8.3 Site-Specific Evaluations
An ecological screening evaluation should be performed at all cleanup cases under Regional Water Board oversight. Section 2.6 of the Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual (DTSC 2015) describes a streamlined process for an initial ecological screening evaluation, including key questions, biological characterization, pathway assessment, and qualitative summary.
For sites where soil concentrations exceed the Terrestrial Habitat ESLs, further evaluation is necessary. This evaluation generally should be consistent with USEPA and DTSC guidance for ecological risk assessment (USEPA 1997b; DTSC 1996a, 199b). For regulatory review, either a detailed work plan should be submitted, or a thorough scoping meeting conducted before completing the evaluation or submitting a report of findings. This important step reduces the likelihood of unnecessary and costly work and greatly improves the likelihood of regulatory concurrence.
Site-specific evaluations could encompass a number of aspects, including but not limited to the following:
• Biologically-Relevant Exposure Depth – It may be appropriate to adjust the exposure depth on a site-specific basis. DTSC (1998) specifies a potential exposure depth of 6 feet bgs for burrowing mammals and burrow-dwelling birds. USEPA (2015c) discusses exposure depths for terrestrial organisms and notes that the majority of biotic activity by soildwelling organisms occurs in the A horizon, and generally the top 30 centimeters of the soil profile could be considered for the biologicallyrelevant sampling depth. Sample et al. (2014) documents a site-specific evaluation of the biologically active zone in an upland habitat and
43.791
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 8-5
ultimately indicates that maximum exposures could be up to about 10 feet bgs, while 8 feet bgs would be protective for the majority of biota. • Terrestrial Toxicity Testing – Toxicity test methods for soil-dwelling organisms are available from various sources (e.g., ASTM, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development; and USEPA).
OEHHA (2009a) provides a description of test methods for terrestrial microorganisms, plants, invertebrates and vertebrates.
Typical site-specific issues that necessitate discussions with the overseeing regulatory agency include the following:
• Determination of exposure units/areas and hotspots;
• Soil exposure depths;
• Habitat exposure scenario development, including evaluation of hypothetical future land use (e.g., residential scenario with unrestricted use);
• Use of averaging;
• Background/ambient concentrations of chemicals (e.g., metals); and • Bioavailability.
43.792
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 9-1
9 Methods: Leaching to Groundwater
Screening Levels for Soil
The “soil leaching ESLs” presented in ESL Workbook Table S-3 provide for the protection of groundwater from leaching and migration of chemicals in vadose zone soil. They are calculated based on target groundwater ESLs for two groundwater uses:
• Drinking Water – Tier 1 Groundwater ESLs, which are based on MCL Priority as discussed in Section 3.1.2.
• Nondrinking Water – Lowest of the aquatic habitat screening level, gross contamination water screening level, groundwater vapor intrusion screening level, or non-drinking water odor nuisance screening level.
The calculation soil leaching screening levels with site-specific groundwater targets is discussed in Section 9.4 (Site-Specific Evaluations).
The soil leaching ESLs are intended for use as general indicator of potential leachability. In general, these ESLs should not be used as the sole line of evidence to screen out further evaluation of groundwater impacts because it can be difficult to find the location in soil where the contamination was transported to groundwater. As discussed in Section 9.4, direct sampling of groundwater is always preferred.
9.1 Leaching Model
The soil leaching level equation presented in Section 9.2 was developed by MADEP (1994a) using a method originally developed by Anderson (1992). The objective of these studies was to develop conservative soil leaching values that would minimize potential groundwater impacts at most sites. The efforts focused on organic contaminants because of the site-specific complexities (e.g., soil pH and redox potential) associated with inorganic contaminants.
9.1.1 Conceptual Model
The conceptual model developed by Anderson (1992) for the development of soil leaching values is illustrated in Figure 9-1. The model includes a three-meter (10 feet) thick vadose zone consisting of three layers of sand, each one meter thick. The middle layer is contaminated while the top and bottom layers are clean.
43.793
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 9-2
Figure 9-1 – Conceptual Model for Soil Leaching ESLs
This conceptual model represents a site with limited soil contamination. The contaminated layer is 10 meters wide and 1 meter thick. The clean soil layer at the surface reduces the loss of volatiles and provides a more conservative estimate of the mass of volatile contaminants that could reach groundwater. After reaching groundwater, the contaminated leachate is mixed and transported 10 meters downgradient to a well.
The following are other important aspects of the overall conceptual model:
• The model applies only for organic chemicals, not inorganic chemicals (e.g., metals)
• Annual rainfall – 1,100 mm (about 43 inches). A total of 720 mm (28 inches) is assumed to infiltrate the ground surface and reach groundwater.
• Soil organic carbon – 0.1 percent
• Biodegradation is not considered
• Resorption and revolatilization of chemicals in the leachate are allowed based on chemical and soil properties used in the model • Groundwater is assumed to flow at a moderate rate of 73 meters (28 feet) per year
• A chemical’s concentration in leachate is further reduced about a factor of three by dilution and mixing with groundwater.
These assumptions were specifically used by MADEP (1994a) to generate the DAF equation (equation 10) discussed in the following section.
43.794
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 9-3
9.1.2 Generic Dilution-Attenuation Factor (DAF) Equation A dilution-attenuation factor (DAF) can be used to predict the amount of attenuation that will occur as a contaminant leaches from soil into groundwater, as described in Section 9.2. Chemical-specific DAF values can be calculated using equation 10:
DAF = (6207 x H) + (0.166 x Koc)
where:
H = Henry's Law Constant (atm-m3/mol)
Koc = organic carbon partition coefficient (cm3/g)
(equation 10)
This equation was generated by MADEP (1994a) using an approach originally developed by Anderson (1992). This approach first uses mathematical models to predict the amount of soil leaching that would occur under the conditions defined by the given conceptual model. Input parameters for the models included annual precipitation, soil characteristics, aquifer parameters, and physical-chemical constants for the modeled contaminants. The only difference between the MADEP (1994a) and Anderson (1992) approaches were climate inputs, Boston for the former and Portland for the latter. The following two mathematical models were used in both approaches:
• SESOIL – The Seasonal Soil compartment model (SESOIL) is a onedimensional screening model that simulates vertical transport in the unsaturated (vadose) zone to groundwater. The model considers transport and fate based on diffusion, adsorption, volatilization, biodegradation, cation exchange, and hydrolysis. The model was originally developed by Arthur D. Little, Inc. (1981) and subsequently modified. The version used by Anderson (1992) was dated 1987.
• AT123D – The Analytical Transient 1-, 2-, and 3-Dimensional Simulation of Waste Transport in the Aquifer System (AT123D) is a groundwater transport model. The model considers advection, dispersion, diffusion, adsorption, and biodegradation. AT123D was developed by Yeh (1981) and subsequently modified. Anderson (1992) used the version of this model dated 1985 to generate a one-dimensional groundwater transport model.
The two models were used in a software package that allowed for SESOIL output to be incorporated as input to AT123D.
MADEP (1994a) ran the models for eight contaminants. The ratio of the initial soil concentration input and the maximum groundwater concentration (at the water table surface) predicted using the models were compiled for each contaminant.
This information was compared to the organic carbon partition coefficient (Koc)
43.795
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 9-4
and Henry’s Law Constants (H) of each contaminant in order to determine the general relationship between a contaminant’s physical-chemical constants and its ability to leach from soil to groundwater. The resulting relationship is defined by the above DAF equation.
9.2 Calculation of Soil Leaching Screening Levels
The soil leaching levels are calculated using one of the two following approaches depending on the contaminant’s ability to sorb to soil.
9.2.1 Chemicals with Low to Moderate Soil Sorptivity
The soil leaching levels are calculated using the following soil leaching level equation 11:
Csoil = Cgw x DAF x 0.001 mg/μg
where:
Csoil = leaching based soil concentration (mg/kg)
Cgw = target groundwater screening level (μg/L)
DAF = dilution-attenuation factor; chemical-specific DAF input values are calculated using the DAF equation given in Section 9.1.2. (equation 11)
9.2.2 Chemicals with High Soil Sorptivity
For highly sorptive chemicals, the screening levels are set to each chemical’s theoretical soil saturation (Csat), which is described in Chapter 10. Examples of highly sorptive chemicals in the ESLs include benzo[a]pyrene, chlordane, DDT, dioxin, heptachlor, PCBs, pyrene, and toxaphene.
Highly sorptive chemicals are identified if both of the following chemical-specific criteria are true:
• Calculated Csoil is greater than 0.001 mg/kg; and
• Koc is greater than 30,000 cm3/gram.
The Koc threshold of 30,000 cm3/g for designating chemicals as highly sorptive is based on modeling carried out by the Hawai'i Department of Health (HDOH 1995). HDOH used the SESOIL model with inputs for annual rainfall (400 cm/year or 158 inches/year), infiltration rate (144 cm/year or 57 inches/year), and permeable soil overlying fractured bedrock. These input values are much larger than those expected for California, and therefore use of this threshold Koc value for determination of highly sorptive chemicals in California is conservative.
43.796
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 9-5
9.3 Exceptions
9.3.1 Metals
Soil leaching ESLs were not developed for metals because leaching of metals from soil is highly dependent on the species of the metal present and the geochemical nature of the soil (e.g., pH, redox). At sites where physical-chemical conditions may promote enhanced leaching of metals and other chemicals from soils or waste piles, direct groundwater sampling or the use of laboratory-based leaching tests is recommended (see Section 9.4).
In contrast to the ESLs, the USEPA RSLs include soil leaching values for metals for resident soil to groundwater based on target groundwater levels for tapwater or the MCL. Development of the soil leaching RSLs for metals is based on pHspecific assumptions that should be confirmed when applying soil leaching RSLs for metals to a particular site. Further information is presented in the RSL User’s Guide under “soil to groundwater” (USEPA 2018c).
9.3.2 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
The default Koc of 33,000 cm3/g in ESL Workbook Table S-3 is considered adequately conservative for Aroclor mixtures 1242, 1254, or 1260, which are the typical mixtures encountered at Bay Area cleanup sites. For less chlorinated PCB mixtures, a site-specific evaluation could be performed.
9.3.3 Perchlorate
A soil leaching ESL was developed for perchlorate (ClO4-). Perchlorate is a salt, and is not sorptive, volatile, or biodegradable under normal conditions. Use of the SESOIL/AT123D approach was therefore not considered appropriate. As an alternative, the chemical partitioning model presented in the USEPA Soil Screening Level Guidance document (USEPA 1996b) was used (equation 12).
This model can be used to calculate the total soil concentration of a chemical based on a target dissolved-phase concentration of the chemical in the soil (i.e., concentration in leachate). For perchlorate, Koc and H' are presumed to be zero and the equation reduces to equation 13:
43.797
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 9-6
Csoil= Cwater × �(Koc× foc) + �
θw + (θa×H')
ρb
�� × DAF
where:
Csoil = soil screening level for leaching concerns (mg/kg); Cwater = target dissolved-phase concentration (mg/L);
Koc = organic carbon partition coefficient;
foc = fraction organic carbon in soil;
θw = water-filled porosity;
θa = air-filled porosity;
H' = dimensionless Henry's Law constant;
ρb = soil bulk density (g/cm3);
DAF = dilution/attenuation factor
(equation 12)
Csoil=Cwater× �
θw
ρb
� ×DAF
(equation 13)
The default water-filled porosity in the models is 0.15 and the default soil bulk density is 1.5 per Workbook Table IP-3.
9.4 Site-Specific Evaluations
For sites where soil concentrations exceed the soil leaching ESL, the default assumption is that chemicals are being leached to groundwater until demonstrated otherwise via site-specific evaluation. Site-specific evaluations may be needed more often in the following cases where the SESOIL/AT123D approach has been shown to be more conservative:
• Leaching of highly volatile chemicals;
• Leaching of highly sorptive chemicals;
• Leaching of highly biodegradable chemicals;
• Sites where the first groundwater is significantly greater than one meter below the bottom of the contaminated soil.
Several options for site-specific evaluation are discussed below. Alternative approaches will be considered, provided there is adequate technical justification.
For regulatory review, either a detailed work plan should be submitted, or a thorough scoping meeting conducted before completing the evaluation or
43.798
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 9-7
submitting a report of findings. This important step reduces the likelihood of unnecessary and costly work and greatly improves the likelihood of regulatory concurrence.
9.4.1 Calculate Leaching Screening Level for a Specific Groundwater Target Level
There may be situations where the user wishes to manually calculate a soil leaching to groundwater level for a specified groundwater target that represents a single concern (e.g., aquatic habitat ESL, tapwater ESL), rather than the drinking water or non-drinking water targets used in the Leaching ESLs. The following are instructions for the calculational of groundwater target specific leaching screening levels:
1. Select the DAF for the target chemical from ESL Table S-3 or IP-1.
2. Select the target groundwater concentration (Cgw) for the user’s specific application.
3. Multiply the DAF x Cgw x 0.001 mg/µg to calculate the chemical’s soil leaching level.
9.4.2 Calculating Site Specific DAFs
DAFs address the mixing of contaminants leached from soil with groundwater and can be calculated by inputting site-specific parameters into the equations provided in the USEPA Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document (USEPA 1996b) or other sources. For the Bay Area, simple leachate/groundwater mixing DAFs for shallow aquifers would typically fall in the range of 5 for silty soils to 20 for sandy soils, assuming a 2 meter thick shallow aquifer, 30 percent effective porosity, infiltration rate of 8 centimeters per year (3 inches/year or approximately 15 percent of total, average rainfall), and hydraulic conductivities of 2 meters per day and 15 meters per day, respectively.
Potentially less conservative DAFs that also address adsorption, volatilization, and other factors can be calculated using more rigorous models (e.g., SESOIL).
Consultation with the overseeing regulatory is recommended before implementing such an evaluation.
9.4.3 Groundwater Testing
For older release sites where groundwater is relatively shallow (e.g., less than 10 feet bgs), the preferred approach to evaluating soil leaching to groundwater is to conduct a groundwater investigation. However, if the depth to groundwater is great (e.g., more than 100 feet bgs), site-specific evaluations might include fate
43.799
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 9-8
and transport modeling and/or simulated leaching tests performed in a laboratory, with appropriate confirmation sampling.
9.4.4 Leachability Testing
The more common leachability testing approaches include the Synthetic Precipitation Leachate Procedure (USEPA Method 1312), or the California Waste Extraction Test modified with an alternative extractant such as deionized water, rainwater (pH adjusted and buffered), or site groundwater. For inorganic constituents, the USEPA Leaching Environmental Assessment Framework (LEAF) methods should be considered (USEPA 2017c).
9.4.5 Evaluating Saturated Soils
Although the soil leaching screening levels could be applied to saturated soil, there should be a reasoned analysis of potential limitations. For instance, laboratory analysis of soil samples collected from saturated zones will detect both contaminants sorbed to the soil matrix as well as dissolved in groundwater.
Therefore, direct comparison to soil or groundwater screening levels may be inappropriate.
43.800
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 10-1
10 Methods: Gross Contamination
Screening Levels for Groundwater and Soil
ESL Workbook Tables GW-4 (Water Gross Contamination) and S-4 (Soil Gross Contamination) include gross contamination screening levels for groundwater and soil. These screening levels are intended to help identify the potential presence of non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL or “free product”). The generic CSM for the ESLs applies to development of these screening levels. These levels could be considered when evaluating source control measures.
10.1 Calculation of Gross Contamination Screening Levels
10.1.1 Groundwater
The gross contamination screening levels for groundwater rely on solubility to indicate the potential presence of NAPL. The selected threshold is one-half of the water solubility for each chemical or mixture. For chemicals where the threshold exceeds 50,000 μg/L, a maximum value of 50,000 μg/L is used to limit the amount of resource degradation (ESL Workbook Table GW-4, after MADEP 1994a).
10.1.2 Soil
The gross contamination soil ESLs are based on the theoretical saturation level of a chemical in soil (Csat; ESL Workbook Table S-4). As shown in equation 12, Csat corresponds to the contaminant concentration in soil at which the absorptive limits of the soil particles, the solubility limits of the soil pore water, and the saturation of soil pore air have been reached (USEPA 1996b). Therefore, above these concentrations, contaminants are present as NAPL or pure phase solids (for liquids and solids respectively) which are generally more likely to migrate.
𝑪𝑪sat =
𝑺𝑺
𝝆𝝆𝒃𝒃
[(𝑲𝑲𝒅𝒅 × 𝝆𝝆𝒃𝒃) + 𝜣𝜣𝒘𝒘 + (𝑯𝑯 × 𝜣𝜣𝒂𝒂)]
where:
S = Solubility
𝝆𝝆𝒃𝒃 = Dry Soil Bulk Density
𝑲𝑲𝒅𝒅 = Soil-Water Partition Coefficient
𝜣𝜣𝒘𝒘 = Water Filled Soil Porosity
H = Henery's Law Constant
𝜣𝜣𝒂𝒂 = Air Filled Soil Porosity
(equation 14)
43.801
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 10-2
Gross contamination ESLs do not address risk from “residual NAPL,” which is the proportion of NAPL that becomes adsorbed in soil pores and is immobile due to capillary forces. Residual NAPL can also be referred to as “discontinuous NAPL” (USEPA 1995b). Since residual NAPL is immobile it only poses a risk within its immediate vicinity. Those risks are addressed by the direct exposure and odor nuisance ESLs.
10.2 Exceptions
The only exceptions to the methodology described above are for petroleum hydrocarbon mixture ESLs for soil. For chemical mixtures such as petroleum hydrocarbon fuels and oils that are fractionally soluble in water, Csat values calculated using equation 14 above significantly underestimate the concentration where there is mobile or migrating NAPL because it does not consider effective solubility or vapor pressure (Brost and DeVaull 2000). In addition, the proportion of immobile residual petroleum NAPL is dependent on many factors related to the characteristics of the mixture (e.g., viscosity, density) and soils (e.g., pore sizes) (USEPA 1995b). In finer-grained soils, residual saturation values are higher because there is greater surface area for capillary forces to hold NAPL in place. Therefore, to address these issues and provide a more reasonable estimate of petroleum mobility, the Csat (or residual saturation) values used for the TPH gross contamination soil ESLs correspond to values developed in Brost and DeVaull (2000) based on coarse gravel saturation:
• 1,000 mg/kg (Petroleum-Gasoline);
• 2,300 mg/kg (Petroleum-Stoddard Solvent, Petroleum-Jet Fuel, and Petroleum-Diesel; the diesel value is applied to the other two mixtures as a surrogate); and,
• 5,100 mg/kg (Petroleum-Motor Oil).
10.3 Site-Specific Evaluations
For sites where groundwater or soil concentrations exceed the gross contamination ESL, the default assumption is that NAPL is present and potentially mobile.
Several options for site-specific evaluations are discussed below. Alternative approaches will be considered, provided there is adequate technical justification.
For regulatory review, either a detailed work plan should be submitted, or a thorough scoping meeting conducted before completing the evaluation or submitting a report of findings. This important step reduces the likelihood of unnecessary and costly work and greatly improves the likelihood of regulatory concurrence.
43.802
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 10-3
Typically, site-specific evaluations for the presence of NAPL might include installing monitoring wells to assess the thickness of light NAPL (LNAPL; e.g., petroleum hydrocarbon mixtures) that will float on the groundwater due to lower density. Previously, field methods for finding the thickness of dense NAPL (DNAPL; e.g., chlorinated solvent mixtures) have been less successful (Einarson et al. 2018).
Other methods for finding petroleum NAPL have included laser-induced fluorescence, which fluoresces in response to aromatic hydrocarbon content (USEPA 1997). DyeLIF is a new technology that can be used for chlorinated solvent NAPLs (Einarson et al. 2018).
