeable change in community response would be expected. A 5-dBA increase is typically considered substantial. • A 10-dBA change is subjectively heard as an approximate doubling in loudness and would almost certainly cause an adverse change in community response.

Effects of Noise on People
Hearing Loss. While physical damage to the ear from an intense noise impulse is rare, a degradation of auditory acuity can occur even within a community noise environment. Hearing loss occurs mainly due to chronic exposure to excessive noise but may be due to a single event such as an explosion. Natural hearing loss associated with aging may also be accelerated from chronic exposure to loud noise. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has a noise exposure standard that is set at the noise threshold where hearing loss may occur from long-term exposures. The maximum allowable level is 90 dBA averaged over 8 hours. If the noise is above 90 dBA, the allowable exposure time is correspondingly shorter.

2.2 GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION
Sources of groundborne vibrations include natural phenomena (earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides, etc.) or man-made causes (explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment, etc.). Vibration sources may be continuous (e.g., factory machinery) or transient (e.g., 2 Federal Interagency Committee on Noise, Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues, August 1992.

City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
General Plan Noise Policy Consistency Analysis
March 2023
Page | 9
19410920.2
explosions). Ground vibration consists of rapidly fluctuating motions or waves with an average motion of zero. Several different methods are typically used to quantify vibration amplitude. One is the peak particle velocity (PPV); another is the root mean square (RMS) velocity. The PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration wave and is expressed in terms of inches-persecond (in/sec). The RMS velocity is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal and is expressed in terms of velocity decibels (VdB). The PPV and RMS vibration velocity amplitudes are used to evaluate human response to vibration.

Table 3: Human Reaction and Damage to Buildings for Continuous or Frequent Intermittent Vibrations, displays the reactions of people and the effects on buildings produced by continuous vibration levels. The annoyance levels shown in the table should be interpreted with care since vibration may be found to be annoying at much lower levels than those listed, depending on the level of activity or the individual sensitivity of the individual. To sensitive individuals, vibrations approaching the threshold of perception can be annoying. Low-level vibrations frequently cause irritating secondary vibration, such as a slight rattling of windows, doors, or stacked dishes. The rattling sound can give rise to exaggerated vibration complaints, even though there is very little risk of actual structural damage. In high noise environments, which are more prevalent where groundborne vibration approaches perceptible levels, this rattling phenomenon may also be produced by loud airborne environmental noise causing induced vibration in exterior doors and windows.

0.008 -
Extremely fragile historic buildings,
ruins, ancient monuments -

0.01 Barely Perceptible - -

0.04 Distinctly Perceptible - -

0.1 Strongly Perceptible Fragile buildings -

0.12 - -
Buildings extremely susceptible
to vibration damage

0.2 - -
Non-engineered timber and
masonry buildings

0.25 - Historic and some old buildings -

0.3 - Older residential structures Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster)

0.4 Severe - -

0.5 -
New residential structures, Modern
industrial/commercial buildings
Reinforced-concrete, steel, or
timber (no plaster)
PPV = peak particle velocity; in/sec = inches per second; FTA = Federal Transit Administration Source: California Department of Transportation, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, 2020 and Federal Transit administration; Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment Manual, 2018.

Ground vibration can be a concern in instances where buildings shake, and substantial rumblings occur.

However, it is unusual for vibration from typical urban sources such as buses and heavy trucks to be perceptible. Common sources for groundborne vibration are planes, trains, and construction activities such as earth-moving, which requires the use of heavy-duty earth moving equipment. For the purposes of this analysis, a PPV descriptor with units of inches per second (in/sec) is used to evaluate constructiongenerated vibration for building damage and human complaints.

City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
General Plan Noise Policy Consistency Analysis
March 2023
Page | 10
19410920.2
3 REGULATORY SETTING
To limit population exposure to physically or psychologically damaging as well as intrusive noise levels, the Federal government, the State of California, various county governments, and most municipalities in the state have established standards and ordinances to control noise.

3.1 STATE
California Government Code
California Government Code Section 65302(f) mandates that the legislative body of each county and city adopt a noise element as part of its comprehensive general plan. The local noise element must recognize the land use compatibility guidelines established by the State Department of Health Services. The guidelines rank noise land use compatibility in terms of “normally acceptable”, “conditionally acceptable”, “normally unacceptable”, and “clearly unacceptable” noise levels for various land use types. Single-family homes are “normally acceptable” in exterior noise environments up to 60 CNEL and “conditionally acceptable” up to 70 CNEL. Multiple-family residential uses are “normally acceptable” up to 65 CNEL and “conditionally acceptable” up to 70 CNEL. Schools, libraries, and churches are “normally acceptable” up to 70 CNEL, as are office buildings and business, commercial, and professional uses.

3.2 LOCAL
City of Newark General Plan
The City of Newark General Plan identifies goals, policies, and implementations in the Noise Element. The Noise Element provides a basis for comprehensive local programs to regulate environmental noise and protect citizens from excessive exposure. Table 4: Land-Use Compatibility Guidelines for Community Noise in Newark highlights nine land-use categories and the outdoor noise compatibility guidelines.

Table 4: Land-Use Compatibility Guidelines for Community Noise in Newark Land-Use Category
Interior
CNEL or
Ldn (dBA)
Exterior Noise Exposure (CNEL or Ldn), in dBA
Normally
Acceptable1
Conditionally
Acceptable2
Normally
Unacceptable3
Clearly
Unacceptable4
Residential-Low Density Single-Family,
Duplex, Mobile Homes 45 <60 55 to 70 70 to 75 >75
Residential-Multiple Family 45 <65 60 to 70 70 to 75 >75 Transient Lodging, Motels, Hotels 45 <65 60 to 70 70 to 80 >80 Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals,
Nursing Homes 45 <70 60 to 70 70 to 80 >80
Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheater - - - - >65
Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports - - - - >70
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks - <70 68 to 75 - >72
Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water
Recreation, Cemeteries - <75 70 to 80 - >80
Office Buildings, Businesses, Commercial,
Professions 50 <70 68 to 75 75 to 85 -
Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities,
Agricultural - <75 70 to 80 75 to 85 -

City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
General Plan Noise Policy Consistency Analysis
March 2023
Page | 11
19410920.2

4. Clearly Unacceptable – New Construction or development generally should not be undertaken.

Source: City of Newark General Plan, 2013.