Site-specific evaluations of residual saturation for petroleum hydrocarbons can also be conducted (USEPA 1996d).
43.803
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 11-1
11 Methods: Taste and Odor Nuisance
Screening Levels for All Media
The ESLs consider potential nuisance conditions for humans due to unpleasant tastes in groundwater or unpleasant odors in groundwater, soil gas, soil, and indoor air resulting from site contamination. The “nuisance” ESLs are presented in four ESL Workbook tables where the exposure point is groundwater (Workbook Table GW-5), soil (Workbook Table S-5), and indoor air (Workbook Table SG-2 and IA-2).
11.1 Background
Aesthetic concerns such as taste and odor are addressed in the State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water (DDW) and USEPA Secondary MCLs for select chemicals and general water quality parameters (e.g., pH, total dissolved solids, odor); these are also known as “consumer acceptance contaminant levels.” The Basin Plan requires that waters shall not contain taste‐ or odor‐producing substances in concentrations that impart undesirable tastes or odors to fish flesh or other edible products of aquatic origin, that cause nuisance (e.g., concentrations above secondary MCLs), or that adversely affect beneficial uses.
General methods used for taste and odor determinations under the Safe Drinking Water Act include Standard Method 2160 for taste and 2150 for odor (APHA 2017). These are sensory methods that provide an assessment of the presence or absence of flavor or odor to human panelists.
Much of the research regarding odors has been conducted in the context of drinking water, industrial hygiene for worker protection or, more recently, in understanding the cause and methods to mitigate odors from landfills, wastewater treatment plants, composting facilities and other agricultural activities (e.g., animal housing facilities). Findings from work at these types of facilities indicate the following are the primary odorous compounds (Iowa State University 2004; ALS Environmental 2019):
• Amines (nitrogenous compounds; examples trimethylamine, dimethylamine, butylamine) – produced by high temperature processes and microbial decomposition of amino acids
• Ammonia – commonly co-occurs with amines and is the result of aerobic and anaerobic decomposition, typically landfills, wastewater treatment plants (untreated sewage), composting, and animal waste • Carboxylic acids (volatile fatty acids or organic acids; examples include acetic, propanoic, butyric, valeric, and isovaleric acids) – Associated with agricultural activities, landfills, wastewater treatment plants and
43.804
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 11-2
composting. Carbohydrates in animal waste include sugars, starch, and cellulose. Starch and cellulose are broken into glucose (sugar) units as the first step of decomposition. Under anaerobic conditions, sugars are broken into alcohols, aldehydes, ketones, and organic acids. These compounds are odorous and can be further metabolized and transformed into methane, carbon dioxide, and water (non-odorous end-products) if conditions allow the methane-producing microorganisms to function. • Reduced sulfur compounds
• VOCs (e.g., terpenes, phenols, high molecular weight aldehydes and alcohols)
Odors are typically measured by using air samples diluted with non-odorous air or headspace air samples over water diluted with non-odorous water, which are then presented to human panelists for odor detection and/or recognition. The odor threshold or detection threshold is a term used to identify the concentration at which 50% of panelists can identify the presence of an odor or odorant without identifying the odor. The recognition threshold is the concentration at which 50% of panelists can identify the odorant or odor.
11.2 Groundwater Taste and Odor Nuisance Thresholds
The conceptual model for potential nuisance conditions in groundwater considers both taste and odor through the same exposure pathways described in Chapter 3 (groundwater used as tapwater for common domestic activities, such as drinking, bathing/showering, cooking, dishwashing/laundry, and flushing the toilet) and Chapter 7 (contaminated groundwater migrates toward and discharges into a body of surface water). The groundwater nuisance odor ESLs are presented in ESL Workbook Table GW-5. The application of these ESLs to a cleanup site implies that there is a discharge to surface water or that a well screened across a zone of groundwater contamination is the source of tapwater. Consideration of this exposure pathway should always be included when the designated beneficial uses of the groundwater include drinking water. Note that odor transport from insitu groundwater to indoor air via the vapor intrusion pathway is not considered.
11.2.1 Sources of Taste and Odor Threshold Values
Source of taste and odor threshold values are listed below. • DDW Secondary MCLs – These criteria are promulgated in California Code of Regulations Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15, Article 16. These values are not to be exceeded in the water supplied to the public by community water systems. The Secondary MCLs also include an Odor Threshold with a value of three threshold odor units, which is the total
43.805
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 11-3
volume of both the original sample and added blank (odorless) water divided by the total volume.
• USEPA Secondary MCLs – USEPA has established National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations that set non-mandatory water quality standards for 15 contaminants related to aesthetic considerations, such as taste, color, and odor. These levels are intended to assist public water systems in managing their drinking water.
• DDW Drinking Water Notification Levels – Formerly called “Action Levels” through 2004, notification levels are health-based advisory levels established for chemicals in drinking water that lack MCLs. When chemicals are found at concentrations greater than their notification levels, certain requirements and recommendations apply. Further information is available in “Drinking Water Notification Levels and Response Levels: An Overview” (DDW 2018).
• Odor Thresholds from MADEP (1994a) and MOEE (1996) – These guidance documents include water-dilution odor thresholds for groundwater and air-dilution odor thresholds for air.
• Odor Thresholds from State Water Board (2016) – This guidance includes water-dilution odor thresholds from various sources.
Most of the nuisance criteria used in the ESLs are based on odor considerations.
However, the contaminants in the ESLs with Secondary MCLs related to taste include copper and zinc.
11.2.2 Hierarchy for Taste and Odor Nuisance Thresholds A hierarchy for the different taste and odor thresholds available for groundwater is presented in Table 11-1. ESL Workbook Table GW-5 presents nuisance taste and odor screening levels for two categories of groundwater use: drinking water resource and non-drinking water resource. The hierarchy is used in selecting criteria for each category. For the drinking water resource category, criteria are selected from the highest available tier. For the non-drinking water resource criteria, criteria are selected starting with Tier 3.
43.806
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 11-4
Table 11-1 – Hierarchy of Taste and Odor Thresholds for Groundwater Tier Source
1 Division of Drinking Water (DDW) Secondary MCLs
2 USEPA Secondary MCLs
3 DDW Taste and Odor Action Levels
4 Water-dilution odor thresholds presented in Massachusetts DEP (MADEP 1994a) and Ontario MOEE (MOEE 1996) guidance
documents
5 Water-dilution odor thresholds (State Water Board 2016)
11.3 Soil Odor Nuisance Thresholds
The conceptual model for potential nuisance conditions in soil considers odor through the same exposure pathway described in Chapter 3: via intrusive activities such as landscaping or digging and inhalation of vapors released from the soil. Consequently, the soil nuisance odor ESLs are presented in ESL Workbook Table S-5.
A chemical’s potential to cause nuisance odors is dictated by its volatility and potency of its odor. A chemical’s vapor pressure (in Torr, at 20-30 degrees Celsius) can be used to assess relative volatility, and its odor-recognition threshold can be used to assess relative potency of the chemical’s odor. These are used to derive an Odor Index, which is a relative ranking of a chemical’s potential to cause nuisance odors, in the following equation 15 (MADEP 1994a):
𝐎𝐎dor Index = Vapor Pressure
Odor Recognition Threshold
where:
vapor pressure = Torr at 20 to 30 degrees Celsius
odor recognition threshold = µg/m3
(equation 15)
Values and sources for vapor pressure and odor recognition threshold for each chemical are listed in ESL Workbook Table IP-1. Using the Odor Index and vapor pressure values allows the assignment of specific upper limit soil contamination levels based on land use in accordance with Table 11-2 (MADEP 1994a). These upper limit levels were used as the final odor nuisance soil ESLs.
43.807
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 11-5
Table 11-2 – Criteria for Assignment of Odor Upper Limit Levels for Soil Land Use,
Soil Exposure Depth
Odor &
Volatilization Criteria
Upper
Limit Level
(mg/kg)
Residential,
Shallow Soil
Odor Index > 100
OR
Vapor Pressure > 1 Torr
100
Residential,
Shallow Soil 0.1 < Odor Index < 100 500
Residential,
Shallow Soil Odor Index < 0.1 1,000
Commercial/
Industrial,
Shallow Soil
Odor Index > 100
OR
Vapor Pressure > 1 Torr
500
Commercial/
Industrial,
Shallow Soil
0.1 < Odor Index < 100 1,000
Commercial/
Industrial,
Shallow Soil
Odor Index < 0.1 2,500
Any Land Use,
Deep Soil
Odor Index > 100
OR
Vapor Pressure > 1 Torr
500
Any Land Use,
Deep Soil 0.1 < Odor Index < 100 1,000
Any Land Use,
Deep Soil Odor Index < 0.1 2,500
11.4 Indoor Air and Soil Gas Odor Nuisance Thresholds
The conceptual model for potential nuisance conditions in indoor air considers odor transport from vapors in soil (soil gas) via the vapor intrusion pathway (soil gas nuisance odor ESLs in ESL Workbook Table SG-1) and direct exposure in indoor air (indoor air nuisance odor ESLs in ESL Workbook Table IA-2).
Odor-based ESLs for indoor air reflect the 50 percent odor-recognition thresholds described for soil screening levels. For soil gas, the 50 percent odor thresholds
43.808
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 11-6
were divided by the generic soil gas attenuation factor of 0.03 to calculate a screening level. This attenuation factor is the same as the attenuation factor used for evaluating soil gas vapor intrusion into residential indoor air (Chapter 5).
11.5 Exceptions
Although Petroleum HOPs are considered to be relatively nonvolatile, experienced field staff have reported the presence of odors during excavations of petroleum-contaminated soil at older (weathered) release sites. It is suspected the odors are the result of the generation of volatile carboxylic acids during anaerobic biodegradation. Therefore, the nuisance odor ESL for PetroleumDiesel are used as a surrogate for the Petroleum-HOPs nuisance groundwater ESL.
11.6 Site-Specific Evaluations
For sites where media concentrations exceed the odor thresholds, the default assumption is that there is the potential for nuisance odor conditions.
Several options for site-specific evaluations are discussed below. However, such site-specific evaluations have yet to be performed under Regional Water Board staff oversight. Alternative approaches will be considered, provided there is adequate technical justification. For regulatory review, either a detailed work plan should be submitted, or a thorough scoping meeting conducted before completing the evaluation or submitting a report of findings. This important step reduces the likelihood of unnecessary and costly work and greatly improves the likelihood of regulatory concurrence.
11.6.1 Field Investigations of Potential Nuisance Odor
Condition
Potential options for field investigations might include a site inspection(s) to assess nuisance odor conditions at ground surface or in buildings under ambient conditions or intrusive investigations (e.g., trenching) to assess potential conditions during future subsurface work (e.g., excavations, utility emplacement or repair). The use of field screening devices (e.g., a scentometer such as the Nasal Ranger or other tool) could be considered.
Water samples could be collected for evaluation for the potential odors via human panelists (e.g., Standard Method 2150, ASTM D1292-15, or other suitable methods) or by analyzing for specific potential odorants.
43.809
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 11-7
Similarly, air or soil gas samples might be collected for the potential odors via human panelists (e.g., ASTM E679-04 or other suitable methods) or for specific potential odorants using Draeger tubes or other methods.
As discussed in Section 11.1, specific potential odorants include amines, ammonia, volatile carboxylic acids, reduced sulfur compounds, and VOCs.
Potential analytical methods for such investigations are discussed in the brochure “Odor Testing” (ALS Environmental 2019).
11.6.2 Attenuation of Petroleum Vapors and Odors
As discussed in Section 5.4.3, aerobic biodegradation in the vadose zone can significantly reduce concentrations of petroleum vapors, presumably the cause of the odors. Provided there is adequate characterization of the distribution and extent of soil impacts and, in addition, biodegradation is demonstrated to be sufficiently attenuating petroleum vapors in accordance with Section 5.4.3, the bioattenuation factor of 1,000 can be applied to evaluate the potential for nuisance odors emitted from soil to impact outdoor air and to impact indoor air via soil gas, as follows:
• Adjustment of Nuisance Odor Soil Gas ESLs – For soil gas, the nuisance odor soil gas ESL should be multiplied by 1,000.
• Adjustment of Nuisance Odor Soil ESLs – For soil, the Odor Index should be adjusted by dividing by 1,000 then select the land use-based limit for soil in accordance with Table 11-2.
Soil gas samples can additionally be analyzed for odorants potentially associated with the petroleum mixture (e.g., reduced sulfur compounds for less refined fuels/oils and crude oil) and anaerobic biodegradation (e.g., reduced sulfur compounds, volatile carboxylic acids).
43.810
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 12-1
12 Additional Considerations
12.1 Multiple Chemical Species
Some contaminants can be present in the environment in different oxidation states or protonation states (acid/base chemistry) resulting in chemical species with different ionic charges. For example, most metals can be found in the environment in more than one oxidation state, such as chromium III (Cr III or Cr3+) and chromium VI (Cr VI or Cr6+). In addition, some chemicals can have various ionic charges depending on their protonation state at a given pH, such as cyanide (HCN versus CN−). The charge of these chemicals can change when it partitions between different media or when site conditions change. In these cases, every attempt should be made to determine the concentration of the most toxic species for comparison to risk-based screening levels.
12.1.1 Cyanide
The ESLs are based on the most toxic form, which is the protonated form (HCN) versus the negatively charged form (CN−).
12.1.2 Chromium
The ESLs include screening levels for both Cr III and Cr VI, which are both naturally occurring forms of chromium and inter-convertible in the environment (OEHHA 2011). Cr VI is the more toxic species with both carcinogenic toxicity (including a mutagenic mode of action) and noncarcinogenic toxicity (USEPA 2005). Cr III only has noncarcinogenic toxicity and has much higher screening levels than Cr VI.
The ESLs do not include risk-based soil screening levels for total chromium.
Since there is no set ratio for proportions of the different forms of chromium in the environment, screening levels for total chromium can give a false sense of security if they assume lower levels of Cr VI than are actually present at a site.
Therefore, we recommend that the concentration of Cr VI (the most toxic species) or both species be measured for comparison to risk‐based screening levels. For older data sets where speciation was not performed, it would be prudent to conduct some sampling to ascertain the concentrations of the different forms present. Currently, the MCL for chromium in drinking water is 50 µg/L for total Cr, which is well above the risk-based level for Cr VI.
43.811
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 12-2
12.2 Chemicals Without ESLs
ESLs for chemicals or mixtures not included can be developed in consultation with the overseeing regulatory agency if sufficient information is available (e.g., toxicity values, physical/chemical constants). As an initial step, consult DTSC Human Health Risk Assessment Note 3 (DTSC-modified screening levels), and then, if necessary, the UEPA RSLs because these agencies maintain screening levels for more chemicals. These screening levels are briefly described in Chapter 1.
Keep in mind that the lack of a risk-based ESL does not mean that nothing needs to be done or that there is no concern at any level. If this situation arises, close consultation and coordination with the Regional Water Board or overseeing regulatory agency is strongly advised. In California, no one has a vested right to discharge chemicals to the groundwaters or surface waters of the state.
12.3 Chemical Degradation and Generation of Transformation Products
Considering the degradation of a chemical (“parent compound”) to toxic breakdown products (“daughter products”) is an important aspect of site investigation. Living organisms including microorganisms present in environmental media, break down organic molecules in several steps and some intermediates may be relatively persistent and contribute to the toxicity of the release. The rates of formation of toxic metabolites and their degradation depend on the nature of the contamination and the site conditions (such as oxygen levels or geochemistry, which affect the nature of the resident microbial populations). In most cases, both the parent compound and daughter products are present together; therefore, the cumulative risk should be considered as described in Section 3.5. Transformative processes are sometimes distinguished from destructive processes. The processes can be described as follows (NJDEP 2016):
• Transformative processes can be biotic or abiotic and result in a net change of chemical composition and accompanying changes in contaminant toxicity and/or mobility. Examples of such processes are microbially mediated dechlorination reactions found in reducing environments. Transformative processes may result in a toxicity decrease or increase. One of the better-known examples is the breakdown of PCE to TCE to dichloroethene and then to vinyl chloride. Both TCE and vinyl chloride are more toxic than the parent compounds, whereas dichloroethene is less toxic than the parent compounds. Another example is the biotransformation of mercuric ions to methylmercury, which is much more toxic than the parent contaminants.
43.812
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 12-3
• Destructive processes can be biotic or abiotic and result in net mineralization (i.e., breakdown of the compound to carbon dioxide, water, and other inorganic metabolites). Transformative changes can be part of a sequential series of reactions leading to destructive processes.
12.4 Naturally Occurring Background and Ambient Chemicals Background refers to constituents or locations that are not influenced by the releases at a site and is usually differentiated as naturally occurring versus anthropogenic (USEPA 1989):
• Naturally Occurring Background – Concentrations of chemicals that are present in the environment and have not been influenced by humans (e.g., arsenic, manganese).
• Ambient (Anthropogenic) – Concentrations of chemicals that are present in the environment due to human-made, non-site sources (e.g., industry, automobiles, stormwater runoff). Examples include dioxins and PAHs.
The natural background concentration of a chemical in soil or groundwater can vary substantially between sites, or even between soil types within a single site.
For situations where naturally occurring background concentrations exceed an ESL (see arsenic section in this chapter), it may be appropriate to substitute the background concentration for the ESL, but this is a site-specific decision that should be made in consultation with the overseeing regulatory agency. Cleanup to less than background or ambient concentrations is not generally required (USEPA 2002b). For quantitative risk assessments, USEPA recommends that background be carried through and included in the cumulative risk assessment because knowledge of background risks can help community members to put chemical risks from site releases in perspective. However, it is not appropriate to require cleanup to concentrations below the background concentrations.
Background concentrations typically are evaluated by collecting on-site samples, located upgradient of the suspected release or from another un-impacted location but in a similar setting (soils, vegetation, etc.). Local data collected during other studies may also be suitable. Methods to establish a site-specific background or the use of appropriate regional background studies should be verified with the overseeing regulatory agency before using non risk-based values at a site. Guidance that may be useful for distinguishing concentrations of chemicals in soil and groundwater from background include:
• Selecting Inorganic Constituents as Chemicals of Potential Concern at Risk Assessments at Hazardous Waste Sites and Permitted Facilities (DTSC 1997)
43.813
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 12-4
• HERO HHRA Note 4 (DTSC 2016b) includes updated recommendations regarding the evaluation of background. Specifically, Note 4 recommends both site-related risk and hazard and background-related risk and hazard be calculated, consistent with USEPA (2002c).
• Engineering Forum Issue Paper: Determination of Background Concentrations of Inorganics in Soils and Sediments at Hazardous Waste Sites (USEPA 1995a);
• Guidance for Comparing Background and Chemical Concentrations in Soil for CERCLA Sites (USEPA 2002c)
Concentrations of naturally occurring metals should be considered on a site by site basis. All reasonable efforts should be made to measure site-specific background levels where appropriate.
There are several sources for published background values for metals that could be considered for sites in the region. These are listed in Table 12-1 for the user’s convenience and are not an unrestricted endorsement. Identification and selection of appropriate background values for a specific site should be discussed with the overseeing regulatory agency.
Table 12-1 – Publications Regarding Naturally Occurring Background Levels
Year Title and Author
1984 Elemental Concentrations in Soils and Other Surficial Materials of the Conterminous United States (USGS)
1991 Background Metal Concentrations in Soils in Northern Santa Clara County (Scott)
1996 Background Concentrations of Trace and Major Elements in California Soils (Kearney Foundation of Soil Science)
2009
Analysis of Background Distributions of Metals in the Soil at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory)
2011 Establishing Background Arsenic in Soil of the Urbanized San Francisco Bay Region (Duvergé)
12.4.1 Example: Naturally Occurring Arsenic
Arsenic concentrations in site soils typically exceed risk-based screening levels (e.g., residential direct contact soil is 0.067 mg/kg) by one or more orders of magnitude. In many situations, this is due to naturally occurring background
43.814
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 12-5
concentrations although site-specific evaluations are still warranted.
Duvergé (2011) conducted a study of regional background concentrations of arsenic in undifferentiated urbanized flatland soils and proposed an upper estimate for background arsenic (99th percentile) of 11 mg/kg. This value can be used, as appropriate based on the study parameters, in consultation with the overseeing regulatory agency.
12.4.2 Example: Anthropogenic Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), discussed in Chapter 3, are an example of a group of compounds that is commonly found in the environment both due to site releases (e.g., crude oil spills, manufactured gas plant residues) and non-site releases since these can be the result of incomplete combustion of fuels in motor vehicles. Therefore, when investigating releases of mixtures with PAHs at a site, it can be important to understand whether there are ambient concentrations of PAHs. Cleanup of non-site-related contamination is not generally required.
12.5 Sediment Screening Levels
ESLs are not derived for sediment11 because Regional Water Board staff requires that sediment be evaluated based on sediment chemistry, toxicity tests, and condition of the benthic community in a multiple lines of evidence approach.
Consequently, the evaluation of sediment can be challenging. In addition, sediment environments are more dynamic; sediments can be moved, be buried, or eroded over time. This introduces a temporal component atypical of upland soils.
Table 12-2 provides list of some documents with sediment criteria or pertinent information for deriving sediment criteria. These are listed for the user’s convenience and are not an unrestricted endorsement. Identification and selection of appropriate sediment criteria for a specific site should be discussed with the overseeing regulatory agency.
11 Sediment – In the context of environmental site cleanup, sediment refers to granular materials beneath or adjacent to a water body (e.g., rivers, streams, bays) that are saturated continually or periodically by the water body. Typically, sediment samples have greater water content than upland soil.
43.815
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 12-6
In addition, some sediment toxicity testing has been performed on cleanup sites in the region. At the Presidio, saltwater sediment criteria of 12 mg/kg for TPH gasoline and 144 mg/kg TPH fuel oil (diesel range) were developed based on toxicity tests using amphipods (IT Corporation 1997).
Table 12-2 –Sediment Chemical Criteria or Relevant Guidance Year Title and Author
1995
Incidence of Adverse Biological Effects of Chemical
Concentrations in Marine and Estuarine Sediments. Long, E.R., D.D. MacDonald, S.L. Smith, and F.D. Calder. Environmental Management 19(1): 81-97.
1996a ECO Update: Ecotox Thresholds (USEPA)
1997 Preliminary Remedial Goals for Ecological Endpoints (USDOE) 2000a
Draft Staff Report – Beneficial Reuse of Dredged Materials:
Sediment Screening and Testing Guidelines (Regional Water Board)
2003a
Procedures for the Derivation of Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmarks (ESBs) for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: PAH Mixtures (USEPA)
2008 NOAA Screening Quick Reference Tables NOAA OR&R Report 08-1 (Buchman)
2008a
Procedures for the Derivation of Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmarks (ESBs) for the Protection of Benthic Organisms:
Compendium of Tier 2 Values for Nonionic Organics (USEPA) 2012d
Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmarks (ESBs) for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: Procedures for the
Determination of the Freely Dissolved Interstitial Water Concentrations of Nonionic Organics (USEPA)
2015 Updated Ambient Concentrations of Toxic Chemicals in San Francisco Bay Sediments (San Francisco Estuary Institute)
43.816
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 12-7
12.6 Laboratory Data Issues
12.6.1 Detection Limits and Reporting Limits
Method detection limits12 and laboratory reporting limits13 for individual chemicals are not directly considered in development of the ESLs. In some cases, ESLs may be less than typical method detection limits. Examples include the riskbased ESLs for dioxin in soil (2.2E-05 mg/kg residential). An evaluation of data quality objectives early in the investigation will help ensure that specific detection limits are appropriate for the project (USEPA 2006). For some analytes, it may be acceptable to consider the method reporting limit in place of the screening level, with the approval of the overseeing regulatory agency. However, in some situations it may be appropriate to work with the environmental laboratory to ensure that reporting limits are less than the ESLs. For certain chemicals (risk drivers), alternate low-detection-level methods may be appropriate. For determining a reasonable laboratory reporting limit to substitute as the screening level for a given chemical, the following approach is suggested, but ultimately should be approved by the overseeing regulatory agency: obtain reporting levels from three laboratories and use either the lowest or the median level, considering appropriate factors (e.g., protectiveness, cost, etc.)
12.6.2 Soil Data Reporting: Dry Weight Basis
All soil data should be reported on a dry-weight basis. This is because soil ingestion rates assumed in direct-exposure models are based on dry-weight studies (USEPA 1997b). Soil data are calculated by dividing the mass of the chemical of concern detected in the soil by the total weight of the soil. Note that the California Total Threshold Limit Concentrations, which are used for waste classification purposes (see Chapter 1), are in wet weight format.
12 The method detection limit is defined as the minimum concentration that can be measured and reported with 99 percent confidence that the concentration is greater than zero, but the exact concentration cannot be reliably quantified. 13 The laboratory reporting limit is the lowest amount of an analyte in a sample that can be quantitatively determined with stated, acceptable precision and accuracy. Typically the reporting limit is a multiple of the method detection limit.
43.817
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 12-8
12.7 Acute Hazards
The ESLs do not address acute hazards such as asphyxiation or fire and explosions. Nevertheless, methane and explosion hazards potentially can be encountered during site investigations due to biodegradation of petroleum releases and gasoline releases, respectively. Brief discussions are provided below.
12.7.1 Methane
Methane is non-toxic and therefore typically not evaluated in chemical risk assessments, which are focused on cancer risks and noncancer hazards.
However, methane can act as a simple asphyxiant and is a fire and explosion hazard when present at between 5 and 15 volume percent in air (Lundegard et al. 2000).
Naturally occurring methane is classified based on the predominant process by which it formed: thermogenic (produced by abiotic processes) or biogenic (produced by biological processes) (Lundegard et al. 2000). Thermogenic methane is produced at significant depths by thermal degradation of organic matter such as coal, natural gas, and oil. Biogenic methane is produced under anaerobic, near-surface conditions by microbial degradation of organic matter.
Such microbially-produced methane occurs widely in association with organicrich sediments and materials, including marine, lake, and river sediments; marshes and swamps; glacial drift; and in landfills and sewers. In addition, methane can be generated from the anaerobic biodegradation of hydrocarbons from petroleum releases. (Chaplin et al. 2002; USEPA 2015b).
Methane readily degrades under aerobic conditions, but the process creates an oxygen demand that can increase the typical petroleum vapor intrusion separation distances required for full aerobic biodegradation. It can take years for soil gas methane profiles to be fully established following a significant petroleum release (Chaplin et al. 2002).
The USEPA OSWER VI Guide (USEPA 2015a) and USEPA OUST PVI Guide (USEPA 2015b) address methane and its hazards. The DTSC Evaluation of Biogenic Methane: A Guidance Prepared for the Evaluation of Biogenic Methane in Constructed Fills and Dairy Sites also provides helpful information (DTSC 2012). For instance, evaluating the potential explosion hazard posed by methane involves measuring concentration and the vapor pressure gradient in soil to assess potential methane formation and flux into a structure.
43.818
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 12-9
12.7.2 Explosion Hazards
The ESLs do not consider explosion hazards. One source for Lower Explosive Limit/LEL and Upper Explosive Limit/UEL values is NIOSH (2007).
12.8 Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)
Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) can have implications for the investigation, evaluation (screening), remediation, or long-term management of cleanup sites.
The Federal Clean Water Act requires states to identify water bodies that do not meet water quality standards and to develop TMDLs to ensure the attainment of water quality standards. TMDLs therefore are surface water body and pollutant specific. TMDLs define how much of a pollutant a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards; this is referred to as allocation. They also specify actions to be implemented as solutions to the water quality impairment.
TMDLs adopted for the San Francisco Bay region are listed on the Regional Water Board’s website.14 The following are two examples of TMDLs that can have implications for cleanup sites:
• Mercury (San Francisco Bay) (2008) – The TMDL includes no (zero) allocation for discharge of mercury from cleanup sites. In addition, the Basin Plan Amendment vacated the water column water quality objective and replaced it with a fish tissue objective, which has implications for screening. The ESL team is evaluating this issue.
• PCBs (San Francisco Bay) (2010) – The TMDL established an initial 20- year timeframe for reducing PCBs in fish tissue to safe levels for human consumption, a ten-fold reduction. To achieve this, surface sediment PCB concentrations in San Francisco Bay must be reduced to an average of 1 µg/kg, again, a ten-fold decrease. The fact sheet “San Francisco Bay PCBs TMDL – Implementation at Cleanup & Spill Sites” discusses how the PCB sediment TMDL relates to upland soil cleanup sites (Regional Water Board 2017a). Regional Water Board staff recommends the use of analytical methods capable of achieving lower laboratory reporting limits for near-surface soil samples than may be required for a typical upland cleanup sites to better document residual concentrations of PCBs that could be transported offsite to the Bay (e.g., stormwater runoff). These lower detection limits will help improve management of residual PCBs where present in surface soils. The desired reporting limit is at or close to
14 http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/TMDLs/
43.819
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 12-10
0.001 mg/kg (1 µg/kg), which contrasts with the residential direct contact soil ESL of 0.25 mg/kg or the commercial/industrial direct contact soil ESL of 1 mg/kg for PCBs.
43.820
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 13-1
13 References
The references listed in this section are cited in the User’s Guide, Workbook, or the Frequently Asked Questions.
ALS Environmental. 2019. Analytical Methods for Odor Investigations:
Carboxylic Acids, Amines, Reduced Sulfur Compounds and VOC Screen.
Accessed March 20. (Webpage)
Amoore J. E. and Hautala E. 1983. Odor as an aid to chemical safety: Odor thresholds compared with threshold limit values and volatilities for 214 industrial chemicals in air and water dilution. Journal of Applied Toxicology 3:
272-290. December.
Anderson, M. 1992. Development of Generic Soil Clean-up Levels Based on Analysis of Leachate Pathway. Environmental Clean-up Division, Department of Environmental Quality, State of Oregon.
APHA [American Public Health Association]. 2017. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater.
Arthur D. Little, Inc. 1981. SESOIL: A Seasonal Soil Compartment Model.
Prepared for USEPA (prepared by M. Bonazountas and J. Wagner).
December.
ASTM (American Society of Testing and Materials). 2015. D1292-15 – Standard Test Method for Odor in Water.
ASTM E679-04. 2011. Standard Practice for Determination of Odor and Taste Thresholds By a Forced-Choice Ascending Concentration Series Method of Limits.
Atlantic PIRI [Partnership in Risk-Based Corrective Action]. 2012. Atlantic RBCA for Petroleum-Impacted Sites in Atlantic Canada, Version 3, User Guidance.
July.
Atlas, R. M. 1981. Microbial Degradation of Petroleum Hydrocarbons: An Environmental Perspective. Microbiol. Rev. 45 (1), 180−209.
ATSDR [Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry]. 1994.
Toxicological Profile for Chlordane. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. May.
ATSDR. 1995a. Toxicological Profile for Fuel Oils. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. June.
ATSDR. 1995b. Toxicological Profile for Gasoline. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. June.
43.821
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 13-2
ATSDR. 1995c. Toxicological Profile for Stoddard Solvent. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health. June.
ATSDR. 1995d. Toxicological Profile for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. August.
ATSDR. 1999. Toxicological Profile for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH).
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. September.
ATSDR. 2000. Toxicological Profile for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.
November.
ATSDR. 2002. Toxicological Profile for DDT, DDE, and DDD. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. September.
ATSDR. 2015. Toxicological Profile for Endosulfan. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Public Health Service. August.
ATSDR. 2017. Toxicological Profile for JP-5, JP-8, and Jet A Fuels. U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services. Public Health Service. March.
Barron, M.G., T. Podrabsky, S. Ogle, and R.W. Ricker. 1999. Are Aromatic Hydrocarbons the Primary Determinant of Petroleum Toxicity to Aquatic Organisms? Aquatic Toxicology 46:253–268.
Bekins, B.A., I.M. Cozzarelli, M.L. Erickson, R.A. Steenson, and K.A. Thorn. 2016. Crude Oil Metabolites in Groundwater at Two Spill Sites. Groundwater, 54(5), 681-691. DOI:10.1111/gwat.12419.
Bekins, B. A. and Cozzarelli, I. M. 2017. Nonvolatile dissolved organic carbon and diesel range organics concentrations measured in 2016 at the USGS crude oil study site near Bemidji, Minnesota, USA. U. S. Geological Survey Data Release. (Webpage)
Boehm, P.D. 2006. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Environmental Forensics—Contaminant Specific Guide. Edited by B.L. Murphy and R.D.
Morrison. Elsevier. pp. 313-334.
Booth, A.M., P.A. Sutton, C.A. Lewis, A.C. Lewis, A. Scarlett, W. Chau, J.
Widdows, and S.J. Rowland. 2007. Unresolved Complex Mixtures of Aromatic Hydrocarbons: Thousands of Overlooked Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Contaminants in Mussels. Environmental Science and Technology, 41, pp. 457-464.
Brack W. 2003. Effect-Directed Analysis: A Promising Tool for the Identification of Organic Toxicants in Complex Mixtures. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 377:397-407.
43.822
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 13-3
Brewer, R., Nagashima, J., Kelley, M. and M. Rigby. 2013. Risk-Based Evaluation of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Vapor Intrusion Studies:
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Volume 10, pp 2441-2467. June.
Brost, E.J. and G.E. DeVaull. 2000. Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (NAPL) Mobility Limits in Soil. Soil and Groundwater Research Bulletin No. 9. American Petroleum Institute. June.
Burns & McDonnell Waste Consultants, Inc. 1997. Aquatic Toxicity of Petroleum Products (Task 3B) at the San Francisco International Airport, San Mateo County. March.
Burns & McDonnell Waste Consultants, Inc. 1999. Toxicity Test of Jet A Fuel to Mysids. March 26.
CalEPA [California Environmental Protection Agency]. 2005. Use of California Human Health Screening Levels (CHHSLs) in Evaluation of Contaminated Properties. California Environmental Protection Agency. January.
CalEPA. 2015. Advisory – Active Soil Gas Investigations. California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, and San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. July.
Carney, M.W., K. Erwin, R. Hardman, B. Yuen, D.C. Volz, D.E. Hinton, and S.W.
Kuhlman. 2008. Differential Developmental Toxicity of Naphthoic Acid Isomers in Medaka (Oryzias latipes) Embryos. Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 57, pp. 255-266.
CCME [Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment]. 2008. Canada-Wide Standard for Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHC) in Soil: Scientific Rationale.
Chadwick B. and A. Hawkins, 2008. Monitoring of Water and Contaminant Migration at the Groundwater-Surface Water Interface (ER200422) – Final Report, SPAWAR Systems Center San Diego Technical Report 1967.
January.
Chaplin, B.P., G.N. Delin, R.J. Baker, and M.A. Lahvis. 2002. Long-Term Evolution of Biodegradation and Volatilization Rates in a Crude OilContaminated Aquifer. Bioremediation Journal, 6:3, 237 — 255.
Chibwe, L., M.C. Geier, J. Nakamura, R.L. Tanguay, M.D. Aitken, S.L.M.
Simonich. 2015. Aerobic Bioremediation of PAH Contaminated Soil Results in Increased Genotoxicity and Developmental Toxicity. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49 (23), 13889−13898.
Cole, S., I.D. Codling, W. Parr and T. Zabel. 1999. Guidelines for Managing Water Quality Impacts within UK European Marine Sites. Prepared for the United Kingdom Marine Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) Project.
October.
43.823
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 13-4
Cozzarelli, I.M., M.E. Schreiber, M.L. Erickson, and B.A. Ziegler. 2015. Arsenic Cycling in Hydrocarbon Plumes: Secondary Effects of Natural Attenuation.
Groundwater, pp. 1-11.
DDW (State Water Resources Control Board – Division of Drinking Water). 2018.
Drinking Water Notification Levels and Response Levels: An Overview.
California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Board. July 13.
DTSC [Department of Toxic Substances Control]. 1996a. Guidance for Ecological Risk Assessment at Hazardous Waste Sites and Permitted Facilities; Part A Overview. California Environmental Protection Agency, DTSC. July 4.
DTSC. 1996b. Guidance for Ecological Risk Assessment at Hazardous Waste Sites and Permitted Facilities; Part B Scoping Assessment. California Environmental Protection Agency, DTSC. July 4.
DTSC. 1997. Selecting Inorganic Constituents as Chemicals of Potential Concern at Risk Assessments at Hazardous Waste Sites and Permitted Facilities. California Environmental Protection Agency, DTSC. February.
DTSC. 1998. HERO Ecological Risk Assessment Note 1 – Depth of Soil Samples Used to Set Exposure Point Concentration for Burrowing Mammals and Burrow-Dwelling Birds in an Ecological Risk Assessment. California Environmental Protection Agency, DTSC, Human Health and Ecological Risk Office. May 15.
DTSC. 2002. Response Actions for Sites Where Future Uses May Include Sensitive Uses. California Environmental Protection Agency, DTSC, Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program, Management Memo EO-02-002- MM (July 10, 2002).
DTSC. 2004. Guidance Document for the Implementation of United States Environmental Protection Agency Method 5035: Methodologies for Collection, Preservation, Storage, and Preparation of Soils to be Analyzed for Volatile Organic Compounds. California Environmental Protection Agency, DTSC.
November.
DTSC. 2009. Use of the Northern and Southern California Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) Studies in the Manufactured Gas Plant Site Cleanup Process. California Environmental Protection Agency, DTSC. July 1.
DTSC. 2011a. User’s Guide to LeadSpread 8 and Recommendations for Evaluation of Lead Exposures in Adults. California Environmental Protection Agency, California DTSC, Office of Human and Ecological Risk (HERO).
September.
DTSC. 2011b. Final Guidance for the Evaluation and Mitigation of Subsurface Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air (Vapor Intrusion Guidance). California Environmental Protection Agency, DTSC. October.
43.824
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 13-5
DTSC. 2011c. Final Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Advisory, Revision 1. California Environmental Protection Agency, DTSC. October.
DTSC. 2012. Evaluation of Biogenic Methane: A Guidance Prepared for the Evaluation of Biogenic Methane in Constructed Fills and Dairy Sites.
California Environmental Protection Agency, DTSC. March 28.
DTSC. 2015. Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual.
California Environmental Protection Agency, DTSC. October.
DTSC. 2016a. Human Health Risk Assessment Note 6, Issue: Recommended Methodology for Evaluating Site-Specific Arsenic Bioavailability in California Soils. California Environmental Protection Agency, DTSC, Office of Human and Ecological Risk (HERO). August 22.
DTSC. 2016b. Human Health Risk Assessment Note 4, Issue: Screening Level Human Health Risk Assessments. California Environmental Protection Agency, DTSC, Office of Human and Ecological Risk (HERO). October 26.
DTSC. 2017. Human Health Risk Assessment Note 2 – Interim, Issue: Remedial Goals for Dioxins and Dioxin-like Compounds for Consideration at California Hazardous Waste Sites. California Environmental Protection Agency, DTSC, Office of Human and Ecological Risk (HERO). April.