The Newark General Plan includes the following applicable noise goal and policy:

Goal EH-7: Ensure that new structures/uses are designed and constructed to preclude excessive, inappropriate, and undesirable noise effects.

Policy EH 7.7: Acoustical Study Requirement. Require acoustical studies for new developments in areas where the noise levels exceed the ‘normally acceptable’ levels for the proposed land use; based on Table EH-2. For residential uses, the analysis should include mitigation measures to limit the noise exposure in interior living spaces to 45 dB Ldn, consistent with California Title 24.

Acoustical Studies should have the following minimum attributes:
• Be the responsibility of the development applicant.
• Be prepared by qualified persons experienced in the fields of environmental noise assessment and architectural acoustics. • Include representative noise level measurements with sufficient sampling periods and locations to adequately describe existing local conditions.
• Include estimates for existing and projected (20 years hence) noise levels in terms of (a) Ldn or CNEL and (b) any future noise regulations to be adopted by the City. Those existing and projected noise levels shall be compared to the adopted policies of the Noise Element.
• Include recommended mitigation measures to achieve compliance with the adopted policies and standards of the Noise Element. Where the noise source in question consists of intermittent single events, the report should address the effects of maximum noise levels in sleeping rooms and potential sleep disturbance issues.
• Include estimates for interior and exterior noise exposure after the prescribed mitigation measures have been implemented.
• Describe a post-project assessment program that could be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures.

The Newark General Plan includes the following action element for vibration:

Action EH-7.E: New Development Near Railroads. Implement a standard operating procedure that requires the evaluation of potential vibration impacts for new development that occurs within 200 feet of a railroad track, in accordance with the FTA’s vibration screening distances. In such instances, the project property owner/developers shall retain an acoustical engineer to conduct an acoustic City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
General Plan Noise Policy Consistency Analysis
March 2023
Page | 12
19410920.2
analysis and identify, where appropriate, site design features and/or required building construction improvements to ensure that vibration impacts would remain below acceptable levels for residential uses.

City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
General Plan Noise Policy Consistency Analysis
March 2023
Page | 13
19410920.2
4 EXISTING CONDITIONS

Noise Measurements
To determine ambient noise levels in the project area, three short-term (10-minute) noise measurements and one long-term (24-hour) noise measurement were taken using a Larson Davis SoundExpert LxT Type I integrating sound level meter on January 25 through January 26, 2023; refer to Appendix A for existing noise measurement data.

As shown in Figure 4: Noise Measurement Locations, short-term measurement 1 (ST-1) was taken to represent the ambient noise level at the Church northwest of the project site on Sycamore Street, ST-2 was taken to represent existing noise levels at the industrial uses northeast of the project site, and ST-3 was taken to represent the existing noise level at the industrial uses to the southwest. Long-term measurement 1 (LT-1) was taken to represent existing ambient noise levels at the project site. The primary noise sources during the noise measurements were traffic along Central Avenue, Sycamore Street, and stationary noise at industrial operations nearby. Table 5: Noise Measurements provides the ambient noise levels measured at these locations.

Table 5: Noise Measurements
Site
No. Location Leq (dBA) Lmin (dBA) Lmax (dBA) Ldn (dBA)
1 Time Date
ST-1 Newark Community Church 59.7 51.0 74.5 62.4 2:00 p.m. to 2:10 p.m.
1/25/2023
ST-2 6950 Central Avenue 59.0 55.1 64.7 61.7 2:19 p.m. to 2:29 p.m.
1/25/2023
ST-3 7025 Central Avenue 72.1 55.4 84.5 74.8 2:37 p.m. to 2:47 p.m.
1/25/2023
LT-1 Project Site 69.6 51.6 96.1 73.6 3:21 p.m. to
3:21 p.m.
1/25/2023 –
1/26/2023

1. Ldn for short-term measurements are approximated based on the day-night variation in the long-term measurement.

Source: Noise Measurements taken by Kimley-Horn on January 25 th through 26th, 2023.
6750 Central Avenue Project Not to scale
Figure 4: Noise Measurement LocaƟ ons
Source: Nearmap, 2023
Legend
Long Term Noise Measurement LocaƟ on
Short Term Noise Measurement LocaƟ onProject Site
ST-2
ST-1
LT-1
ST-3
Central Avenue Central Avenue Sycamore Street Sycamore Street Redeker Place Redeker Place
City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
General Plan Noise Policy Consistency Analysis
March 2023
Page | 15
19410920.2
Existing Mobile Noise
Existing roadway noise levels were calculated for the roadway segments in the project vicinity. This task was accomplished using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) and existing traffic volumes provided by Kimley-Horn (2023). The noise prediction model calculates the average noise level at specific locations based on traffic volumes, average speeds, roadway geometry, and site environmental conditions. The average vehicle noise rates (also referred to as energy rates) used in the FHWA model have been modified to reflect average vehicle noise rates identified for California by Caltrans. The Caltrans data indicates that California automobile noise is

Table 6: Existing Traffic Noise
The project site is primarily surrounded by industrial and commercial uses. The existing mobile noise in the project area are generated along Central Avenue and Sycamore Street west of the project site.

Existing Stationary Noise
The primary sources of stationary noise in the project vicinity are those associated with the operations of nearby existing commercial and industrial surrounding of the project site. The noise associated with these sources may represent a single-event noise occurrence, short-term noise, or long-term/continuous noise.

As shown in Table 7: Noise Receivers, sensitive receptors near the project site include single-family residences and a church, refer to Figure 5: Sensitive Receptor Locations. Table 7 also highlights nearby Roadway Segment ADT dBA Ldn 1
Sycamore Street
Central Avenue to Clark Avenue 5,230 57.3
Central Avenue
Morton Avenue to Sycamore Street 11,570 62.2
Sycamore Street to West Project Driveway 14,040 63.0
West Project Driveway to East Project Driveway 14,040 63.0 East Project Driveway to Cherry Street 15,060 63.4
ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A-weighted decibels; Ldn = day-night noise level

1. Traffic noise levels are at 100 feet from the roadway centerline. The actual sound level at any receptor location is dependent upon such factors as the source-to-receptor distance and the presence of intervening structures, barriers, and topography.