DTSC. 2018. Final Statement of Reasons: Toxicity Criteria for Human Health Risk Assessments, Screening Levels, and Remediation Goals. California Environmental Protection Agency, DTSC. September 4. (Webpage) DTSC. 2019a. Human Health Risk Assessment Note 10 Toxicity Criteria, Issue:
Required Toxicity Criteria under sections (§) 69021(a), (b), and (c) of the Toxicity Criteria for Human Health Risk Assessments, Screening Levels, and Remediation Goals Rule and Specification of DTSC-Recommended Toxicity Criteria for Other Analytes Evaluated in Human Health Risk Assessments, Screening-Levels, and Remediation-Goal Calculations. California Environmental Protection Agency, DTSC, Office of Human and Ecological Risk (HERO). February 25.
DTSC. 2019b. Human Health Risk Assessment Note 1, Issue: Recommended DTSC Default Exposure Factors for Use in Risk Assessment at California Hazardous Waste Sites and Permitted Facilities. California Environmental Protection Agency, DTSC, Office of Human and Ecological Risk (HERO).
April 9.
DTSC. 2019c. Human Health Risk Assessment Note 3, Issue: DTSC-modified Screening Levels (DTSC-SLs). California Environmental Protection Agency, DTSC, Office of Human and Ecological Risk (HERO). April.
Duvergé, D.J., 2011. Establishing Background Arsenic in Soil of the Urbanized San Francisco Bay Region. Master’s thesis, San Francisco State University.
43.825
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 13-6
Einarson, M., A. Fure, R. St. Germain, S. Chapman, and B. Parker. 2018.
DyeLIF: A New Direct-Push Laser-Induced Fluorescence Sensor System for Chlorinated Solvent DNAPL and Other Non-Naturally Fluorescing NAPLs.
Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation, 38 (3): 28-42.
Ettinger, R.A., S. Luis, N. Weinberg, T. McAlary, G. Plantz, H. Dawson, J.
Sickenger. 2018. Empirical Analysis of Vapor Intrusion Attenuation Factors for Sub-Slab and Soil Vapor – An Updated Assessment for California Sites.
Presented at the Air & Waste Management Association Vapor Intrusion, Remediation, and Site Closure Conference. December.
Gao, S., J. Seo, J. Wang, Y. Keum, J. Li, and Q.X. Li. 2013. Multiple Degradation Pathways of Phenanthrene by Stenotrophomonas Maltophilia C6.
Biodexterior Biodegradation 79: 98-104.
Guo, Y., C. Holton, H. Luo, P. Dahlen, K. Gorder, E. Dettenmaier, and P.C.
Johnson. 2015. Identification of Alternative Vapor Intrusion Pathways Using Controlled Pressure Testing, Soil Gas Monitoring, and Screening Model Calculations. Environmental Science & Technology, 49, pp. 13472−13482.
Hartman, B. 1998. The Great Escape—From the UST: LUSTLine Vol. 30, 18–20.
HDOH [Hawai’i Department of Health]. 1995. Risk-Based Corrective Action and Decision Making at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater. State of Hawai'i, Department of Health, December. 1995 (revised June 1996).
HDOH. 2011 (Updated January 2012). Evaluation of Environmental Hazards at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater.
HDOH. 2012. Field Investigation of the Chemistry and Toxicity of TPH in Petroleum Vapors: Implications for Potential Vapor Intrusion Hazards. Hawai’i Department of Environmental Health. August.
HDOH. 2017. Guidance for Soil Stockpile Characterization and Evaluation of Imported and Exported Fill. Hawai’i Department of Environmental Health.
October.
Holton, C., H. Luo, P. Dahlen, K. Gorder, E. Dettenmaier and P.C. Johnson. 2013. Temporal Variability of Indoor Air Concentrations under Natural Conditions in a House Overlying a Dilute Chlorinated Solvent Groundwater Plume. Environmental Science & Technology 47, pp. 13347-13554.
Hughes, S.A., A. Mahaffey, B. Shore, J. Baker, B. Kilgour, C. Brown, K.M. Peru, J.V. Headley, and H.C. Bailey. 2017. Using Ultrahigh-Resolution Mass Spectrometry and Toxicity Identification Techniques to Characterize the Toxicity of Oil Sands Process-Affected Water: The Case for Classical Naphthenic Acids. Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry, vol. 36 (11), pp. 3148-3157.
Iowa State University. 2004. The Science of Smell Part 2 – Odor Chemistry. Air Quality and Animal Agriculture. PM 1963b. May.
43.826
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 13-7
IT Corporation., 1997 Report of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Bioassay and Point-ofCompliance Concentration Determinations, Saltwater Ecological Protection Zone, Presidio of San Francisco, California. December.
ITRC [Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council]. 2005. Examination of RiskBased Screening Values and Approaches of Selected States. December.
ITRC. 2008. Use of Risk Assessment in Management of Contaminated Sites.
August
ITRC. 2014. Petroleum Vapor Intrusion – Fundamentals of Screening, Investigation, and Management. October.
ITRC. 2015. Decision Making at Contaminated Sites – Issues and Options in Human Health Risk Assessment. January.
ITRC. 2018. TPH Risk Evaluation at Petroleum Contaminated Sites. November. (Webpage)
Jobelius, C., B. Ruth, C. Griebler, R.U. Meckenstock, J. Hollender, A. Reineke, F.H. Frimmel, and C. Zwiener. 2011. Metabolites Indicate Hot Spots of Biodegradation and Biogeochemical Gradients in a High-Resolution Monitoring Well. Environmental Science & Technology, 45, p. 474–481.
Johnson, P.C. and R.A. Ettinger. 1991. Heuristic Model for Predicting the Intrusion Rate of Contaminant Vapors into Buildings. Environmental Science & Technology, 25, p. 1445–1452.
Johnson, P.C. 2002. Identification of Critical Parameters for the Johnson and Ettinger (1991) Vapor Intrusion Model. American Petroleum Institute, Technical Bulletin No. 17, May.
Kalbus, E., Reinstorf, F., and Schirmer, M., 2006. Measuring Methods for Groundwater-Surface Water Interactions: A Review. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, v. 10, p. 873-887.
Kearney Foundation of Soil Science. 2006. Background Concentrations of Trace and Major Elements in California Soils. University of California Davis, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resource (Prepared by G.R. Bradford, A.C.
Change, A.L. Page, D. Bakhtar, J.A. Frampton, and H. Wright). March.
King D.J., R.L. Lyne, A. Girling, D.R. Peterson, R. Stephenson, D. Short. 1996.
Environmental Risk Assessment of Petroleum Substances: The Hydrocarbon Block Method. Brussels, Belgium: CONCAWE. Report 96/52.
Kiyohara, H., S. Torigoe, N. Kaida, T. Asaki, T. Iida, H. Hayashi, and N.
Takizawa. 1994. Cloning and Characterization of a Chromosomal Gene Cluster, pah, that Encodes the Upper Pathway for Phenanthrene and Naphthalene Utilization by Pseudomonas Putida OUS82. Journal of Bacteriology, 2439-2443. April.
43.827
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 13-8
Lang, D.A., T.P. Bastow, B.G.K. van Aarssen, B. Warton, G.B. Davis, and C.D.
Johnson. 2009. Polar Compounds from the Dissolution of Weathered Diesel.
Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation 29: 85–93.
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 2002 (Revised April 2009). Analysis of Background Distributions of Metals in the Soil at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Environmental Restoration Program (Prepared by D. Diamond, D.
Baskin, D. Brown, L. Lund, J. Najita and I. Javandel). June.
Long, E.R., D.D. MacDonald, S.L. Smith, and F.D. Calder. 1995. Incidence of Adverse Biological Effects of Chemical Concentrations in Marine and Estuarine Sediments. Environmental Management 19(1): 81-97.
Lundegard, P.D., R.E. Sweeney, and G.T. Rice. 2000. Soil Gas Methane at Petroleum Contaminated Sites: Forensic Determination of Origin and Source.
Environmental Forensics, 1, p. 3-10.
Lundegard, P.D., and R. Sweeney. 2004. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Groundwater—Evaluation of Nondissolved and nonhydrocarbon fractions.
Environmental Forensics 5: 85–95.
MADEP [Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection]. 1994a.
Background Documentation for the Development of the MCP Numerical Standards. April.
MADEP. 1994b. Interim Final Petroleum Report: Development of Health-Based Alternative to the Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH) Parameter. August.
MADEP. 1997. Characterizing Risks Posed by Petroleum Contaminated Sites:
Implementation of the MADEP VPH/EPH Approach (and supporting spreadsheet, May 25, 1999).
MADEP. 2004a. Method for the Determination of Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons (VPH). May.
MADEP. 2004b. Method for the Determination of Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (EPH). May.
MADEP. 2009. Method for the Determination of Air-Phase Petroleum Hydrocarbons (APH). Final. Revision 1. December.
Mallakin, A., B.J. McConkey, G. Miao, B. McKibben, V. Snieckus, D.G. Dixon and B. Greenberg. 1999. Impacts of Structural Photomodification on the Toxicity of Environmental Contaminants: Anthracene Photooxidation Products.
Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 43, 204-212.
McCarthy, K.A. and R.L. Johnson. 1993. Transport of Volatile Organic Compound Across the Capillary Fringe. Water Resources Research, 29, 6, pp. 1675-1683. June.
43.828
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 13-9
McGuire, J.T., I.M. Cozzarelli, B. Bekins, H. Link, and D. Martinovic-Weigelt. 2018. Toxicity Assessment of Groundwater Contaminated by Petroleum Hydrocarbons at a Well-Characterized, Aged, Crude Oil Release Site.
Environmental Science & Technology, DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b03657.
October.
McHugh, T., L. Beckley, T. Sullivan, C. Lutes, R. Truesdale, R. Uppencamp, B.
Cosky, J. Zimmerman, and B. Schumacher. 2017a. Evidence of a Sewer Vapor Transport Pathway at the USEPA Vapor Intrusion Research Duplex.
Science of the Total Environment, 598, pp. 772-779.
McHugh, T., P. Loll, and B. Eklund. 2017b. Recent Advances in Vapor Intrusion Site Investigations. Journal of Environmental Management. Journal of Environmental Management, 204: 783-792.
McHugh, T. and L. Beckley. 2018a. Conceptual Model for Sewer/Utility Tunnel Vapor Intrusion, ESTCP Project ER-201505, Version 2. November. (Webpage)
McHugh, T. and L. Beckley. 2018b. Final Report: Sewers and Utility Tunnels as Preferential Pathways for Volatile Organic Compound Migration into Buildings: Risk Factors and Investigation Protocol. Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) Project ER-201505. November. (Webpage)
McHugh, T. and L. Beckley. 2018c. Protocol for Sewer/Utility Tunnel Vapor Intrusion Investigations, ESTCP ER-201505, Version 2. November. (Webpage)
MDEQ [Michigan Department of Environmental Quality]. 2018. GroundwaterSurface Water Interface Pathway Compliance Options. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. Remediation and Redevelopment Division Resource Materials. April.
Melbye, A.G., O.G. Brakstad, J.N. Hokstad, I.K. Gregersen, B.H. Hansen, A.M.
Booth, S.J. Rowland, and K.E. Tollefsen. 2009. Chemical and Toxicological Characterization of an Unresolved Complex Mixture-Rich Biodegraded Crude Oil. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, vol. 28, no. 9, pp. 1815-1824.
McCarthy, K.A. and R.L. Johnson. 1993. Transport of Volatile Organic Compound Across the Capillary Fringe. Water Resources Research, 29, 6, pp. 1675-1683. June.
MOEE [Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy]. 1996. Rationale for the Development and Application of Generic Soil, Groundwater and Sediment Criteria for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario. Standards Development Branch. December.
MOE [Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy]. 2011. Rationale for the Development of Soil and Ground Water Standards for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario. Standards Development Branch. April 15.
43.829
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 13-10
Montgomery Watson. 1995 (Revised March 1996). Fuel Product Action Level Development Report, Presidio of San Francisco. Prepared by Montgomery Watson consultants for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. October.
Montgomery Watson. 1999. Development of Point of Compliance Concentrations for Gasoline in Surface Waters and Sediments of the Proposed Freshwater Stream, Presidio of San Francisco, California. Prepared by Montgomery Watson consultants for Presidio of San Francisco (Board Order No. 96-070), May 1999.
Moody, J.D., J.P. Freeman, D.R. Doerge, and C.E. Cerniglia. 2001. Degradation of Phenanthrene and Anthracene by Cell Suspensions of Mycobacterium sp.
Strain PYR-1. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 1476-1483. April NIOSH [National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health]. 2007. NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards. US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
September.www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npg.html.
NJDEP [New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection]. 2016.
Characterization of Contaminated Ground Water Discharge to Surface Water Technical Guidance. Version 1.0. January.
NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration]. 2008. NOAA Screening Quick Reference Tables. Office of Response and Restoration Division. OR&R Report 08-1 (Prepared by M.F. Buchman).
NRC [National Research Council]. 1983. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
NRC. 2005. Contaminants in the Subsurface: Source Zone Assessment and Remediation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Neff J.M., S. Ostazeski, W. Gardiner, and I. Stejskal. 2000. Effects of Weathering on the Toxicity of Three Offshore Australian Crude Oils and Diesel Fuel to Marine Animals. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, vol. 19, pp. 1809– 1821.
OEHHA [Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment]. 2004a. HumanHealth-Based Screening Numbers Developed to Aid Estimation of Cleanup Costs for Contaminated Soil (revised January 2005). California Environmental Protection Agency, OEHHA.
OEHHA. 2004b. Overview of Freshwater and Marine Toxicity Tests: A Technical Tool for Ecological Risk Assessment. California Environmental Protection Agency, OEHHA. April.
43.830
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 13-11
OEHHA. 2007. Development of Health Criteria for Schools Site Risk Assessment Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 901(g): Child-Specific Benchmark Change in Blood Lead Concentration for School Site Risk Assessment. California Environmental Protection Agency, OEHHA. April.
OEHHA. 2009a. Soil Toxicity and Bioassessment Test Methods for Ecological Risk Assessments: Toxicity Test Methods for Soil Microorganisms, Terrestrial Plants, Terrestrial Invertebrates, and Terrestrial Vertebrates. California Environmental Protection Agency, OEHHA. January.
OEHHA. 2009b. Technical Support Document for Cancer Potency Factors:
Methodologies for derivation, listing of available values, and adjustments to allow for early life stage exposures. California Environmental Protection Agency, OEHHA, Air Toxicology and Epidemiology Branch. May.
OEHHA. 2011. Public Health Goals in Drinking Water for Hexavalent Chromium (Cr VI). California Environmental Protection Agency, OEHHA. July.
OEHHA. 2014. Memorandum to County Site Cleanup Program Managers: U.S.
EPA (Region 9) Recommendations for Addressing Trichloroethylene (TCE) Vapor Intrusion at Contaminated Sites. California Environmental Protection Agency, OEHHA, Air, Community and Environmental Research Branch (David Siegel). July 22.
OSHA [Occupational Safety & Health Administration]. 2016. Permissible Exposure Limits – Annotated Tables. United States Department of Labor.
Accessed January 4, 2016.
Pennell, K.G., M.K. Scammell, M.D. McClean, J.A.B. Weldon, L. Friguglietti, E.M.
Suuberg, R. Shen, P.A. Indeglia, and W.J. Heiger-Bernays. 2013. Sewer Gas:
An Indoor Air Source of PCE to Consider During Vapor Intrusion Investigations. Ground Water Monitoring & Remediation, 33, pp. 119-126.
Pinto, C.L., K. Mansouri, R. Judson, and P. Browne. 2016. Prediction of Estrogenic Bioactivity of Environmental Chemical Metabolites. Chemical Research in Toxicology, 29, 1410−1427.
Podgorski, D. C.; Zito, P.; McGuire, J. T.; Martinovic-Weigelt, D.; Cozzarelli, I. M.; 437 Bekins, B.; Spencer, R. G. M. 2018. Examining Natural Attenuation and Acute Toxicity of Petroleum-Derived Dissolved Organic Matter (DOMHC) with Optical Spectroscopy. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52(11), 6157-6166; DOI 72
10.1021/acs.est.8b00016.
Redman, A.D., T.F. Parkerton, M.HI. Comber, M.L. Paumen, C.V. Eadsforth, B.Dmystrasz, D.King, C.S. Warren, K. den Haan, and N. Djemel. 2014.
PETRORISK: A Risk Assessment Framework for Petroleum Substances.
Integr. Environ. Assess. Manage. 10(3), 437-448;
43.831
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 13-12
Regional Water Board [San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board]. 1996. Supplemental Instructions to State Water Board December 8, 1995, Interim Guidance on Required Cleanup at Low Risk Fuel Sites.
California Environmental Protection Agency, Regional Water Board.
January 5.
Regional Water Board. 1998a. Staff’s Comments on the Proposed Task 3B and 3D Reports Submitted in Compliance with Board Order No. 95-136 Adopted for San Francisco International Airport, San Mateo County, California.
California Environmental Protection Agency, Regional Water Board. July 16.
Regional Water Board. 1998b. Recommended Interim Water Quality Objectives (or Aquatic Life Criteria) for Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE). California Environmental Protection Agency, Regional Water Board Memorandum.
October 1.
Regional Water Board. 1999. Adoption of Revised Site Cleanup Requirements - San Francisco International Airport: California Environmental Protection Agency, Regional Water Board, Order No. 99-045. June 16.
Regional Water Board. 2000a. Draft Staff Report – Beneficial Reuse of Dredged Materials: Sediment Screening and Testing Guidelines – For Planning Purposes Only. California Environmental Protection Agency, Regional Water Board. (Prepared by E. Christian and F. Hetzel). May. (Webpage) Regional Water Board. 2000b. Risk-Based Screening Levels for Impacted Soil and Groundwater. California Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. September 20.
Regional Water Board. 2009. Assessment Tool for Closure of Low-Threat Chlorinated Solvent Sites – Interim Final. California Environmental Protection Agency, Regional Water Board. July 31. (Webpage)
Regional Water Board. 2014. Draft Interim Framework for Assessment of Vapor Intrusion at TCE-Contaminated Sites in the San Francisco Bay Region.
California Environmental Protection Agency, Regional Water Board.
October 16. (Webpage)
Regional Water Board. 2016. Technical Resource Document: Petroleum Metabolites Literature Review and Assessment Framework. California Environmental Protection Agency, Regional Water Board. June 27. (Webpage)
Regional Water Board. 2017a. San Francisco Bay PCBs TMDL – Implementation at Cleanup & Spill Sites. California Environmental Protection Agency, Regional Water Board. March. (Webpage)
Regional Water Board. 2017b. San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). California Environmental Protection Agency, Regional Water Board. May 4. (Webpage)
43.832
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 13-13
Sample, B.E., J. Lowe, P. Seeley, M. Markin, C. McCarthy, J. Hansen, and A.H.
Aly. 2014. Depth of the Biologically Active Zone in Upland Habitats at the Hanford Site, Washington: Implications for Remediation and Ecological Risk Management. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 11(1):150–160.
San Francisco Estuary Institute. 2015. Updated Ambient Concentrations of Toxic Chemicals in San Francisco Bay Sediments. Regional Monitoring Program (Prepared by D. Yee, P. Trowbridge, and J. Sun). July.
Schrlau, J.E., A.L. Kramer, A. Chlebowski, L. Truong, R.L. Tanguay, and S.L.M.
Simonich. 2017. Formation of Developmentally Toxic Phenanthrene Metabolite Mixtures by Mycobacterium sp. ELW1. Environmental Science & Technology, 51(15), pp.8569–8578.
Schumacher, B., J. Zimmerman, G. Swanson, J. Elliot, and B. Hartman. 2010.
Field Observations on Ground Covers/Buildings. Presented at the 20th Annual International Conference on Soils, Sediments, Water, and Energy, San Diego, CA. March 16.
Scott, C.M. 1991. Background Metal Concentrations in Soils in Northern Santa Clara County, California. Master’s thesis, University of San Francisco.
December.
SETAC [Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry]. 2004. Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing – technical issue paper.
Shen, R., Pennell, K.G., Suuberg, E.M., 2014. Analytical Modeling of the Subsurface Volatile Organic Vapor Concentration in Vapor Intrusion.
Chemosphere 95, 140-149.
Shiu, W.Y., M. Bobra, A.M. Bobra, A. Maijanen, L. Suntio, and D. Mackay. 1990.
The Water Solubility of Crude Oils and Petroleum Products. Oil & Chemical Pollution. Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 57-84.
State Water Board [State Water Resources Control Board]. 1988. Adoption of Policy Entitled “Sources of Drinking Water” (as revised by Resolution 2006- 0008). California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Board.
State Water Board. 1992. Resolution No. 92-49, "Policies and Procedures for Investigation, Cleanup and Abatement of Discharges Under Water Code Section 13304" (As Amended on April 21, 1994 and October 2, 1996).
California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Board.
State Water Board. 2012a. Technical Justification for Vapor Intrusion MediaSpecific Criteria. California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Board. March 21.
State Water Board. 2012b. Low-Threat Underground Storage Tank Case Closure Policy California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Board.
August 17. (Webpage)
43.833
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 13-14
State Water Board. 2015. Leaking Underground Fuel Tank Guidance Manual.
California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Board. December.
State Water Board. 2016. A Compilation of Water Quality Goals (17th Edition).
California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Board. January.
State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners. 2009. Chemicals Used in Drycleaning Operations. July.
Stout, S.A., A.D. Uhler, K.J. McCarthy, and S. Emsbo-Mattingly. 2002. Chemical Fingerprinting of Hydrocarbons in Introduction to Environmental Forensics.
Edited by B.L. Murphy and R.D. Morrison. Academic Press. pp. 137-260.
Terraphase Engineering. 2018. Polar Compounds Testing Assessment Report, Former Point Molate Naval Fuel Depot, Richmond, California. August 31.
GeoTracker ID T0609592138.
TCEQ [Texas Commission on Environmental Quality]. Undated. Characterization of Nc6 to Nc35 Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Environmental Samples. Draft.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) Method 1006.
TCEQ. 2001. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons TNRCC Method 1005.
TCEQ. 2013. Determining Representative Concentrations of Chemicals of Concern for Ecological Receptors. RG-366/TRRP-15eco. November.
TPH Criteria Working Group. 1997a. Development of Fraction Specific Reference Doses (RfDs) and Reference Concentrations (RfCs) for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH). TPHCWG Series, Volume 4 (prepared by Edwards, D.A., M.D. Andriot, M.A. Amoruso, A.C. Tummey, C.J. Bevan, A. Tveit, L.A.
Hayes, S.H. Youngren, and D.V. Nakles).
TPH Criteria Working Group. 1997b. Selection of Representative TPH Fractions Based on Fate and Transport Considerations, TPHCWG Series, Volume 3. (prepared by Gustafson, JB, J.G. Tell, and D. Orem). July.
TPH Criteria Working Group. 1998a. Analysis of Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Environmental Media, TPHCWG Series, Volume 1 (prepared by Weisman, W.). March.
TPH Criteria Working Group. 1998b. Composition of Petroleum Mixtures, TPHCWG Series, Volume 2 (prepared by Potter, T.L. and K.E. Simmons).
May.
TPH Criteria Working Group. 1999. Human Health Risk-Based Evaluation of Petroleum Release Sites: Implementing the Working Group Approach.
TPHCWG Series, Volume 5 (prepared by Vorhees, D.J., W.H. Weisman, and J.B. Gustafson). June.
43.834
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 13-15
Uhler, A.D., K.J. McCarthy, S.D. Emsbo-Mattingly, S.A. Stout, and G.S. Douglas. 2010. Predicting Chemical Fingerprints of Vadose Zone Soil Gas and Indoor Air from Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid Composition. Environmental Forensics, 11: 342-354.
USDOE [US Department of Energy]. 1997. Preliminary Remediation Goals for Ecological Endpoints. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management (prepared by R.A. Efroymson, G.W. Suter II, B.E. Sample and D.S. Jones), ES/ER/TM-162/R2. August.
USEPA [US Environmental Protection Agency]. 1986. Guidelines for Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures. EPA 630/R-98/002. Risk Assessment Forum. Fed. Reg. 51(185):34014–34025. September 24.
USEPA. 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A) – Interim Final: Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Publication EPA/540/1-89/092. December.
USEPA. 1991a. Methods for Aquatic Toxicity Identification Evaluations: Phase I Toxicity Characterization Procedures (2nd edition). Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/6-91/003. February.
USEPA. 1991b. Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control. Office of Water. EPA/505/2-90-001. March.
USEPA. 1991c. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS), Volume I:
Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part B (Development of Preliminary Remediation Goals). Interim Final. Washington, D.C.: Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation. December.
USEPA. 1993a. Provisional Guidance for Quantitative Risk Assessment of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. Office of Research and Development.
EPA/600/R-93/089. July.
USEPA. 1993b. Methods for Aquatic Toxicity Identification Evaluations: Phase II Toxicity Identification Procedures for Samples Exhibiting Acute and Chronic Toxicity. Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/R-92/080.
September.
USEPA. 1993c. Methods for Aquatic Toxicity Identification Evaluations: Phase III Toxicity Confirmation Procedures for Samples Exhibiting Acute and Chronic Toxicity. Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/R-92/081.
September.
USEPA. 1994. ECO Update: Using Toxicity Tests in Ecological Risk Assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Publication 9345.0-05I. March.
USEPA. 1995a. Engineering Forum Issue Paper. Determination of Background Concentrations of Inorganics in Soils and Sediments at Hazardous Waste
43.835
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 13-16
Sites. Office of Research and Development, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC. EPA/540/S-96/500.
USEPA. 1995b. Ground Water Issue: Light Nonaqueous Phase Liquids. Office of Research and Development. EPA/540/S-95/500.
USEPA. 1995c. Final Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Parts 9, 122, 123, 131 and 132, www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/.
USEPA. 1996a. Eco Update Volume 3, Number 2 - Ecotox Thresholds. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA 540/F-95/038. January.
USEPA. 1996b. Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document.
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Publication 9355.4-17A. May.
USEPA. 1996c. Soil Screening Guidance: User’s Guide. Publication 9355.4-23.
Washington, D.C.: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. July.
USEPA. 1996d. How to Effectively Recover Free Product at Leaking Underground Fuel Tank Sites: A Guide for State Regulators. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA -510-R-99-001. September.
USEPA. 1996e. PCBs: Cancer Dose-Response Assessment and Application to Environmental Mixtures. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/P-96/001F. September.
USEPA. 1996f. Method 3510C: Separatory Funnel Liquid-Liquid Extraction, Revision 3. In Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste (SW-846). Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. December.
USEPA. 1996g. Method 3630C: Silica Gel Cleanup, Revision 3. In Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste (SW-846). Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. December.
USEPA. 1996h. SW-846: Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods. Method 5030B: Purge-and-Trap for Aqueous Samples, Revision 2. December.
USEPA. 1996i. SW-846: Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods. Method 5035: Closed-System Purge-and-Trap and Extraction for Volatile Organics in Soil and Waste Samples, Revision 0.
December.
USEPA. 1997a. The Rapid Optical Screening Tool (ROST) Laser-Induced Fluorescence (LIF) System for Screening of Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Subsurface Soils. Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/R-97/020.
February.
USEPA. 1997b. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments – Interim Final.
Environmental Response Team, Interim Final. EPA 540-R-97-006. June.
43.836
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 13-17
USEPA. 2000a. Toxicological Review of Vinyl Chloride (CAS No. 75-01-4): In Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). May.
USEPA. 2000b. Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Numerical Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants for the State of California; Rule. Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 131, Thursday, May 18, 2000.
USEPA. 2000c. Method Guidance and Recommendations for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Testing (40 CFR Part 126). Office of Water. EPA 821-B-00- 004. July.
USEPA. 2000d. Proceedings of the Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions Workshop. Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA/542/R-00/007. July.
USEPA. 2000e. Supplementary Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures. Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC. EPA/630/R-00/002. August.
USEPA. 2001. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part D, Standardized Planning, Reporting, and Review of Superfund Risk Assessments) – Final. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Publication 9285.7-47. December.
USEPA. 2002a. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria- 2002. Office of Water, EPA-822-R-02-047.
USEPA. 2002b. Role of Background in the CERCLA Cleanup Program. OSWER 9285.6-07. April 26.
USEPA. 2002c. Guidance for Comparing Background and Chemical Concentrations in Soil for CERCLA Sites. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. 9285.7-41. September.
USEPA. 2002d. Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms (Fifth Edition). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. October.
USEPA. 2002e. Short-Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms (Fourth Edition).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. October.
USEPA. 2002f. Short-Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Marine and Estuarine Organisms (Third Edition). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. October.
USEPA. 2002g. Calculating Upper Confidence Limits for Exposure Point Concentrations at Hazardous Waste Sites. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, OSWER 9285.6-10. December.
43.837
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 13-18
USEPA. 2002h. Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, OSWER 9355.4-24. December.
USEPA. 2003a. Procedures for the Derivation of Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmarks (ESBs) for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: PAH Mixtures. Office of Research and Development. EPA-600-R02-013.
November.
USEPA. 2003b. Human Health Toxicity Values in Superfund Risk Assessments.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. OSWER Directive 9285.7-
53. December 5.
USEPA. 2004a. User’s Guide for Subsurface Vapor Intrusion into Buildings.
Prepared by Environmental Quality Management for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. February
22. USEPA. 2004b. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment) – Final. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
EPA/540/R/99/005, OSWER 9285.7-02EP. July.
USEPA. 2005. Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility from EarlyLife Exposure to Carcinogens. Risk Assessment Forum, EPA/630/R-03/003F, March.
USEPA. 2006. Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data Quality Objectives Process. EPA QA/G-4. EPA/240.B-06/001. February.
USEPA. 2007a. Method 8015C Nonhalogenated Organics by Gas Chromatography, Revision 2. In Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste (SW-846). Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. February.
USEPA. 2007b. Guidance for Evaluating the Oral Bioavailability of Metals in Soils for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. OSWER 9285.7-80. May.
USEPA. 2008a. Procedures for the Derivation of Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmarks (ESBs) for the Protection of Benthic Organisms:
Compendium of Tier 2 Values for Nonionic Organics. Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory. EPA/600/R-02/016. March.
USEPA. 2008b. ECO Update/Ground Water Forum Issue Paper: Evaluating Ground-Water/Surface Water Transition Zones in Ecological Risk Assessments. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Publication 9285.6-17, EPA-540-R-06-072. July.
43.838
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 13-19
USEPA. 2009a. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part F, Supplemental Guidance for Inhalation Risk Assessment): Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, Publication EPA-540-R070-002. January.
USEPA. 2009b. Final Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values for Commercial or Practical Grade Hexane. Superfund Health Risk Technical Support Center, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH. September 30.
USEPA. 2009c. Final Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values for Complex Mixtures of Aliphatic and Aromatic Hydrocarbons. Superfund Health Risk Technical Support Center, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH. September 30.
USEPA. 2009d. Final Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values for High Flash Aromatic Naphtha. Superfund Health Risk Technical Support Center, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH. September 30.
USEPA. 2009e. Final Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values for Midrange Aliphatic Hydrocarbon Streams. Superfund Health Risk Technical Support Center, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH. September 30.
USEPA. 2009f. Final Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values for n-Hexane.
Superfund Health Risk Technical Support Center, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH. September 30.
USEPA. 2009g. Final Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values for White Mineral Oil. Superfund Health Risk Technical Support Center, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH. September 29.
USEPA. 2009h. Final Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values for Vanadium and Its Soluble Inorganic Compounds Other Than Vanadium Pentoxide (CASRN 7440-62-2 and Others): Derivation of Subchronic and Chronic Oral RfDs. Superfund Health Risk Technical Support Center, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH. September 30.
USEPA. 2009i. Evaluating Ecological Risk to Invertebrate Receptors from PAHs in Sediments at Hazardous Waste Sites. Office of Research and Development. October.
USEPA. 2010. Recommended Toxicity Equivalence Factors (TEFs) for Human Health Risk Assessments of 2,3,7,8-Techlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and DioxinLike Compounds. EPA/100/R 10/005. December.
43.839
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 13-20
USEPA. 2011a. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition. Office of Research and Development, Publication EPA/600/R-09/052F. September.
USEPA. 2011b. Toxicological Review of Trichloroethylene (CAS No. 79-01-6): In Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). September.
USEPA. 2011c. Environmental Cleanup Best Management Practices: Effective Use of the Project Life Cycle Conceptual Site Model. July.
USEPA. 2012a. Conceptual Model Scenarios for the Vapor Intrusion Pathway.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. February.
USEPA. 2012b. Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Chlorinated Solvents Differ in their Potential for Vapor Intrusion. Office of Underground Storage Tanks. March. (Webpage)
USEPA. 2012c. U.S. EPA’s Vapor Intrusion Database: Evaluation and Characterization of Attenuation Factors for Chlorinated Volatile Organic Compounds and Residential Buildings. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. March 16.
USEPA. 2012d. Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmarks (ESBs) for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: Procedures for the Determination of the Freely Dissolved Interstitial Water Concentrations of Nonionic Organics.
Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory. EPA/600/R-02/012. December.
USEPA. 2012e. Final Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values for Fluoranthene. Superfund Health Risk Technical Support Center, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH. December 27.
USEPA. 2013a. Tier 3 Toxicity Value White Paper. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 9285.7-86. May.
USEPA. 2013b. EPA Region 9 Guidelines and Supplemental Information Needed for Vapor Intrusion Evaluations at the South Bay National Priorities List (NPL) Sites. Letter to California Regional Water Quality Control Board – SF Bay Region. December 3.
USEPA. 2014a. Memorandum: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: Update of Standard Default Exposure Factors. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Directive 9200.1-120. February 6.
USEPA. 2014b. EPA Region 9 Memorandum Response Action Levels and Recommendations to Address Near-Term Inhalation Exposures to TCE in Air from Subsurface Vapor Intrusion. July 9.
USEPA. 2014c. Challenges in Bulk Soil Sampling and Analysis for Vapor Intrusion Screening of Soil. Office of Research and Development, EPA/600/R14-277, December.
43.840
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 13-21
USEPA. 2015a. OSWER Technical Guide for Assessing and Mitigating the Vapor Intrusion Pathway from Subsurface Vapor Source to Indoor Air. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER). Publication 9200.2-154. June. (Webpage)
USEPA. 2015b. Technical Guide for Addressing Petroleum Vapor Intrusion at Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites. Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST). EPA 510-R-15-001. June.
USEPA. 2015c. Determination of the Biologically Relevant Sampling Depth for Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecological Risk Assessments. EPA/600/R-15/176.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Research and Development.
October.
USEPA. 2016a. Lead at Superfund Sites: Frequent Questions from Risk Assessors on the Adult Lead Methodology. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed May 26.
USEPA. 2016. ProUCL Version 5.1.00 User Guide and Technical Guide – Statistical Support Software for Environmental Applications for Data Sets with and without Nondetect Observations. EPA/600/R-07/041. Office of Research and Development. June 20.
USEPA. 2017a. Adsorption-based Treatment Systems for Removing Chemical Vapors from Indoor Air. Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/R-17- 276. August.
USEPA. 2017b. Documentation for EPA’s Implementation of the Johnson and Ettinger Model to Evaluate Site Specific Vapor Intrusion into Buildings. Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, Version 6.0.
September.
USEPA. 2017c. Leaching Environmental Assessment Framework (LEAF) HowTo Guide. October.
USEPA. 2018a. VISL User’s Guide. May. (Webpage)
USEPA. 2018b, Regional Screening Levels – Tables, User’s Guide, Frequent Questions. November. (Webpage)
USEPA. 2019 [accessed]. Estimation Parameters Interface (EPI) Suite.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1984. Element Concentrations in Soils and Other Surficial Materials of the Conterminous United States. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1270 (prepared by Shacklette, H.T., and J.G. Boerngen). van den Berg, M, L.S. Birnbaum, and M. Denison, M. 2006. The 2005 World Health Organization Re-Evaluation of Human and Mammalian Toxic Equivalency Factors for Dioxins and Dioxin-Like Compounds. Toxicol Sci 93(2):223−241.
43.841
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 13-22
Verslycke, T., A. Ghekiere, S. Raimondo, and C. Janssen. 2007. Mysid Crustaceans as Standard Models for the Screening and Testing of EndocrineDisrupting Chemicals. Ecotoxicology, 16(1): 205-219. February.
Verslycke, T., A. Ghekiere, S. Raimondo, and C. Janssen. 2007. Mysid Crustaceans as Standard Models for the Screening and Testing of EndocrineDisrupting Chemicals. Ecotoxicology, 16(1): 205-219. February.
Wang, N.C.Y., G.E. Rice, L.K. Teuschler, J. Colman, and R.S.H. Yang. 2012. An In Silico Approach for Evaluating a Fraction-Based, Risk Assessment Method for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Mixtures. Journal of Toxicology, Volume 2012 (2012), Article ID 410143, 8 pages.
Washington DOE [State of Washington State Department of Ecology]. 1997.
Analytical Methods for Petroleum Hydrocarbons. June.
Washington DOE. 2009. High-Resolution Porewater Sampling Near the Groundwater/Surface Water Interface. Publication No. 09-03-017. April.
Washington DOE. 2016. Toxicity Testing of Soils Contaminated with Gasoline, Diesel, and Heavy Oil. October.
Watson, J. S. Jones, D. M. Swannell, R. P. J. van Duin, A. C. T. 2002. Formation of Carboxylic Acids During Aerobic Biodegradation of Crude Oil and Evidence of Microbial Oxidation of Hopanes. Organic. Geochemistry, 33, pp. 1153- 1169.
Wickliffe, J., E. Overton, S. Frickel, J. Howard, M. Wilson, B. Simon, S. Echsner, D. Nguyen, D. Gauthe, D. Blake, C. Miller, C. Elferink, S. Ansari, H.
Fernando, E. Trapido, and A. Kane. 2014. Evaluation of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Using Analytical Methods, Toxicology, and Risk Assessment Research: Seafood Safety after a Petroleum Spill as an Example.
Environmental Health Perspectives, 122, no. 1, pp. 6-9.
Winkler, R. F. Ruckerbauer, and K. Bunzl. 2001. Radon Concentration in Soil Gas: A Comparison of the Variability Resulting from Different Methods, Spatial Heterogeneity and Seasonal Fluctuations. Science of the Total Environment, 272, pp. 272-282.
Yao, Y., Y. Wang, Z. Zhong, M. Tang, and E.M. Suuberg. 2017. Investigating the Role of Soil Texture in Vapor Intrusion from Groundwater Sources. J. Environ.
Qual. 46:776–784.
Yeh, G.T. 1981. AT123D: Analytical Transient One-, Two-, and Threedimensional Simulation of Waste Transport in the Aquifer System. Report ORNL-5602, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA.
Zemo, D.A. 2016. White Paper: Analytical Methods for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH). Prepared for American Petroleum Institute (API), Soil & Groundwater Research Program. August.
43.842
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 13-23
Zemo, D.A. and K.A. Synowiec. 1995. TPH Detections in Groundwater:
Identification and Elimination of Positive Interferences. In Proceedings of the 1995 Conference on Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in Ground Water, p. 257-271. Westerville, Ohio. National Ground Water Association.
Zemo, D.A., J.E. Bruya, and T.E. Graf. 1995. The Application of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Fingerprint Characterization in Site Investigation and Remediation. Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation, v. 15, no. 2, pp. 147- 156. May.
Zemo, D.A. and G.R. Foote. 2003. The Technical Case for Eliminating the Use of the TPH Analysis in Assessing and Regulating Dissolved Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Ground Water. Ground Water Monitoring & Remediation 23:
95–156.