Source: Based on data provided by Kimley-Horn (2022). Refer to Appendix A for traffic noise modeling assumptions and results.

City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
General Plan Noise Policy Consistency Analysis
March 2023
Page | 16
19410920.2
non-sensitive receivers such as commercial and industrial uses. These distances are from the project site to the sensitive receptor property line.

Table 7: Noise Receivers
Receptor Description Distance and Direction from the Project Site1 Industrial Building 40 feet to the north
Commercial Building 100 feet northwest
Single Family Residential 670 feet northeast
Newark Community Church 800 feet northwest
Single Family Residential 930 feet northeast

1. Distances are measured from the project site boundary to the property line. 6750 Central Avenue Project Not to scale
Figure 5: SensiƟ ve Receptor LocaƟ ons
Legend
^ĞŶƐŝƟǀĞZĞĐĞƉƚŽƌ>ŽĐĂƟŽŶ 1
WƌŽũĞĐƚƐŝƚĞ
1 2
3 Single Family Residence ingle Family Residence
Single Family Residence ingle Family Residence
Church
Source: Nearmap, 2023
City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
General Plan Noise Policy Consistency Analysis
March 2023
Page | 18
19410920.2
5 METHODOLOGY

5.1 SOUND METHODOLOGY
The analysis of the existing and future noise environments is based on noise prediction modeling and empirical observations. Reference noise level data are used to estimate the project operational noise impacts from stationary sources. Noise levels are collected from field noise measurements and other published sources from similar types of activities are used to estimate noise levels expected with the project’s stationary sources. The reference noise levels are used to represent a worst-case noise environment as noise level from stationary sources can vary throughout the day.

Operational noise is evaluated based on the standards within the City’s General Plan. Per Table EH-2 in the City of Newark General Plan, normally acceptable exterior noise levels of up to 60 dBA Ldn are acceptable for single-family residential uses, levels up to 70 dBA Ldn are acceptable for churches, and levels up to 75 dBA Ldn are acceptable for industrial uses. The General Plan also establishes an interior 45 dBA Ldn noise standard for residences and churches and notes that an untrained human ear typically cannot detect a difference in sound levels of less than 3 dB. The traffic noise levels in the project vicinity were calculated using the FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108).

5.2 VIBRATION METHODOLOGY
Groundborne vibration levels associated with construction-related activities for the project were evaluated utilizing typical groundborne vibration levels associated with construction equipment, obtained from FTA published data for construction equipment. Potential groundborne vibration impacts related to structural damage and human annoyance were evaluated, considering the distance from construction activities to nearby land uses and typically applied criteria for structural damage and human annoyance.

Per FTA guidance, a vibration limit of 12.7 millimeters per second (mm/sec; 0.5 inch/sec) PPV is used for buildings that are structurally sound and designed to modern engineering standards. A conservative vibration limit of five mm/sec (0.2 inches/sec) PPV has been used for buildings that are found to be structurally sound but where structural damage is a major concern.

City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
General Plan Noise Policy Consistency Analysis
March 2023
Page | 19
19410920.2
6 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

6.1 SOUND IMPACTS
Implementation of the project would create new sources of noise in the project vicinity. The major noise sources associated with the project that would potentially impact existing and future nearby residences include the following:
• Off-site traffic noise;
• Mechanical equipment (i.e., trash compactors, air conditioners, etc.); • Delivery trucks on the project site, and approaching and leaving the loading areas; • Activities at the loading areas (i.e., maneuvering and idling trucks, loading/unloading, and equipment noise);
• Parking areas (i.e., car door slamming, car radios, engine start-up, and car pass-by); and • Landscape maintenance activities.

As discussed above, the closest sensitive receptors are located approximately 670 feet to the northeast of the project site. The City of Newark normally acceptable noise standards for residential areas and churches is 60 dBA Ldn and 70 dBA Ldn respectively. In industrial areas, the normally acceptable noise standard is 75 dBA Ldn. The nearest industrial land use is approximately 40 feet from the project site. The General Plan also notes that an untrained human ear typically cannot detect a difference in sound levels of less than 3 dB.

Off-Site Traffic Noise
Implementation of the project would generate increased traffic volumes along study roadway segments.

The project is expected to generate a net increase of average daily trips, which would result in noise increases on project area roadways. In general, a traffic noise increase of less than 3 dBA is barely perceptible to people, while a 5-dBA increase is readily noticeable (Caltrans, 2013). Generally, traffic volumes on project area roadways would have to approximately double for the resulting traffic noise levels to increase by 3 dBA. Therefore, permanent increases in ambient noise levels of less than 3 dBA would not be a perceivable noise increase.

As shown in Table 8: Existing and Project Traffic Noise, the existing traffic-generated noise level on project area roadways is between 57.3 dBA Ldn and 63.4 dBA Ldn at 100 feet from the centerline. As previously described, Ldn is 24-hour average noise level with a 10 dBA “weighting” added to noise during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime, respectively.

Traffic noise levels for roadways primarily affected by the project were calculated using the FHWA’s Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). Traffic noise modeling was conducted for conditions with and without the project, based on traffic volumes (Kimley-Horn, 2022). As noted in Table 8, project noise levels 100 feet from the centerline would range from 57.3 dBA Ldn to 64.4 dBA Ldn. This would result in resulting noise levels below the normally acceptable levels for both industrial uses of 75 Ldn and commercial uses of 70 Ldn.

City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
General Plan Noise Policy Consistency Analysis
March 2023
Page | 20
19410920.2
Table 8: Existing and Project Traffic Noise
Roadway Segment
Existing Conditions With Project Change from
No Project
Conditions
Perceivable
ADT dBA Ldn1 ADT dBA Ldn1
Sycamore Street
Central Avenue to Clark Avenue 5,230 57.3 5,230 57.3 0.0 No Central Avenue
Morton Avenue to Sycamore Street 11,570 62.2 11,790 62.3 0.1 No Sycamore Street to West Project Driveway 14,040 63.0 14,440 63.2 0.2 No West Project Driveway to East Project
Driveway 14,040 63.0 17,900 64.1 1.1 No
East Project Driveway to Cherry Street 15,060 63.4 19,010 64.4 1.0 No ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A-weighted decibels; Ldn = day-night noise levels

Source: Based on data from the Transportation Analysis (Kimley-Horn, 2022). Refer to Appendix A for traffic noise modeling assumptions and results.

Stationary Noise Sources
Implementation of the project would create new sources of noise in the project vicinity from mechanical equipment, truck loading areas, parking lot noise, and landscape maintenance. Table 9: Stationary Source Noise Levels shows the noise levels generated by various stationary noise sources and the resulting noise level at the nearest receiver.3 Table 9 also show the project’s compliance with the exterior and interior noise standards listed in Table 4. Each stationary source is discussed below.

Mechanical Equipment
Regarding mechanical equipment, the project would generate stationary-source noise associated with heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units. HVAC units typically generate noise levels of approximately 52 dBA at 50 feet. The closest sensitive receptors to the HVAC units would be the residential area 670 feet northeast of the project site. Note that HVAC units would be mounted on the building and set back from the property line. At this distance, the project’s mechanical equipment noise levels would be 30 dBA. On the 24-hour Ldn scale and assuming the units would operate intermittently, the noise level would be 33 dBA Ldn and would be below the City’s normally acceptable residential noise standard of 60 dBA Ldn. Typically, a conservative estimate for interior noise levels would be a 10 dBA reduction of the exterior noise level.4 Therefore, interior noise levels produced by mechanical equipment on the project site at the closest sensitive receptor would reach 23 dBA Ldn which is below the 45 dBA Ldn interior noise standard listed in the noise compatibility guidelines from the Newark General Plan. At the nearest industrial receptor 150 feet northeast, noise levels would be 46 dBA Ldn which is also below the 75 dBA noise standard. Therefore, mechanical equipment would produce interior noise levels of approximately 36 dBA Ldn, which is consistent with Policy EH-7.7 and Table EH-2 in the Newark General Plan.
3 Distances are measured from the project site boundary to the property line of the nearest receiver. 4 Federal Highway Administration, Technique for Reviewing Noise Analyses and Associated Noise Reports, June 2018.

City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
General Plan Noise Policy Consistency Analysis
March 2023
Page | 21
19410920.2
Loading Area Noise
The project is an industrial development that would include deliveries. The primary noise associated with deliveries is the arrival and departure of trucks. Operations of proposed project would potentially require a mixture of deliveries from vans, light trucks, and heavy-duty trucks. Normal deliveries typically occur during daytime hours. During loading and unloading activities, noise would be generated by the trucks’ diesel engines, exhaust systems, and brakes during low gear shifting’ braking activities; backing up toward the docks/loading areas; dropping down the dock ramps; and maneuvering away from the docks. The project is surrounded by industrial uses to the east, west, and south.

The closest residential receptors would be approximately 1,000 feet northwest of the project’s loading area. While there would be temporary noise increases during truck maneuvering and engine idling, these impacts would be of short duration and infrequent. Additionally, loading noise levels would be further attenuated by intervening structures. Table 9 shows that trucks and loading area noise would not exceed the City’s General Plan normally acceptable noise levels. Typically, heavy truck operations generate a noise level of 64 dBA at a distance of 50 feet, which would be approximately 61 dBA Ldn. At the nearest residential receptors, the project’s loading area noise levels would be 42 dBA Ldn which is below the City’s normally acceptable residential noise standard of 60 dBA. Due to the noise reduction from building attenuation, interior noise levels produced by loading area noise would reach 32 dBA Ldn at the closest sensitive receptor which is below the 45 dBA Ldn interior noise standard listed in the noise compatibility guidelines. At the nearest industrial receptor 200 feet northeast of the project’s loading area, exterior noise levels would be 56 dBA Ldn which is also below the normally acceptable 75 dBA noise standard.

Therefore, loading areas would produce levels consistent with Policy EH-7.7 and Table EH-2 in the Newark General Plan.

Parking Areas
Traffic associated with parking areas is typically not of sufficient volume to exceed community noise standards, which are based on a time-averaged scale such as the CNEL or Ldn scale. However, the instantaneous maximum sound levels generated by a car door slamming, engine starting up and car passbys may be an annoyance to nearby noise-sensitive receptors. Parking lot noise can also be considered a “stationary” noise source. The instantaneous maximum sound levels generated by a car door slamming, engine starting up, and car pass-bys range from 53 to 61 dBA at 50 feet and may be an annoyance to noise-sensitive receptors. Conversations in parking areas may also be an annoyance to sensitive receptors.

Due to the reduction of noise from building attenuation, the project’s parking areas would produce an interior noise level of 30 dBA Ldn at the nearest residential receptor which is below the 45 dBA Ldn interior noise standard listed in the noise compatibility guidelines from the Newark General Plan. Therefore, noise produced in parking areas would produce noise levels consistent with Policy EH-7.7 and Table EH-2 in the Newark General Plan. At the nearest industrial receptor property line located 40 feet northeast of the parking area, noise levels would be 64 dBA which is below the City’s 75 dBA industrial standard.

City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
General Plan Noise Policy Consistency Analysis
March 2023
Page | 22
19410920.2
Landscape Maintenance Activities
Development and operation of the project includes new landscaping that would require periodic maintenance. Noise generated by a gasoline-powered lawnmower is estimated to be approximately 70 dBA at a distance of five feet. Landscape Maintenance activities would be 50 dBA at 50 feet away.

Maintenance activities would operate during daytime hours for brief periods of time and would not permanently increase ambient noise levels in the project vicinity and would be consistent with activities that currently occur at the surrounding uses. Table 9 shows that landscape maintenance noise would be at 20 dBA Ldn at the closest residential receptor 670 feet away. Due to the reduction of noise from building attenuation, interior noise levels produced by landscape maintenance activities on the project site at the nearest sensitive receptor would be 10 dBA Ldn which is below the 45 dBA Ldn interior noise standard listed in the noise compatibility guidelines from the Newark General Plan. Therefore, landscape maintenance activities would be consistent with Policy EH-7.7 and Table EH-2 in the Newark General Plan.