Zemo, D.A., K.T. O’Reilly, R.E. Mohler, A.K. Tiwary, R.I. Magaw, and K. A.
Synowiec. 2013. Nature and Estimated Human Toxicity of Polar Metabolite Mixtures in Groundwater Quantified as TPHd/DRO at Biodegrading Fuel Release Sites. Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation, Vol. 33, pp. 44-56.
Zemo, D. A.; O'Reilly, K. T.; Mohler, R. E.; Magaw, R. I.; Espino Devine, C.; Ahn, S.; Tiwary, A. K. 2017. Life Cycle of Petroleum Biodegradation Metabolite Plumes, and Implications for Risk Management at Fuel Release Sites. Integr.
Environ. Assess. Manage. 13(4), 714-727; DOI:10.1002/ieam.1848.
Zielinska-Park, J., J. Nakamura, J.A. Svenberg and M.D. Aitken. Aldehydic. 2004. DNA lesions in calf thymus DNA and HeLa S3 cells produced by bacterial quinone metabolites of fluoranthene and pyrene. Carcinogenesis 25 (9): 1727-1733.
43.843
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 14-1
14 Acronyms and Abbreviations
ADAF Age dependent adjustment factor used for chemicals with a mutagenic mode of action
AF Attenuation Factor
APH Air Phase Hydrocarbons
ARAL USEPA Accelerated Response Action Level (for indoor air sample results)
ATSDR U.S. Department of Public Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry AWQC Aquatic Water Quality Criteria
BaP Benzo[a]pyrene
BaPeq Benzo[a]pyrene equivalents
Basin Plan San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan bgs below ground surface
BTEX Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes
C or Ca Cancer
CAS Chemical Abstracts Service
Csoil Leaching based soil concentration (mg/kg)
Cgw Target groundwater screening level (μg/L)
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency (includes the Air Resources Board; Department of Pesticide Regulation; Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery or CalRecycle; Department of Toxic Substances Control; Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment; and State Water Resource Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Boards.
CCC Criterion for Continuous Concentration
CCM Criterion for Maximum Concentration
CDPH California Department of Public Health
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980. Also known as Superfund.
CHHSL CalEPA California Human Health Screening Level
43.844
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 14-2
COPC Chemical of Potential Concern
CSM Conceptual Site Model (sometimes called Site Conceptual Model) CTR California Toxics Rule
CVI Chlorinated [compound] Vapor Intrusion
DAF Dilution-Attenuation Factor
DDD Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane
DDE Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene
DDW California State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water
DDT Dichlorodiphenytrichloroethane
DNA Deoxyribonucleic acid
DRO Diesel-Range Organics
DTSC California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control
EC Equivalent Carbon Number
EDA Effects-Directed Analysis
EPC Exposure Point Concentration
EPH Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons
ERA Ecological Risk Assessment
ESL Regional Water Board Environmental Screening Level
ESTCP Environmental Security Technology Certification Program Estuary In the context of the ESLs, the lowest of freshwater and saltwater values
Exterior Soil Gas
Soil gas located outside the footprint of a building
FAQs Frequently Asked Questions
FCV Final Chronic Value
FID Flame Ionization Detector
GC Gas Chromatography
43.845
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 14-3
GI Gastrointestinal (tract)
GW Groundwater
H Henry's law constant (atm-m3/mol)
H’ dimensionless Henry’s law constant
HDOH Hawai'i Department of Health
HI Hazard index
HOPs Petroleum Hydrocarbon Oxidation Products
HQ Hazard Quotient
HVAC Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
IA Indoor Air
IRIS USEPA Integrated Risk Information System
IUR Inhalation unit risk (formerly URF or unit risk factor), representing the carcinogenic inhalation toxicity value of a chemical or mixture.
JEM Johnson & Ettinger model (Johnson and Ettinger 1991) Koc Organic carbon partition coefficient (cm3/g)
LC50 Lethal concentration (50th percentile)
LOE Line of evidence
LOEL Lowest Observed Effect Level
LTCP Low-Threat Underground Storage Tank Closure Policy (State Water Board 2012b)
MADEP Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
mg/kg Milligrams per kilogram, or parts per million
MLE Multiple lines of evidence
MRLs ATSDR Minimum Risk Levels
MTBE Methyl tertiary butyl ether (also tert-methyl butyl ether)
43.846
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 14-4
NAPL Non aqueous phase liquid (also free product)
NC Noncancer
NCP National Contingency Plan
NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health NOCs Background natural organic compounds
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
NSO Nitrogen, Sulfur, and Oxygen Atoms
NVDOC Nonvolatile Dissolved Organic Carbon
OEHHA California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Ontario
MOE Ontario Ministry of Environment
Ontario
MOEE Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration (federal) OSWER USEPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (now Office of Land and Emergency Management or OLEM)
OSWER VI Guide
OSWER Technical Guide for Assessing and Mitigating the Vapor Intrusion Pathway from Subsurface Vapor Source to Indoor Air (USEPA 2015a)
OUST USEPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks
OUST PVI Guide
Technical Guide for Addressing Petroleum Vapor Intrusion At Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites (USEPA 2015b).
PAH Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (also PNA)
PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl
PCE Tetrachloroethene (also perchloroethylene)
PEL Permissible Exposure Limit
PHC Petroleum Hydrocarbon
POC Point of Compliance
43.847
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 14-5
PNA Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (also PAH)
PPRTV USEPA Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Value
PRGs USEPA Preliminary Remediation Goals (now RSLs)
PVI Petroleum [compound] vapor intrusion
RAGS Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund
RBSLs Risk Based Screening Levels
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Release
Area The area of vadose zone soil contamination that extends from a source
RfC Inhalation Reference Concentration (noncarcinogens) RfD Oral Reference Dose (noncarcinogens), also RfDo
Region 2 The region overseen by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board or the region itself
REL Recommended Exposure Limit
Regional Water Board
California Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
RSLs USEPA Regional Screening Levels (formerly PRGs)
SFo Cancer oral slope factor
SG Soil Gas
SGC Silica gel cleanup
Slab Capping Effect
A concrete slab acts as a barrier or cap limiting the downward flow of ambient air and the upward venting of contaminated soil gas.
State Water Board
California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board
Source Release point of contamination, such as tanks, ponds, pipelines, clarifiers, and landfills.
43.848
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 14-6
STLC Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration (liquid criterion for leaching from soils under landfill-like conditions)
Subslab Subslab soil gas. Soil gas collected immediately beneath a concrete slab.
SWI Surface water interface
T2 Tier 2
TBA Tertiary butyl alcohol
TCE Trichloroethene
TCE VI Framework
Interim Framework for Assessment of Vapor Intrusion at TCE Contaminated Sites in the San Francisco Bay Region (Regional Water Board 2014)
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
TEF Toxicity equivalence factor
TEQ Toxic equivalents
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TPH Total petroleum hydrocarbons
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
TTLC Total Threshold Limit Concentration (for solids)
UCM Unresolved complex mixture or chromatogram hump, referring to numerous co-eluting compounds
URAL USEPA Urgent Response Action Level (for indoor air sample results)
USDOE U.S. Department of Energy
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
UST Underground Storage Tank
Vapor Source
Contaminated soil or groundwater, sometimes referred to as secondary sources.
VI Vapor Intrusion
VIG DTSC Vapor Intrusion Guidance (DTSC 2011b)
VISL USEPA Vapor Intrusion Screening Level calculator (USEPA 2018a) VOC Volatile organic compound/chemical
43.849
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 14-7
VPH Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons
µg/L Micrograms per liter or parts per billion
µg/m3 Micrograms per cubic meter
Washington DOE
State of Washington Department of Ecology
WET Whole Effluent Toxicity method
43.850
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 15-1
15 Appendix A – Equations for Direct
Exposure Screening Levels
43.851
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 15-2
15.1 Noncarcinogenic Risk-Based Screening Levels
15.1.1 Ingestion Noncarcinogenic Risk-Based Screening
Levels
Tapwater Ingestion
Cwater =
THQ × ED × �
365 days
1 year � × BW × �
1000 μg
1 mg �
EF × ED × � 1
RfDo
� × IRW
Soil Ingestion
Csoil =
THQ × ED × �
365 days
1 year � × BW
EF × ED × � 1
RfD𝑜𝑜
� × IRS × �
10−6kg
mg �
15.1.2 Inhalation Noncarcinogenic Risk-Based Screening
Levels
Tapwater Vapor Inhalation
Cwater =
THQ × ED × �
365 days
1 year � × �
1000 μg
1 mg �
EF × ED × ET × �
1 day
24 hr� × � 1
RfC� × K
43.852
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 15-3
Soil and Particulate Inhalation
Csoil =
THQ × ED × �
365 days
year �
EF × ED × ET × � 1 day
24 hrs� × � 1
RfC� × � 1
VF + 1
PEF�
Indoor Air Inhalation
Cair =
THQ × ED × �
365 days
1 year � × �
1000 μg
1 mg �
EF × ED × ET × �
1 day
24 hr� × � 1
RfC�
15.1.3 Dermal Noncarcinogenic Risk Based Screening Levels Tapwater Dermal Exposure
Inorganic Chemicals
Cwater =
DA × 1000 cm3
𝐿𝐿
K𝑝𝑝 × ET𝑤𝑤
Organic Chemicals
If ETwc ≤ t* then,
Cwater =
DA × 1000 cm3
𝐿𝐿
2 × FA × K𝑝𝑝 × �6𝜏𝜏 × ET𝑤𝑤
𝜋𝜋
If ETwc > t* then,
43.853
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 15-4
Cwater =
DA × 1000 cm3
𝐿𝐿
FA × K𝑝𝑝 × � ET𝑤𝑤
(1 + 𝐵𝐵) + �2𝜏𝜏 × (1 + 3B + 3B2
)
(1 + 𝐵𝐵)2 ��
Soil Dermal Exposure
Cwater =
THQ × ED × 365 days
year × BW
EF × ED × � 1
RfD𝑜𝑜 × GIABS� × SA𝑠𝑠 × AF × ABS𝑑𝑑 ×
10−6kg
mg
15.2 Carcinogenic Risk based Screening Levels
15.2.1 Ingestion Carcinogenic Risk-Based Screening Levels Tapwater Ingestion
Cwater =
TR × LT × �
365 days
1 year � × �
1000 μg
1 mg �
CSF𝑜𝑜 × IFWadj
Soil Ingestion
Csoil =
TR × LT × �
365 days
year �
CSF𝑜𝑜 × IFSadj × �
10-6 kg
mg �
43.854
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 15-5
15.2.2 Inhalation Carcinogenic Risk-Based Screening Levels Tapwater Vapor Inhalation
Cwater =
TR × LT × �
365 days
1 year �
EF𝑟𝑟 × ED𝑟𝑟 × ET𝑟𝑟 × �
1 day
24 hr� × IUR × K
Soil and Particulate Inhalation
Csoil =
TR × LT × �
365 days
1 year �
EF𝑟𝑟 × ED𝑟𝑟 × ET𝑟𝑟 × �
1 day
24 hr� × IUR × �
1000 μg
mg � × � 1
VF + 1PEF�
Indoor Air Inhalation
Cair =
TR × LT × �
365 days
1 year �
EF𝑟𝑟 × ED𝑟𝑟 × ET𝑟𝑟 × �
1 day
24 hr� × IUR
15.2.3 Dermal Carcinogenic Risk-Based Goals
Tapwater Dermal Exposure
Inorganic Chemicals
Cwater =
DA × 1000 cm3
𝐿𝐿
K𝑝𝑝 × ETwmadj
Organic Chemicals
If ETwmadj ≤ t* then,
43.855
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 15-6
Cwater =
DA × 1000 cm3
𝐿𝐿
2 × FA × K𝑝𝑝 × �6𝜏𝜏 × ETwmadj
𝜋𝜋
If ETwmadj > t* then,
Cwater =
DA × 1000 cm3
𝐿𝐿
FA × K𝑝𝑝 × �
ETwmadj
(1 + 𝐵𝐵) + �2𝜏𝜏 × (1 + 3B + 3B2
)
(1 + 𝐵𝐵)2 ��
Soil Dermal Exposure
Csoil =
TR × LT × �
365 days
1 year �
� CSFo
GIABS� × DFSadj × ABS𝑑𝑑 × �
10−6kg
mg �
15.3 Total Cancer or Noncancer Screening Levels for All Exposure Pathways
Final
Screening
Level (SL)
= 1
� 1
Ingestion SL� + � 1Dermal Contact SL � + � 1Inhalation SL �
43.856
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0) 16-1
16 Appendix B – Checklist for Vapor
Instrusion Models
43.857
Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs)
CHECKLIST FOR VAPOR INTRUSION MODELS
2019 ESL User’s Guide Revision 0
The following list is provided to ensure efficiency in model/report review by reducing the number of comment rounds. Please fill out and submit this checklist with all vapor intrusion models to show you have included all the following:
Model runs that are specific to a single existing or future building Geologic cross sections and boring logs that are representative of conditions below the building and support the selection of modeled soil layers and soil types
Grain-size analyses of soil samples are representative of conditions below the building and meet the following criteria:
Three or more soil samples analyzed for each modeled soil layer; Soil samples were not impacted by transient soil moisture (e.g., collected near the surface during the rainy season or after a storm or after irrigation system operation) or within/near the capillary fringe; and Soils classified using the USDA Soil Conservation Service Soil Texture Classification. If not, consider using the online calculator or the Excel file version (search “USDA soil texture calculator”).
All subsurface preferential pathways have been identified and locations illustrated on a map (User’s Guide Section 5.4.1). Mark those that apply:
Sewer lines and/or utility corridors
Backfilled excavations
Other: Describe:
__________________________________________________
Groundwater well data representative of conditions below the building, including seasonal depth to groundwater
Basis for concluding there is no contamination within the capillary fringe of groundwater below the building (for groundwater to indoor air modeling). Exposure point concentrations are based on data from multiple sampling rounds
43.858
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0)
Exposure point concentrations are based on sampling locations representative of conditions directly below the building (e.g. average concentrations from samples within the building footprint) and not averaged concentrations from samples across an entire site
Calibration of models using measured indoor air concentrations for current risk assessment at existing buildings
The subslab to indoor air attenuation factor should be locked at 0.03 to account for building aging and modification over time at existing or future buildings (User’s Guide Section 5.4.2)
Calibration of the source to slab component of models using multi-depth soil gas sampling (including subslab samples)
Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis
Identify parameters that have the most uncertainty in their values. Identify the parameters that, when changed (within reasonable variations), result in significant changes in output. Soil moisture (soil water-filled porosity) is the most sensitive parameter (Johnson 2002) and values should be varied to reflect seasonal changes or other differences (e.g., soils beneath buildings or pavement typically are drier). Other parameters to consider varying include the depth to groundwater and capillary fringe thickness.
Provide a reasonable range in outcomes and discuss relative to model precision.
Written reports that contain:
Conceptual site model (CSM) - Written description of soil types and continuity of strata (layers). Discussion of adequacy of geologic and hydrogeologic characterization considering the depositional environment and fill history. Particular focus should be the soil types and layer continuity immediately beneath the building (see Yao et al. 2017 for further information);
Name of the VI model used and version (including any reprogramming to run more than one chemical at a time, etc.);
Identification of the exposure scenario (e.g., residential versus commercial/industrial);
Discuss how preferential pathways are accounted for in the proposed model;
Discuss how the model was calibrated;
43.859
2019 ESLs UG (Rev 0)
List or table of any multi-depth soil gas and indoor air sample concentrations used to calibrate the model;
List or table of inputs;
Confirm the toxicity criteria used in the model (if any) are consistent with the California Code of Regulations (see DTSC 2019a) and the ESLs.
List or table of key outputs that should include the attenuation factors for all chemicals and model runs;
Copies of each model worksheet; and
Copy of the model file to enable an independent evaluation.
References are listed in the ESL User’s Guide.
For questions regarding a specific site, contact the Water Board case manager.
For questions about the form, contact the ESL Team at
[email protected].
43.860
State of California – California Environmental Protection Agency Request for Agency Oversight Application
DTSC Form 1460- Revision July 19 2018
The purpose of this application is to provide the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) sufficient information to determine which agency will be the appropriate lead agency to provide oversight for the assessment and/or remediation of this site. The detailed site information requested in this application will also help the designated lead agency expedite the development of a cost recovery agreement, so that the applicant can begin work in a timely and efficient manner.
For a California Land Reuse and Revitalization Act (CLRRA) Agreement or a Prospective Purchaser Agreement, please complete the appropriate Supplemental Attachment since additional information is required for these programs.
Name of Site (this name will be used for all DTSC/Water Board public databases and internal/external communication and tracking): ArtHaus Ocean Site Address: 530 and 542 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz, California 95060 (548 Ocean Street will be added via amendment)
The Applicant (i.e., individual, business entity, or organization) requesting oversight must possess all necessary rights and access to the site so that it can carry out any and all activities that the oversight agency may require in making its regulatory decisions.
Applicant Name: Ocean Street Santa Cruz LLC
Applicant Point of Contact Name: Chris Batson
Email Address: [email protected]
Phone: (978)549-0432
Address, City, County, and Zip Code: 2744 E. 11th Street, Oakland, California 94601 Applicant's relationship to Site: Current Owner Operator Local Agency Prospective Purchaser Developer
Other (please describe): Applicant is current owner of 530 and 542 Ocean and a prospective purchase of a third parcel, 548 Ocean, that will be added to this application via amendment in April or May 2024
Current Owner (if different from Applicant):
Owner Point of Contact Name:
Email Address:
Phone: ( ) -
Address, City, County, and Zip Code:
SECTION 1
APPLICANT/PRIMARY CONTACT INFORMATION
43.861
State of California – California Environmental Protection Agency Request for Agency Oversight Application
DTSC Form 1460- Revision July 19 2018
43.862
State of California – California Environmental Protection Agency Request for Agency Oversight Application
DTSC Form 1460- Revision July 19 2018
Consulting Firm Name: Terraphase Engineering, Inc.
Consultant Point of Contact Name: Andrew Lojo
Email Address: [email protected]
Phone: (510)703-5696
Address, City, County, and Zip Code: 1300 Clay Street, Suite 1000, Oakland, Alameda County, 94612
Primary Point of Contact for this Site: Applicant Contact or Consultant Contact or Owner Contact or Attorney Contact
Billable Party Information:
Billing Point of Contact Name: Chris Batson
Email Address: [email protected]
Phone: (978)549-0432
Address, City, County, and Zip Code: 2744 E. 11th Street, Oakland, California 94601 Tax ID Number (applicable only to business entities and organizations; please do not provide individual social security numbers): 99-0561387 If applicable, the applicant may reference information from an attached Phase 1 Environmental Assessment or other site investigation reports available for the Site.
1. Is this Site listed on Envirostor? Yes No and/or GeoTracker? Yes No
2. APN(s): 010-011-16, 010-011-30, 010-011-31 Acres: 0.8 Zoning: Community Commercial District
3. Provide a Site Location Map and a Site Diagram showing significant features
4. Provide street boundaries, describe the current use of the Site, and include description of features:
The Site is located on the eastern side of Ocean Street in Santa Cruz, California.
The nearest cross-streets are Dakota Avenue to the north and Soquel Avenue to the south.
The Site is currently developed as follows:
530 Ocean: two office buildings, one single story and one two-story, separated by a narrow alley running north to south, and an adjoining parking lot to the east of the structures. The office buildings are used as medical offices and general office space.
SECTION 2
SITE INFORMATION
43.863
State of California – California Environmental Protection Agency Request for Agency Oversight Application
DTSC Form 1460- Revision July 19 2018
542 Ocean: one two-story, wood-framed office building, constructed between 1989 and 1991. The building is mostly vacant; one suite within the building is used as a law office. An adjacent parking lot is present to the east of the structure.