Summary
As shown in Table 9, stationary sources would not exceed the City of Newark General Plan Land Use Compatibility Standards at the adjacent industrial use or nearest residential use. Additionally, noise levels would be further attenuated by intervening terrain and structures. Noise impacts from mechanical equipment, loading area, parking area, and landscape maintenance would below the allowable noise levels listed in Table EH-2 of the City’s General Plan. Therefore, the project’s operational noise would be consistent with Policy EH-7.7 in the Newark General Plan.

City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
General Plan Noise Policy Consistency Analysis
March 2023
Page | 23
19410920.2
Table 9: Stationary Source Noise Levels
Nearest Land Use Distance
(feet)1
Reference Level at 50 ft
(dBA Ldn)
2 Noise Level at Receiver
(dBA Ldn)
Exterior Noise
Standard6
Exceed Standard
Mechanical Equipment
Industrial (northeast) 150
55 dBA3
46 dBA 75 dBA No
Residence (northeast) 670 33 dBA 60 dBA No
Church (northwest) 800 31 dBA 70 dBA No
Residence (northeast) 930 30 dBA 60 dBA No
Loading Area
Industrial (northeast) 200
68 dBA3
56 dBA 75 dBA No
Residence (northeast) 1,000 42 dBA 60 dBA No
Church (northwest) 1,250 40 dBA 70 dBA No
Residence (northeast) 1,200 40 dBA 60 dBA No
Parking Area
Industrial (northeast) 40
62 dBA4
64 dBA 75 dBA No
Residence (northeast) 670 40 dBA 60 dBA No
Church (northwest) 800 38 dBA 70 dBA No
Residence (northeast) 930 37 dBA 60 dBA No
Landscape Maintenance
Industrial (northeast) 150
43 dBA5
33 dBA 75 dBA No
Residence (northeast) 670 20 dBA 60 dBA No
Church (northwest) 800 19 dBA 70 dBA No
Residence (northeast) 930 17 dBA 60 dBA No

1. The distance is from the location of the operational noise source to the receptor property line.

2. Reference levels are adjusted for the Ldn scale and an acoustical usage factor to represent 24-hour noise levels. Mechanical, truck, and parking is conservatively assumed to occur anytime during the 24-hour period and landscape maintenance would only occur during the daytime.

3. Elliott H. Berger, Rick Neitzel, and Cynthia A. Kladden, Noise Navigator Sound Level Database with Over 1700 Measurement Values, July 6, 2010.

4. Kariel, H. G., Noise in Rural Recreational Environments, Canadian Acoustics 19(5), 3-10, 1991.

5. U.S. EPA, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, 1971.

6. Table EH-2 of the Newark General Plan establishes normally acceptable noise standards of 60 dBA for residential zones, 70 dBA for churches, and 75 dBA for industrial.

City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
General Plan Noise Policy Consistency Analysis
March 2023
Page | 24
19410920.2

6.2 VIBRATION IMPACTS
The FTA and the City of Newark do not classify industrial structures as a sensitive land use category that is susceptible to groundborne vibration and noise. Therefore, the project would not be impacted by vibration generated through the nearby railroad track.

The City of Newark requires a vibration assessment for building located within 200 feet of a railroad, and for new residential uses, requires compliance with the vibration thresholds listed in the City’s General Plan (per General Plan Action EH-7.E). The closest railroad is located 10 feet southwest from the edge of the project property and is approximately 60 feet from the proposed building. The level of impact from railway vibration is influenced by multiple factors including train type, receiver building type, and geological factors. The FTA provides guidance and a reference vibration level for different types of trains at 50 feet. The highest level of vibration identified by the FTA are upper range commuter rails that produce a vibration velocity of 85 VdB at 50 feet. Common commuter rails and rapid transit trains produce a level between 70 VdB and 75 VdB at 50 feet. The FTA notes that damage for typical buildings occurs at 100 VdB and a vibration level of 85 VdB in a residence can result in strong annoyance.5 The FTA’s vibration screening procedure applies to high sensitivity buildings, residential buildings, and institutional buildings.

Industrial buildings such as the proposed project are not considered vibration sensitive.6 As mentioned previously, the project building is located 60 feet away from the operation of the railroad track. Therefore, the building would be below the 100 VdB building damage threshold defined in the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. Additionally, due to the distance, future receptors inside the proposed industrial building also would not experience vibration levels exceeding the 85 VdB annoyance level. . Notwithstanding that, and as noted above, industrial uses are not considered vibrationsensitive.

6.3 FUTURE NOISE IMPACTS
Noise by definition is a localized phenomenon, and drastically reduces as distance from the source increases. The future noise impacts involve development of the project in combination with ambient growth and other related development projects. As noise levels decrease as distance from the source increases, only projects in the nearby area could combine with the project to potentially result in future noise impacts.

Future Newark Noise Regulations
The Newark General Plan Policy EH-7.7 requires an analysis of the project with the future adopted noise policies. The City of Newark General Plan Tune Up EIR from 2013 considered the current noise standards listed in the General Plan to evaluate the City’s development through 2035. Therefore, the current noise standards listed in the City of Newark General Plan are not anticipated to be updated in the near future as the current standards were analyzed and approved in the General Plan Tune Up EIR for the City’s buildout till 2035.

Future Noise
5 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, page 113, 2018. 6 The FTA notes that if no vibration-sensitive land uses are identified, no further vibration analysis is needed (Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, page 136, 2018).

City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
General Plan Noise Policy Consistency Analysis
March 2023
Page | 25
19410920.2
Future noise impacts describe how much noise levels are projected to increase over existing conditions with the development of the project and other foreseeable projects. Future noise impacts would occur primarily as a result of increased traffic on local roadways due to buildout of the project and other projects in the vicinity. However, noise from generators and other stationary sources could also generate additional noise levels. The Newark General Plan Policy EH-7.7 requires an estimate of future noise levels 20 years in the future. These future noise levels would be compared to the noise level standards established in Table EH-2 of the General Plan.

Stationary Noise
As discussed above, impacts from the project’s operations would be below the thresholds listed in the General Plan. Due to site distance, intervening land uses, and the fact that noise dissipates as it travels away from its source, noise impacts from on-site activities and other stationary sources would be limited to the project site and vicinity. After review of the City of Newark current project list and specific plan list, there is one project, the Central Avenue Overpass, that is within 2,000 feet of the project vicinity and would impact future noise levels.
7,8 As mentioned previously, the City of Newark has planned and funded the construction of an overpass on Central Avenue that would start on the northwest face of the project site. This overpass construction would extend along the project frontage from Sycamore Street to Morton Avenue. This structure would attenuate any operational stationary noise produced on-site and would reduce the impact at nearby receptors across Central Avenue. Therefore, future stationary noise levels would be lower than the levels listed above. Stationary equipment on-site would also include improved technology 20 years in the future which would further reduce noise generated by the project. Therefore, future stationary equipment noise levels are estimated to be below the noise levels listed above and future impacts related to stationary noise would be below normally acceptable noise standards listed in Table EH-2 of the Newark General Plan. Thus, future operational noise impacts from related projects, in conjunction with project-specific noise impacts, would be consistent with the City’s General Plan.

However, the implementation of the Central Avenue Overpass would not result in an increase of traffic noise in the surrounding area. As mentioned previously, the City of Newark has planned and funded the construction of an overpass on Central Avenue that would be built over the nearby railroad track. The existing ambient noise includes traffic noise generated from driving over railroad tracks. Therefore, construction of the overpass would no longer contribute to noise in the area. Furthermore, the overpass would not generate additional future trips on Central Avenue. The Overpass project is anticipated to provide roadway traffic congestion relief and a reduction in conflicts between rail traffic and the general public.9 Additionally, the future sale and use of EV trucks and cars would further reduce noise levels on the surrounding roadways in the next 20 years. Therefore, future traffic noise surrounding the project site are estimated to remain below the noise standards listed in the Newark General Plan. Thus, the future operational traffic noise impacts from related projects, in conjunction with project-specific noise impacts, would be consistent with the City’s General Plan.
7 City of Newark, Specific Plans and Master Plans, Accessed at https://www.newark.org/departments/communitydevelopment/specific-plans-master-plans. 8 City of Newark, Projects Under Environmental Review, Accessed at https://www.newark.org/departments/communitydevelopment/planning-division/projects-under-environmental-review. 9 Alameda County Transportation Commission, Dumbarton Corridor Improvements (Central Avenue Overpass), July 2018.

City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
General Plan Noise Policy Consistency Analysis
March 2023
Page | 26
19410920.2
City of Newark 6750 Central Avenue Project
General Plan Noise Policy Consistency Analysis
March 2023
Page | 27
19410920.2
7 REFERENCES

1. Alameda County Transportation Commission, Dumbarton Corridor Improvements (Central Avenue Overpass), July 2018.

2. California Department of Transportation, Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, 2020.

3. California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, 2013.

4. City of Newark, City of Newark General Plan, 2013.

5. City of Newark, General Plan Tune Up Draft Program EIR, 2013.

6. City of Newark, Municipal Code, 2022.

7. City of Newark, Projects Under Environmental Review, Accessed at https://www.newark.org/departments/community-development/planning-division/projects-underenvironmental-review.

8. City of Newark, Specific Plans and Master Plans, Accessed at https://www.newark.org/departments/community-development/specific-plans-master-plans.

9. Elliott H. Berger, Rick Neitzel, and Cynthia A. Kladden. Noise Navigator Sound Level Database with Over 1700 Measurement Values, July 6, 2010.

10. Kariel, H. G., Noise in Rural Recreational Environments, Canadian Acoustics 19(5), 3-10, 1991.

11. Federal Highway Administration, Technique for Reviewing Noise Analyses and Associated Noise Reports, June 2018.

12. Federal Interagency Committee on Noise, Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues, 1992.

13. Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018.

14. Kent Mallett, Newark City Council Considers Noise Limits for Entertainment Venues, October 2022.

15. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Protective Noise Levels (EPA 550/9-79-100), 1979. 19410920.2
Appendix A
Noise Data
Noise Measurement Field Data
Project:   Job Number: 097276201
Site No.:   Date: 1/25/2023
Analyst:   Time: 2:00 PM
Location:

Noise Sources:

Comments:

Results (dBA):

Leq: Lmin: Lmax: Peak:

Equipment Weather
6750 Central Avenue Project
1 Tanay Pradhan
Church on at Clark Avenue and Sycamore Street
Traffic along Clark Avenue and Sycamore Street, Industrial Noise

!" #$%&# '

!$$$($)%*+$+%$,+-
,&-)+$*
!" #$%&#
./

01 $$$($)% 2 +#&$&
3

4

5 /
"4

0
+$+%*$,*+-
,&6-)6+$ "
$6,$6$$#$
1.
+$+%*$,*+-
,-6$)6+$

$6,$6$$#$ 7
$6$$6$$#$
7*'
/
+$++*$(*,(
,+6-%6$( 7
*'
/

'
/

"8
***
9:9
;8

<= ->#)
.?

<1 @)#-
.? 01< ***
.?
1< (+#+
A7BC

D
E >@#)
.?+$+%*$,*+-
,-6$%6$)

<0 )&#-
.?+$+%*$,*+-
,&6-@6+&

<0 -,#$
.?+$+%*$,*+-
,&6-@6$+

<= ->#)
.?

'= ()#>
.?
'=
*

<= @#+
.?

<F= (,#)
.?
<F=
*

<= +#$
.?
14.4'
"

<0
G
@-#$
.? $$6$$6$$#$

<0
G
,,-#$
.? $$6$$6$$#$

D
E
G
,%-#$
.? $$6$$6$$#$

D
E
G
,%)#$
.? $$6$$6$$#$

D
E
G
,&$#$
.? $$6$$6$$#$
'
H

IC
->#)
.?->#)
.?$#$
.?

"H
18

IC
->#)
.?->#)
.?***
.?***
.?
<H
" <'D
8

0

8

0

= ->#)
.?()#>
.?***
.?

JK )&#-
.?+$+%*$,*+-
,&6-@6+&***
.?

***
.?

0JK -,#$
.?+$+%*$,*+-
,&6-@6$+***
.?

***
.?

7EJK ***
.?