548 Ocean: one physical therapy clinic constructed between 1956 and 1968 and expanded between 1982 and 1993, and adjoining parking lot to the south of the structure. The building is single-story with a second story loft used as storage.
The building contains an indoor swimming pool near the southeastern side of the building.
5. Describe the surrounding land use (including zoning, approximate distance to residential housing, schools, churches, etc.):
The Site is located in a generally commercial area. The Site is bounded to the north across Branciforte Creek by a multifamily residence; to the south by a hotel;to the west across Ocean Street by a hotel, restaurant, and retail shop; and to the east by single family homes. The area of the Site is zoned as a Community Commercial District.
6. Current Business Operations
Name: 530 Ocean: Aardwolf Bail Bonds, Santa Cruz Midwive; 542 Ocean: an attorney's office; 548 Ocean: VibrantCare Rehabilitation (physical therapy clinic); Type: Medical offices, offices
Years of Operation:
530 Ocean: 530a Ocean Street (east building) was identified as being occupied by residential tenants from 1960-1976. City records do not identify when the current tenant (Santa Cruz Midwives) began occuping the structure. Based on city directories, the following businesses operated at 530b Ocean Street (west building adjacent to Ocean Street): 1960-1964: Bettencourt Grocery and Bar, 1967-1971: Castle Art Gallery, 1983: Bay City Bookkeeping and Taxes, Cornell & Associates, Time Center, 1992: Court Referral, 1992-1995: Chiropracter's Offices, 2000-2010: Pats Planet Travel, Laestrella Jewelry, 2005: Jasmine Berke Acupuncture, 2014-2020: Aardwolf Bail Bonds
542 Ocean: The property consisted of residential structures until 1982. Since the current office building was constructed between 1989 and 1991, offices have been leased to various tenants including law firms, bail bondsmen, medical offices, real estate offices, and insurance offices.
548 Ocean: Based on city directories, the following businesses operated at 548 Ocean: 1964: Fleming Eug M Physio Therapy and Noland Royce P Physio Therapy; 1980: Brown-Fleming Physical Therapy; 1985: Fleming & Fleming Physical Therapy; 1992: Fleming Murray; 1995: Fleming ll and Rodney E Fleming; 2000: Fleming ll and NovaCare Outpatient Rehabilitation; 2005:
Novacare Rehabilitation; 2010-2020: Vibrant Care Rehabilitation; 2020:
Stephens Eiren Alicia, and Meunier Pierre.
7. If known, list all previous businesses operating on this Site:
1. Please see above Years of
Operation:
2. Years of Operation:
43.864
State of California – California Environmental Protection Agency Request for Agency Oversight Application
DTSC Form 1460- Revision July 19 2018
3. Years of Operation:
4. Years of Operation:
5. Years of Operation:
8. What hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants have been or are being used/stored at the Site?
Chemicals stored in 530 and 542 Ocean were limited to paint and typical cleaning chemicals, with no environmental concerns identified. Terraphase observed pool and cleaning chemicals in 548 Ocean.
Based on historical information and a review of environmental databases, Beach City Cleaners, an apparent dry-cleaning facility, operated approximately 475 feet southeast of the Site between at least 1969 and 1982. Additionally, Mission Printers operated approximately 500 feet southeast of the Site between at least 1992 and 2001. Waste generated at the Mission Printers facility included benzene, tetrachloroethene (PCE), and trichloroethene (TCE).
No current or historic USTs have been identified at the Site.
9. What environmental media is/was/may be contaminated (check all that apply)? Soil Soil Vapor Indoor Air Groundwater Surface Water
Sediment Unknown
10. Has sampling been conducted? Yes No
If yes, please complete the following:
Contaminant Media (soil,
water, soil
vapor, or air)
Max. Concentration
Detected
Screening Level
(include source, e.g.
residential RSL or ESL)
Date of
Investigation
Arsenic Soil 30 mg/kg at 1.0 foot
bgs near the
southern boundary
of 542 Ocean
0.36 mg/kg -
Commercial/Industrial
DTSC-SL
11mg/kg - generally
accepted background
concentration
November
2023
Chloroform Soil Vapor 400 μg/m3 (approx
5 feet bgs, eastern
portion of 548
Ocean)
18 ug/m3 - EPA
Commercial/Industrial
RSL with attenuation
factor of 0.03 applied
November
2023
Tetrachloroethene
(PCE)
Soil Vapor 100 μg/m3 (approx
5 feet bgs, eastern
portion of 548
Ocean)
67 μg/m3 -
Commercial/Industrial
DTSC-SL with
attenuation factor of
0.03 applied
November
2023
Check or list relevant available investigation reports, if applicable:
Report Name Author/Consultant Media
Investigated
Date
43.865
State of California – California Environmental Protection Agency Request for Agency Oversight Application
DTSC Form 1460- Revision July 19 2018
Preliminary Endangerment
Assessment
Phase 1 Environmental
Assessment
None January
2024;
Consultant:
Terraphase
Engineering
Phase 2 Environmental
Assessment
Soil, soil
vapor
March
2024;
Consultant:
Terraphase
Engineering
Human Health Risk Assessment
11. Is there currently a potential for exposure of the tenants, community or workers to hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants at the Site? Yes No If yes, then explain.
12. Provide a brief summary of removal or remedial activities that have been undertaken or completed at the Site, if any. None.
List relevant available cleanup reports, if applicable:
Cleanup Report Name Author/Consultant Media Addressed Date
13. Provide a description of known or possible water quality impacts at the Site.
Also, provide information about the type(s) of water supply for the Site and, if known, any information on municipal, domestic, agricultural, or industrial water supply wells that are either on the Site or within a 1-mile radius of the project area.
Water Quality: There are no known water quality impacts at the Site.
Water Supply:
Drinking water to all three addresses is supplied by City of Santa Cruz Water Department. The nearest surface water to the Site is Branciforte Creek, located immediately north of 548 Ocean. Accordingly, there are no known drinking water supply impacts at the Site.
Wells:
Terraphase observed no wells at the Site. According to the EDR report attached to the Phase I ESA, no federal USGS wells were identified within 1 mile of the Site. One federal public water supply well (Well ID CA 2702182) was identified as
43.866
State of California – California Environmental Protection Agency Request for Agency Oversight Application
DTSC Form 1460- Revision July 19 2018
being within 0.5 to 1.0 mile of the Site; however, the associated address is approximately 20 miles southeast of the Site. Approximately 280 wells were identified in the state database within 1 mile of the Site. The wells located within 1/4-miles of the Site appear to be monitoring wells associated with cleanup sites in the vicinity of the Site.
14. Are any federal, state, or local regulatory agencies currently involved with the Site, or have any been previously? Yes No If yes, provide details below.
Agency Involvement Contact Name Phone Number
( ) -
( ) -
( ) -
15. Is a change of regulatory agency being requested for this Site? Yes No If yes, please explain the need for the change: .
16. Do you have a preference in which regulatory agency providing oversight? Yes No If yes, please name the preferred agency and state a reason.
We prefer DTSC as the lead regulatory agency as we are submitting an appplication for a CLRRA Agreement, and the main medial of concern appears to be soil and soil vapor, not groundwater.
17. What is the proposed future use of the Site? The site will consist of the three parcels combined and will be redeveloped into a multifamily residential building with nonresidential ground floor use.
18. If the Site is not cleaned-up to unrestricted standards, will the owner accept land use restrictions? Yes
19. What oversight service is being requested of the Lead Agency (check all that apply)?
Initial Investigation/Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Supplemental Investigation
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
Removal Action/Remedial Action
Case Closure
Document Review
Other:
20. If applicable, provide a general description of the nature of the proposed redevelopment, including a general timeline for construction: The proposed redevelopment will involve the demolition of the existing buildings at 530, 542, and 548 Ocean Street and constructing a single six-story residential building. The ground floor of the planned building will be designated as Type 1 construction, featuring an approximately 18-foot concrete podium (above grade) that will be exclusively used for non-residential purposes (i.e., commercial use, parking, mechanical rooms, trash storage, and lobby). Shallow soil at the Site will likely be removed to at least 12 to 24 inches to accomodate new foundations. The upper
43.867
State of California – California Environmental Protection Agency Request for Agency Oversight Application
DTSC Form 1460- Revision July 19 2018
five floors of the planned building will be built with wood frame construction and will comprise 225 studio and two-bedroom apartments. No timeline for the beginning of construction has been established as of the date of this application; however, the project is expected to take approximately 25 months to construct upon breaking ground.
1. Is the Site located in a disadvantaged or low-income community on the SB 535 Disadvantaged and Low-Income Community Map)? If yes, please attach or include the statistics for the Site.
No.
2. Has there been any public interest in the Site, such as contact from community members or activists, community meetings, concerns raised at local government meetings, etc.?
No.
3. Has there been any media coverage of the Site or of the surrounding neighborhood?
No.
4. Are there any public concerns/issues anticipated regarding current or historical Site activities or future redevelopment plans?
No.
5. Are there any general environmental or redevelopment-related concerns/issues in the community regarding neighboring sites (Superfund sites, high-profile environmental projects, redevelopment projects opposed by the community, etc.)?
No.
6. Has there been any interest in the Site or the surrounding area from elected officials?
No.
7. Describe the visibility of activities at the Site to people living and working in the area:
The Site is located in a mixed residential and commercial area. Proposed construction activities will be visible to members of the community. The Site is located in a well-traveled area in close proximity to retail businesses, hotels, and restaurants. Construction mitigation activities will include dust control, noise minimization, and fencing to minimize impacts to neighbors and the community.
SECTION 3
COMMUNITY PROFILE INFORMATION
43.868
State of California – California Environmental Protection Agency Request for Agency Oversight Application
DTSC Form 1460- Revision July 19 2018
The signatory below is an authorized representative of the Applicant and certifies to the best of his/her knowledge and belief that the information contained in this application, including any attachments, is true and complete and accurately describes the Applicant, the Site, and related conditions. The Applicant agrees to promptly inform the agency of any changes that occur in the information contained in this application.
The Applicant agrees to reimburse the lead agency (the Department of Toxic Substances Control or the Regional Water Quality Control Board) for the lead agency’s costs in preparing and negotiating the appropriate cost recovery agreement, regardless of whether the agreement is subsequently executed by the Applicant and the lead agency, and, in the event the cost recovery agreement is executed by the parties, for oversight of the activities identified in the Scope of Work of the selected agreement.
3/29/2024 Chris Batson, Dev. Assoc.
____________________________ ________________ _______________________ Applicant Representative Date Printed Name and Title
Please email or mail completed and signed application to the respective DTSC Brownfield Coordinator or the Regional Water Quality Control Board Brownfield Program Contacts for the property. If you have any questions about this application, or need guidance please reach out to any of the contacts.
SECTION 4
CERTIFICATION
Christopher Batson
Digitally signed by Christopher Batson
DN: C=US, [email protected], O=Riaz
Capital, OU=Development Team,
CN=Christopher Batson
Reason: I am the author of this document
Contact Info: 9785490432
Date: 2024.03.29 14:53:19-07'00'
43.869
State of California – California Environmental Protection Agency Request for Agency Oversight of a Brownfield Site
Supplemental Attachment: California Land Reuse and Revitalization Act (CLRRA) Application
DTSC Form 1460- Revision June 2018
CLRRA Agreement Supplement
Please complete this form ONLY if you are an eligible entity applying for a California Land Reuse and Revitalization Act (CLRRA) Agreement Definitions of terms used in the CLRRA Application can be found in Article 2 “Definitions,” and Article 6, “Streamlined Site Investigation and Response Plan Agreements,” Chapter 6.82, Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code (commencing with section 25395.60).
1. Are you applying as a/an:
Bona Fide Purchaser (BFP)
Contiguous Property Owner (CPO)
Innocent Landowner (ILO)
Prospective Purchaser (PP)
Bona Fide Ground Tenant (BFGT)
2. Is the Site located in a city with a population of greater than 100,000? Yes No
3. Is the Site solely impacted by petroleum from an underground storage tank and eligible for reimbursement from the Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund? Yes No
If you answered YES to either question 2 or 3, contact a DTSC or Water Board Brownfield Coordinator to discuss Site-specific details.
4. Current zoning and planned use of the Site:
Current zoning is Community Commercial District, planned use is for multi-family residential purposes.
5. Do you own the Site? Yes No (If yes, answer questions 6 and 7)
6. Did the owner conduct due diligence/All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) prior to acquiring Site? Yes No
If applicable, date AAI was conducted:____________
7. Did the owner take reasonable steps with regard to contamination at the Site including, as appropriate: stopping continuing releases; preventing threatened releases; and preventing or limiting human, environmental, or natural resource exposure to earlier hazardous substance releases? Yes No
8. Date the Site was/will be purchased and title was/will be transferred 530 Ocean Street: 2/29/24; 542 Ocean Street: 3/1/24; 548 Ocean Street: 4/4/24
9. For Bona Fide Ground Tenant: what is the duration of the lease? 1/24/24 43.870
State of California – California Environmental Protection Agency Request for Agency Oversight of a Brownfield Site
Supplemental Attachment: California Land Reuse and Revitalization Act (CLRRA) Application
DTSC Form 1460- Revision June 2018
CLRRA Agreement Supplement
Applicant’s Disclosure Statement:
In submitting this application, I verify that, to the best of my knowledge, I can meet the requirements for a Bona Fide Purchaser, Contiguous Property Owner, Innocent Landowner, Prospective Purchaser, or Bona Fide Ground Tenant set forth in Division 20, Chapter 6.82 (commencing with section 25395.60) of the Health and Safety Code and, upon request by the oversight agency, will submit documentation that I meet each of the following conditions in accordance with Health and Safety Code section 25395.80:
On or before the date of property acquisition, I made “All Appropriate Inquiries” into the previous ownership and uses of the Site; and
I am not potentially liable or affiliated with any other person who is potentially liable through any direct or indirect familial relationship or through any contractual, corporate, or financial relationship, unless that relationship was created by the instrument by which title or possession to the Site was conveyed or financed or was a contract for the sale of goods or services, or through the result of a reorganization of a business entity that was potentially liable for the release or threatened release of hazardous materials at the Site.
The Applicant agrees to reimburse the lead agency (the Department of Toxic Substances Control or the Regional Water Quality Control Board) for the lead agency’s costs in preparing and negotiating the CLRRA Agreement, regardless of whether the Agreement is subsequently executed by the Applicant and the lead agency, and, in the event a CLRRA Agreement is executed by the parties, for oversight of the activities identified in the Agreement.
The signatory below is an authorized representative of the Applicant and certifies to the best of his/her knowledge and belief that the information contained in this application, including any attachments, is true and complete and accurately describes the Applicant, the Property, and related conditions. The Applicant agrees to promptly inform the lead agency of any changes that occur in the information contained in this application.
Signature of Applicant:
______________________________________________
Date:
______3/29/2024________________________________________ Name and Title: __________Chris Batson, Development Associate ____________________________________
Address: _______2744 E 11th Street, Oakland, CA 94601
_______________________________________
Christopher Batson
Digitally signed by Christopher Batson
DN: C=US, [email protected],
O=Riaz Capital, OU=Development Team,
CN=Christopher Batson
Reason: I am the author of this document
Contact Info: 9785490432
Date: 2024.03.29 14:54:38-07'00'
43.871
State of California – California Environmental Protection Agency Request for Agency Oversight of a Brownfield Site
Supplemental Attachment: Prospective Purchaser Agreement DTSC Form 1460- Revision June 2018
PP Agreement Supplement
Please complete this form ONLY if you are an eligible entity applying for a Prospective Purchaser Agreement with DTSC
1. Is the current owner aware of your plans to seek a Prospective Purchaser Agreement with DTSC?
Yes No
a) If “yes,” when do you expect to take title to the Site? b) If “no,” what is your proposed interest in the Site and what vehicle will be used to consummate the transaction?
2. Please describe, if known, the timing of the proposed property transaction in sufficient detail to give DTSC a sense of your needs and timetable.
3. Attach a copy of the Site map, legal boundary description, and Title Report.
4. Describe the “substantial benefit” to the State of California that will result if your proposal is implemented. For example, describe the changes expected in the local and state tax base or other benefits to the community and surrounding neighborhood which could occur as a result of the Site redevelopment.
5. Describe the financing to be used to complete remediation prior to the development of the Site.
6. Briefly describe, in general terms, the removal or remedial activities to be performed in the future.
7. Attach a list of names and addresses of potentially responsible parties, and describe all efforts to identify the potentially responsible parties.
Note: If remediation is occurring during and after construction, such as for groundwater treatment or soil vapor extraction, a separate Operation and Maintenance Agreement must be executed to ensure that remedial activities occur until remedial goals are met.
43.872
State of California – California Environmental Protection Agency Request for Agency Oversight of a Brownfield Site
Supplemental Attachment: Prospective Purchaser Agreement DTSC Form 1460- Revision June 2018
PP Agreement Supplement
Applicant’s Disclosure Statement:
In submitting this application, I verify under penalty of perjury that, to the best of my knowledge, the Applicant is not a responsible party or affiliated with a responsible party for this Site.
The Applicant agrees to reimburse the lead agency for its costs in preparing and negotiating the Prospective Purchaser Agreement, regardless of whether the Agreement is subsequently executed by the Applicant and the lead agency, and, in the event a Prospective Purchaser Agreement is executed by the parties, for oversight of the activities identified in the Agreement.
The signatory below is an authorized representative of the Applicant and certifies to the best of his/her knowledge and belief that the information contained in this application, including any attachments, is true and complete and accurately describes the Applicant, the Property, and related conditions. The Applicant agrees to promptly inform DTSC of any changes that occur in the information contained in this application.
Signature of Applicant:
______________________________________________
Date:
Name and Title: Chris Batson, Development Associate
Christopher Batson
Digitally signed by Christopher Batson
DN: C=US, [email protected], O=Riaz Capital,
OU=Development Team, CN=Christopher Batson
Reason: I am the author of this document
Contact Info: 9785490432
Date: 2024.03.29 14:54:58-07'00'
3/29/24 43.873
Brittany Inclan
From: Karin Vollrath <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2025 8:09 PM
To: City Council; Gabriela Trigueiro
Subject: 530, 542, 548 Ocean Street/ Request For Environmental Impact Study To:
Santa Cruz City Council Chamber Members
Central Park Neighborhood Council Member, Gabriela Trigueiro Our property is located across the Branciforte Creek, by the corner of Dakota & May Streets, very near the proposed development at 530, 542, 548 Ocean Street.
We have recently learned that there are significant levels of hazardous waste on the proposed development site. Despite knowledge of these toxins, this fact was not publicly disclosed by the Developer at the original 5/20/24 Community Meeting, on the 2/28/25 Zoning Administrator Report and City Staff Report, or at the 3/5/25 Zoning Administrator Meeting. As a result of this omission, community members were never publicly informed of this disturbing news or given the opportunity to submit public comment on this alarming fact. We are seriously concerned about health risks of our family, friends and Central Park community, and we are asking that the city follow standard process in this situation.
Please consider the health and safety of your local community.
With all due respect, we request that a detailed Environmental Impact Study be required and completed as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Karin Vollrath
[email protected]
43.874
Brittany Inclan
From: David Foran <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2025 8:28 PM
To: Gabriela Trigueiro; City Council
Subject: Environmental Impact Study for Proposed ArtHaus Development To Whom It May Concern,
Our property at 306 Dakota Ave is in close vicinity to the proposed ArtHaus development on Ocean Ave. I have just been informed that despite being aware of hazardous waste being found on the site, the developers, Workbench and Diaz Capital, chose not to publicly reveal this fact to the community and Santa Cruz city administration.