***
.?

>@#)
.?+$+%*$,*+-
,-6$%6$)
;8

.'
"
;?<
'
;?<
"

$$6$$6$$#$- $6$$6,%#,
0 4

<0
-#$ (-#(
.?

<0
,$#$ (+#(
.?

<0
%%#% -(#(
.?

<0
-$#$ -&#>
.?

<0
((#( -%#@
.?

<0
>$#$ -+#(
.?
Noise Measurement Field Data
Project:   Job Number: 097276201
Site No.:   Date: 1/25/2023
Analyst:   Time: 2:19 PM
Location:

Noise Sources:

Comments:

Results (dBA):

Leq: Lmin: Lmax: Peak:

Equipment Weather
6750 Central Avenue Project
2 Tanay Pradhan
Parking lot northeast of the Project Site
Traffic along Central Avenue, Industrial Noise, Parking Lot Noise

!" #$%&# '

!$$$($)%*+$+%$,+&
,&,(&-*
!" #$%&#
./

01 $$$($)% 2 +#3$3
4

5

6 /
"5

0
+$+%*$,*+&
,&7,(7&- "
$7,$7$$#$
1.
+$+%*$,*+&
,&7+(7&-

$7,$7$$#$ 8
$7$$7$$#$
8*'
/
+$++*$(*,(
,+7&%7$( 8
*'
/

'
/

"9
***
:;:
<9

=> &-#$
.?

=1 @(#@
.? 01= ***
.?
1= &%#$
A8BC

D
E ,$%#%
.?+$+%*$,*+&
,&7+(7&+

=0 (3#)
.?+$+%*$,*+&
,&7++733

=0 &&#,
.?+$+%*$,*+&
,&7++7,@

=> &-#$
.?

'> )+#,
.?
'>
*

=> ,%#,
.?

=F> ($#&
.?
=F>
*

=> ,#&
.?
15.5'
"

=0
G
@&#$
.? $$7$$7$$#$

=0
G
,,&#$
.? $$7$$7$$#$

D
E
G
,%&#$
.? $$7$$7$$#$

D
E
G
,%)#$
.? $$7$$7$$#$

D
E
G
,3$#$
.? $$7$$7$$#$
'
H

IC
&-#$
.?&-#$
.?$#$
.?

"H
19

IC
&-#$
.?&-#$
.?***
.?***
.?
=H
" =' D
9

0

9

0

> &-#$
.?)+#,
.?***
.?

JK (3#)
.?+$+%*$,*+&
,&7++733***
.?

***
.?

0JK &&#,
.?+$+%*$,*+&
,&7++7,@***
.?

***
.?

8EJK ***
.?

***
.?

,$%#%
.?+$+%*$,*+&
,&7+(7&+
<9

.'
"
<?=
'
<?=
"

$$7$$7$$#$+%$7$$7&-#)
0 5

=0
&#$ (,#)
.?

=0
,$#$ ($#-
.?

=0
%%#% &-#%
.?

=0
&$#$ &@#(
.?

=0
((#( &)#@
.?

=0
-$#$ &(#&
.?
Noise Measurement Field Data
Project:   Job Number: 097276201
Site No.:   Date: 1/25/2023
Analyst:   Time: 2:37 PM
Location:

Noise Sources:

Comments:

Results (dBA):

Leq: Lmin: Lmax: Peak:

!" #$%&# '

!$$$&$(%)*$*%$+*,
+,%-+.)
!" #$%&#
/0

12 $$$&$(% 3 *#-$-
4

5

6 0
"5

1
*$*%)$+)*,
+,7%-7+. "
$7+$7$$#$
2/
*$*%)$+)*,
+,7--7+.

$7+$7$$#$ 8
$7$$7$$#$
8)'
0
*$**)$&)+&
+*7,%7$& 8
)'
0

'
0

"9
)))
:;:
<9

=> (*#+
/?

=2 @@#@
/? 12= )))
/?
2= +#+
8AB

C
D +$@#&
/?*$*%)$+)*,
+,7-%7$.

=1 .-#,
/?*$*%)$+)*,
+,7-%7$@

=1 ,,#-
/?*$*%)$+)*,
+,7-$7+.

=> (*#+
/?

'> (.#.
/?
'>
)

=> &#(
/?

=E> (-#.
/?
=E>
)

=> *#(
/?
25/5'
"

=1
F
.,#$
/? $$7$$7$$#$

=1
F
++,#$
/? $$7$$7$$#$

C
D
F
+%,#$
/? $$7$$7$$#$

C
D
F
+%(#$
/? $$7$$7$$#$

C
D
F
+-$#$
/? $$7$$7$$#$
'
G

HB
(*#+
/?(*#+
/?$#$
/?

"G
29

HB
(*#+
/?(*#+
/?)))
/?)))
/?
=G
" =' C
9

1

9

1

> (*#+
/?(.#.
/?)))
/?

IJ .-#,
/?*$*%)$+)*,
+,7-%7$@)))
/?

)))
/?

1IJ ,,#-
/?*$*%)$+)*,
+,7-$7+.)))
/?

)))
/?

8DIJ )))
/?

)))
/?

+$@#&
/?*$*%)$+)*,
+,7-%7$.
<9

/'
"
<?=
'
<?=
"

$$7$$7$$#$-@$7$-7+-#(
1 5

=1
,#$ ((#*
/?

=1
+$#$ (,#,
/?

=1
%%#% (+#,
/?

=1
,$#$ &@#-
/?

=1
&&#& &(#(
/?

=1
@$#$ &%#%
/?
Noise Measurement Field Data
Project:   Job Number: 097276201
Site No.:   Date: 1/25/2023
Analyst:   Time: 3:21 PM
Location:

Noise Sources:

Comments:

Results (dBA):

Leq: Lmin: Lmax: Peak:

Measurement 1: 69.6 51.9 96.1 117.0
Sound Level Meter: LD SoundExpert LxT Temp. (degrees F):

Calibrator: CAL200 Wind (mph): <10
Response Time: Slow Sky: Clear
Weighting: A Bar. Pressure: 30.31"
Microphone Height: 5 feet Humidity: 33%
Photo:

Equipment Weather
6750 Central Avenue Project
LT‐1
Tanay Pradhan
Intersection of Central Avenue and Sycamore Street
Traffic along Central Avenue and Sycamore Street, Industrial Noise

!" #$%&# '

!$$$($&%)*$*%$+*,
+(+-%-)
!" #$%&#
./

01 $$$($&% 2 *#3$3
4

5

6 /
"5

0
*$*%)$+)*,
+(7+-7%- "
*37$$7$$#$
1.
*$*%)$+)*(
+(7+-7%-

*37$$7$$#$ 8
$7$$7$$#$
8)'
/
*$**)$()+(
+*7,%7$( 8
)'
/

'
/

"9
)))
:;:
<9

=> (?#(
.@

=1 ++?#$
.@ 01= )))
.@
1= -&#(
8AB

C
D ++&#$
.@*$*%)$+)*,
*$7+*7$*

=0 ?(#+
.@*$*%)$+)*(
+%73+7%%

=0 ,+#?
.@*$*%)$+)*(
+(7+-7*$

=> (?#(
.@

'> &&#3
.@
'>
)

=> &#-
.@

=E> &+#(
.@
=E>
)

=> *#$
.@
15.5'
"

=0
F
-,#$
.@ ,$$7$*7*?#?

=0
F
++,#$
.@ $$7$$7$$#$

C
D
F
+%,#$
.@ $$7$$7$$#$

C
D
F
+%&#$
.@ $$7$$7$$#$

C
D
F
+3$#$
.@ $$7$$7$$#$
'
G

HB
&%#(
.@&$#?
.@$#$
.@

"G
19

HB
&3#+
.@&+#+
.@(?#(
.@((#+
.@
=G
" =' C
9

0

9

0

> (?#(
.@&&#3
.@)))
.@

IJ ?(#+
.@*$*%)$+)*(
+%73+7%%)))
.@

)))
.@

0IJ ,+#?
.@*$*%)$+)*(
+(7+-7*$)))
.@

)))
.@

8DIJ )))
.@

)))
.@

++&#$
.@*$*%)$+)*,
*$7+*7$*
<9

.'
"
<@=
'
<@=
"

$$7$$7$$#$*?,&37+$73*#,
0 5

=0
,#$ &3#?
.@

=0
+$#$ &*#-
.@

=0
%%#% (&#&
.@

=0
,$#$ (,#+
.@

=0
((#( (*#-
.@

=0
?$#$ ,?#3
.@
Stationary Noise Calculation Table
Noise Source Nearest Land Use
Reference
Level (dBA)5
Reference
Distance (feet)
Distance to
Receptor (feet)
Level at
Receptor
(dBA)6
Exterior Noise
Standard7
Significant?
Mechanical Equipment1
Industrial (northeast) 55.4 50 150 46 75
Residence (northeast) 55.4 50 670 33 60
Church (northwest) 55.4 50 800 31 70
Residence (northeast) 55.4 50 930 30 60
Truck and Loading Docks2
Industrial (northeast) 67.8 50 200 56 75
Residence (northeast) 67.8 50 1000 42 60
Church (northwest) 67.8 50 1250 40 70
Residence (northeast) 67.8 50 1200 40 60
Parking3
Industrial (northeast) 62.2 50 40 64 75
Residence (northeast) 62.2 50 670 40 60
Church (northwest) 62.2 50 800 38 70
Residence (northeast) 62.2 50 930 37 60
Landscape Maintenance4
Industrial (northeast) 42.6 50 150 33 75
Residence (northeast) 42.6 50 670 20 60
Church (northwest) 42.6 50 800 19 70
Residence (northeast) 42.6 50 930 17 60

1. Source for reference level: Elliott H. Berger, Rick Neitzel, and Cynthia A. Kladden, Noise Navigator Sound Level Database with Over 1700 Measurement Values , July 6, 2010.

2. Loading dock reference noise level measurements conducted by Kimley-Horn on December 18, 2018.

3. Source for reference level: Kariel, H. G., Noise in Rural Recreational Environments , Canadian Acoustics 19(5), 3-10, 1991.

4. U.S. EPA, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, 1971.

7. Table EH-2 of the Newark General Plan establishes normally acceptable noise standards of 60 dBA for residential zones, 70 dBA for churches, and 75 dBA for industrial.

5. Reference levels are adjusted for the Ldn scale and an acoustical usage factor to represent 24-hour noise levels. Mechanical, truck, and parking is conservatively assumed to occur anytime during the 24-hour period and landscape maintenance would only occur during the daytime.

6. Calculated using the inverse square law formula for sound attenuation: dBA2 = dBA1+20Log(d1/d2), where dBA2 = estimated noise level at receptor; dBA1 = reference noise level; d1 = reference distance; d2 = receptor location distance.

FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) with California Vehicle Noise (CALVENO) Emission Levels Project Name: 6750 Central Avenue ProjectProject Number: Scenario: ExistingLdn/CNEL: LdnAssumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution: Day Evening NightTotal ADT Volumes 77.70% 12.70% 9.60%Medium-Duty Trucks 87.43% 5.05% 7.52%Heavy-Duty Trucks 89.10% 2.84% 8.06% Vehicle Mix Distance from Centerline of Roadway
Median ADT Speed Alpha Medium Heavy Ldn at Distance to Contour # Roadway Segment Lanes Width Volume (mph) Factor Trucks Trucks 100 Feet 70 Ldn 65 Ldn 60 Ldn 55 Ldn1 Sycamore St Central Ave to Clark Ave 2 11 5,230 35 0 2.0% 1.0% 57.3 - - 54 171 2 Central Ave Morton Ave to Sycamore St 4 25 11,570 40 0 2.0% 1.0% 62.2 - - 166 526 3 Central Ave Sycamore St to West Project Driveway 4 25 14,040 40 0 2.0% 1.0% 63.0 - 64 202 638 4 Central Ave West Project Driveway to East Project Driveway 4 25 14,040 40 0 2.0% 1.0% 63.0 - 64 202 638 5 Central Ave East Project Driveway to Cherry St 4 25 15,060 40 0 2.0% 1.0% 63.4 - 68 216 684 1 Distance is from the centerline of the roadway segment to the receptor location. "-" = contour is located within the roadway right-of-way.

Page 1 ends

Newark City CouncilJuly 24, 2025

Newark City Council
July 24, 2025