Please consider the health and safety of our community and request that protocol be followed and that an Environmental Impact Study be completed as soon as possible.
Respectfully Yours,
David Foran
43.875
Brittany Inclan
From: Deborah Marks <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2025 9:03 AM
To: City Council
Subject: 530 Ocean St Appeal
Dear City Council Members,
I am reaching out to you regarding the Appeal for the Diaz Capital Project at 530 Ocean St .
TOXINS:
530, 542, 548 Ocean Street was registered as an active clean-up site (see 1-page attachment) with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) as of 10/1/2024, with the following toxins found:
Arsenic up to 30 mg/kg in soil near the southern border of 542 Ocean Street Chloroform vapors up to 400 ug/m^3 in soil in the eastern portion of 548 Ocean Street Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) vapors up to 100 ug/m^3 in soil in the eastern portion of 548 Ocean Street Arsenic and Tetrachloroethylene on-site exceed DTSC’s Environmental Screening Levels, which establish safe levels for residential areas. DTSC’s Residential Screening Levels for Arsenic are .11 milligrams per kilogram. (Exhibit F, p. 2.) Thus, the Arsenic onsite is more than 270 times the amount deemed safe for residential areas. Residential screening levels for PCE are .46 μg/m^3. (Exhibit G.) PCE onsite, therefore, is 217 times the amount deemed safe for residential areas.
Disturbance of soil contamination that greatly exceeds safe levels during demolition and construction would likely pose a threat to the health and safety of residents who live next to the Property This information about toxins found on site was registered by Christopher Batson on 3/29/24 of Riaz Capital with a Request for Agency Oversight Application (see ESA attachment) - see page 8 which lists community profile.
The applicant held a community meeting on May 20, 2024 and there was NO MENTION of the toxins found at the site that were registered two months prior. There is also no mention of the toxins found on site in the entire Zoning Administrator Report and City Staff Report dated 2/28/25 and the Zoning Administrator meeting on 3/5/25.
PARKING:
Another issue of concern is that City Planning is giving a parking exemption due to AB 2097 which states that the project must be within 0.5 miles of a major 'transit stop'. The nearest major transit stop is 920 Pacific Avenue which is over 0.6 miles to the shortest distance, walking or driving. The City Planning office tried and has not been able to secure a technical advisory from CA Housing and Community Development (HCD) supporting the City's claim to try and use "as the crow flies" vs. walking distance. Residents will be deprived of the recommended access of less than 0.5 miles to the nearest major transit stop. The City should wait to waive parking until they get a technical advisory from HCD.
OSAP WAIVERS:
The Branciforte Creek neighbors have had several meeting with the developers representative and it seems they are willing to reimburse some neighbors for their loss of solar, and agree to include several some small changes to provide a few feet more set back, add landscape on the rear facing and creek facing blank walls, reduce some of the impacts of lighting, windows, noise. While this is welcome and appreciated, at the end of the day 80' is 80' and the brutalist style of the building is not compatible with the small quaint historic homes that are adjacent to this site.
This project is highly impactful to the adjacent neighborhoods. This is exactly what we were told would never happen when the Ocean St Area Plan was created. Parts of the Ocean St Area Plan are being strictly adhered to but most important neighborhood compatibility standards have been stripped away. There is one waiver that can be changed.
43.876
WAIVE THE 15' SIDEWALK REQUIREMENT ON OCEAN ST
The 15' wide sidewalk and Commercial space have been non negotiable for the Planning Department. A one foot set back from the neighbors property line , bordered by a solid 17' wall, minimal rear height transitions on an 80' building that deprives neighbors of their sunlight, deprives adjacent residents of their sunlight and privacy. We are aware that this overwhelming impact is made possible due to new state laws, but is it acceptable for our community? Diaz Capital and Workbench are seeking to build many projects in this City they stand to make a massive profit off of Santa Cruz. However they are not being 'good neighbors' and they are not being fair to this neighborhood that borders Ocean St.
There are things that could be done to make this less impactful. The City can allow the developer to waive the 15' sidewalk and the commercial space. The 'pedestrian friendly' Ocean street will never happen at this location. No one will be hanging out at this unpleasant stretch of Ocean St. A plaza in front of an 80' brutalist style apartment building at the busiest noisiest intersection in the City enduring traffic jams, honking horns, fumes, and sirens is not realistic. Like all the other new (and existing) commercial spaces that do not get rented it is highly unlikely that there would ever be community friendly business that serves the local community here. It will most likely be another soulless annoying fast food chain. Competition with the proposed downtown Plaza and other nice relaxing places to congregate will make it far less likely that anyone will choose to sit at this busy noisy location. Even the tourists couldnt use it because there is no place to park. A commercial space exists right across the street, this could eventually be upgraded to well designed community commercial space, There is no logic here, no need for this. Forcing a useless 15' sidewalk on Ocean St just makes the impact far worse on the residents behind an 80' brutalist high rise. The idealistic theory of a pedestrian friendly Ocean St was created in a different era when no one envisioned anything like this building here, and it is not realistic or feasible for this location and it makes the project design unnecessarily more unfair to the existing neighborhood.
A well designed Resident Plaza can go in the rear of the building. The massive 17' blank wall could be beautifully landscaped to give the impression of a peaceful space that people might actually enjoy. This could even provide the residents of the building some mental health relief from the stress of living in a shoebox sized apartment. No one will miss having a few extra feet on what will always be an unpleasant street . Of course such a change would have to include that the building would have to keep its current size, the developer cannot try to include more density by moving the building forward
UPHOLD THE APPEAL
Our primary ask is for the City to approve the Appeal and send the project back for an environmental report opportunity for public input, and clarification of the AB2097 definition of distance to a major transit stop. To allow a developer to bypass parts of the process is wrong. The City is primed to build thousands of new rental units. 1000 of those units are approved and or proposed within just a few blocks from the Branciforte Creek area. Given that State laws severely limit what the Cty can do to protect existing neighborhoods, letting developers know that the City will seriously follow every process to the letter of the law will set a fair and welcome precedent for our tiny neighborhoods and the whole city.
Thank you for all of your hard work and for your serious consideration of this Appeal.
Deborah Marks
207 Leonard St
43.877
Brittany Inclan
From: eric grodberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2025 10:02 AM
To: City Council; Bonnie Bush
Subject: Comment on Agenda Item 43 - Appeal of 530 Ocean Street Hi Bonnie,
Please submit my response to Ms. Vilhauer as part of my comment on the agenda item. I'll have additional submissions.
Thanks,
-Eric
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: eric grodberg <[email protected]>
To: Lisa Vilhauer <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Rina Zhou <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2025 at 11:45:24 AM PDT
Subject: Re: 530 Ocean Street
Hi Lisa,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I don't know if you received my response to Lee's email. I will forward it to you.
To be clear, I have never suggested eliminating the windows in the units facing May Avenue. Rather, my proposal would be to make the building articulations on the east (May) facade deeper. That would allow enough wall space on the north/south walls of the articulations to accommodate windows in those walls (i.e., in the articulations) oriented north/south rather than east.
I realize under the current design this would only work for half of the units and it might slightly reduce the overall square footage of the project.
As to your numbered points, in general thanks.
1. Frosted windows: from your presentation at the Planning Commission, I understood that you had offered Eric Grabiel (the Appellant), window frosting, but since that didn't satisfy him, you weren't going to do it. I'm glad that either I misunderstood or you decided to go ahead with it anyway. I understand and appreciate your sightline sketch. I think it would make all the neighbors happier if you frosted the windows up to the sixth floor.
Though the window frosting is positive, as you note, the windows are operable and the residents will open the windows thereby defeating the frosting. Also, it's only effective when the resident is distant from the window and since these units are only 321 square feet (if I recall correctly), the residents are likely to be close to the windows often.
43.878
3. Setbacks and Landscaping: That's great. I hope you commit to serious landscaping that can act as a natural screen for at least the lower floors. Long term and an on-going commitment to landscape maintenance is crucial so that the trees/vines don't die, but flourish is vital.
That was a condition of approval for the 1999 Best Western All Suites Inn (500 Ocean Street), but the owners haven't complied and the City hasn't enforced the Condition vigorously. So, where there should be mature trees obscuring the bank of windows on the North facade, I still have a large bank of windows overlooking my property (115 May). Even 26 years later I have an active Code Complaint based on the original Conditions.
Thanks,
-Eric
On Thursday, June 19, 2025 at 09:56:28 AM PDT, Lisa Vilhauer <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Eric -
I wanted to take a minute and respond to a couple of your comments regarding our proposed project at 530 Ocean Street.
I appreciate you sending your comments through. As Lee explained, it would be difficult to remove the windows that are facing May Ave. This would end up with a blank wall along May Street which I think overall would be worse for the entire community. It also would greatly reduce the livability of the units. We have offered a few other solutions to help with the privacy concerns.
1. For the second and third floor units that are facing May Avenue we will be frosting the bottom 18" of the windows.
This shifts the residents' sight line up and over the yards of the existing homes or the rear windows , rather than having the ability to look down. I have attached an exhibit that shows this, the black line shows the sight line without the frosting and the red shows it with the frosting. (Note: the third floor will actually shift further up as it is currently showing 10" of frosting) As you can see, the 4-6 floor windows and the sight line will be shifted beyond the yards of the May Ave homes.
2. For all windows that are facing May Avenue we will be installing blinds that pull from the top down. This will allow for the future residents to get light into their unit without having the lower portion open.
3. In terms of landscaping, we have increased the rear setback from the original proposal. This should allow us to add additional landscaping, whether it is vines on the garage wall or possibly some larger trees. We will be working with the fire department to determine what we can have in that area.
Thank you again for your comments and let me know if you have any further comments, I am happy to discuss.
Lisa Vilhauer
VP of Design & Entitlement, Riaz Capital
[email protected] |t: 925.858.4724
Riaz Capital
2744 E 11th St, Oakland, CA 94601
www.riazcapital.com
Check out our latest projects: Artthaus Studios / Hannah Park / The Rose on Bond / The Linden
43.879
Brittany Inclan
From: eric grodberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2025 10:04 AM
To: City Council; Bonnie Bush
Subject: Agenda #43 - Council Appeal Hearing 530 Ocean St CP24-0071 - additional comments Hi Bonnie,
Could you please add this to my prior submission on this agenda item? Thanks,
-Eric
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: eric grodberg <[email protected]>
To: Fred Keeley <[email protected]>; Lee Butler <[email protected]> Cc: Rina Zhou <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]>; Bonnie Bush <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2025 at 10:34:58 PM PDT
Subject: Re: Request for additional comment time - Council Appeal Hearing 530 Ocean St CP24-0071 Hi Lee,
Thanks for the detailed response on various points. As you note, the hearing is scheduled for June 24th - Mayor Keeley, could I have 5 minutes to present at Public Comment? Lee, as to your substantive comments:
I appreciate the changes in Objective Standards to address the rear of the buildings and also that you can't enforce them retrospectively. I do think (as you may be implying) that the City's strong suggestions often prompt applicants to alter their designs even when they may not be legally required to do so. I hope that the City can forcefully bring up this particular issue to the developer. I'm sure it would make a big difference to the immediately adjacent neighbors. (Note, my property is behind the Islander Motel which is not part of the project.)
I know that the laws regarding ADUs have changed dramatically in the past few years, so I might not be 'current.' My nextdoor neighbor (not on May Ave) recently completed a very large ADU. He maxed out everything possible - side and rear setbacks, building height, conditioned square footage, yet he still had much more stringent requirements than this Ocean Street project - including setbacks and window placement. One of the requirements was that he couldn't have any windows facing my property. This wasn't done at my request. It seems odd that an ADU could have much more restrictive requirements than a six story building. It's also indicative that the City already is aware that window placement is a concern and makes me question why that concern is not incorporated in the Objective Standards.
I understand that the units need windows. In the Plan View of the May Ave facade that you excerpted below, if the building modulations were big enough (i.e., extended eastward far enough), windows could be placed in the north and south facing articulations rather than the east facade. That's is, they'd be facing parallel to Ocean Street. I understand that might be more expensive to build and might reduce the total potential square footage
43.880
of the building. I also understand that the in the current design only half the units have north/south facing articulations. The design could be changed so that all the units had north/south walls.
Another possibility is to require the developer to plant fast growing trees to serve as a natural screen. This was a Condition of Approval for the Best Western All Suites Inn (500 Ocean Street) when it expanded in 1999. Unfortunately, the Best Western still has not complied with this condition and and though I've been pursuing this for decades, the City has been unwilling to enforce compliance. The City Arborist, Leslie Keedy, has tried to help with this, but she doesn't have authority to enforce the Condition.
Finally, I think it's reasonable to expect dense development including six story buildings along Ocean Street. However, I don't think it's reasonable to expect a six story building with almost no setback and a huge bank of windows facing directly onto someone's backyard.
I think the City should take all measures possible to mitigate this serious and direct impact on pre-existing, immediately adjacent SFR properties. Otherwise, you're playing into the NIMBY narrative. After all, one of the City's talking points was to concentrate development specifically to avoid impacting SFR neighborhoods.
I am confident that the City has levers to use to make this a better project. I've been to many public meetings in which developers agreed to changes to satisfy the Planning Commission or Council. I'm sure there are even more concessions that happen in private meetings.
Thanks,
-Eric
On Friday, June 13, 2025 at 05:18:55 PM PDT, Lee Butler <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Eric,
Thanks for sharing your comments about this appeal that is scheduled for the June 24th Council hearing.
The City agrees that design on the rear of buildings is important. The Council recently adopted changes to the objective standards that address building design to the rear of properties. Here is an excerpt of the recent changes at https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-departments/planning-and-communitydevelopment/long-range-policy-planning/objective-design-standards-for-multifamily-housing-2025-updates, with the prior requirements in the column on the left (none in this case) and the new standards in the column on the right:
Prior requirements: New requirements:
43.881
As you’re likely aware, we cannot require a project to comply with objective standards that were not in place at the time of a complete SB 330 preapplication (or formal application). Thus, while the standards above will apply to future projects, they cannot be required for this one. That said, the applicant does propose building modulation on the rear of the building, with the building plane alternating between units, as shown in the floor plan below (with the top being the rear façade facing May Ave.):
While we have no objective standards that would allow us to require the changes you request, I will share your comments with the project manager and ask that she also share them with the applicant.
To be clear though, even the new objective design standards will not fully address the privacy concerns that you raise. It will still be necessary to have windows directly facing the rear for light, ventilation, and escape/rescue purposes. Aesthetic considerations for the new buildings are another factor, as are the livability and quality of life for the future residents.
Feel free to share other thoughts that you may have, and you can reach out to the project manager, Rina Zhou, directly with questions or comments. I’ve copied her here.
43.882
Thanks,
Lee Butler
Director of Planning & Community Development
City of Santa Cruz | Department of Planning & Community Development 809 Center Street Rm. 101, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Direct: 831-420-5103
Main: 831-420-5110
Email: [email protected]
www.cityofsantacruz.com
From: eric grodberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2025 1:51 PM
To: Bonnie Bush <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]>; Fred Keeley <[email protected]>
Cc: Lee Butler <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Request for additional comment time - Council Appeal Hearing 530 Ocean St CP24-0071
****CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.****
Mayor Keeley,
Thanks for your response. I've attached the Notice the City sent me regarding the June 24th hearing. If it's been rescheduled, please let me know.
I think I could give a better presentation in person with photos. Primarily, I think the City could require the developer to reorient the large bank of east facing windows that look directly down on the existing residential properties on May Avenue. With design modification and building articulation on the east face, the windows could be re-oriented to north and south facing so that they don't look directly down on the existing residential properties.
43.883
The purpose of the City's Objective Design Standards is so that buildings aren't simply value engineered, but have attractive architecture and function and fit in with the already built environment. If the City's Objective Design Standards don't allow for the City to require such a design revision of the developer, I'd say they're not meeting their purpose. The City imposes a lot of design constraints on developers on the front side of their buildings (in this case Ocean Street), but largely ignores the back side, even when, such as in this case, the back side is impactful to residents. The developer's presentation includes all kinds of attractive renderings on the Ocean St. side, but none on the May Avenue side.
I understand that the developer can ask for waivers and in many cases the City is obligated to grant them. In this case the developer is likely to argue that the design changes I suggest would make the project uneconomical. I'd be skeptical of that claim.
I have a few other thoughts on this, but I'll leave you with this one:
I am generally supportive of the building that's going on in the City. I understand why it's necessary and how municipalities have their hands tied by the State. However, there's a large majority of local residents who don't follow public affairs as closely and really hate all the current building.
I don't share that sentiment, but if the City can't even require a modest change of re-orienting 6 stories of windows on a building with virtually no setback next to an existing residential neighborhood, you'll be giving more fuel to the fire of the NIMBY sentiment.
I do have additional substantive ideas/comments on this.
Regards,
-Erc
43.884
43.885
On Friday, June 13, 2025 at 12:11:09 PM PDT, Fred Keeley <[email protected]> wrote:
Eric,
Thank you for your thoughtful email.
Please let me know the ideas you have regarding how the City “could require the developer to modify the project…” You are correct when you say that the state has reduced city and county land use authority. Being very familiar with these statutes, I really want to hear from you.
As to speaking at the June 24th City Council meeting, you may do so under oral communication (which is for communication on issues that are within the jurisdiction of the City, but NOT on that day’s agenda). I do not see that there is an appeal on for the June 24th meeting.
Again, thank you.
Fred Keeley, Mayor
City of Santa Cruz
From: eric grodberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2025 11:26 AM
To: Fred Keeley <[email protected]>; Bonnie Bush <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Request for additional comment time - Council Appeal Hearing 530 Ocean St CP24-0071
****CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.****
Hi Mayor Keeley,
43.886
I own the residential property at 115 May Avenue which is in the immediate area of the proposed project on the 500 block of Ocean Street. Along with the entire 100 block of May, my property will be greatly affected by the project.
I recognize the need for additional housing and also acknowledge that Ocean Street is a commercial street, a major transit corridor and an appropriate place for housing development.
I also understand that the State has greatly curtailed cities' ability to regulate housing developments. Nevertheless, I believe that because Santa Cruz was one of only 6% of jurisdictions statewide to meet its 5th Cycle RHNA mandate, has an approved Housing Element, has Objective Design Standards and appears to be well on its way to meet the 6th Cycle RHNA mandate, the City retains some degree of control - at least that's the narrative that the City has put out.
I have some ideas of how the City could require the developer to modify the project in order to mitigate at least one of the most impactful effects on the adjacent residential neighbors.
I am requesting 5 minutes public comment time to make my presentation at the June 24th Council meeting.
Please note, I am not the appellant, who is also named Eric. I believe that my comments will not overlap with the appellant's.
Regards,
-Eric Grodberg
43.887
Brittany Inclan
From: eric grodberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2025 10:57 AM
To: City Council; Bonnie Bush
Subject: Council Item 43 - comments to Planning CommissionFw: Item 4 - 530, 542 548 Ocean Street Project - Fw: Exhibit A Conditions for 500 Ocean St., No 99-023 Attachments: Page 1 500 Ocean.JPG; Page 2.JPG; Page 3.JPG Hi Bonnie,
Please include this public correspondence to the Planning Commission on this same matter.
Thanks,
-Eric
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: eric grodberg <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: Leslie Keedy <[email protected]>; Eric Grabiel <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, May 1, 2025 at 06:15:37 PM PDT
Subject: Item 4 - 530, 542 548 Ocean Street Project - Fw: Exhibit A Conditions for 500 Ocean St., No 99-023 Greetings Chair Polhamus and Planning Commissioners,
I own 115 May Avenue which is not directly touching the project under discussion tonight.
In 1999 the Best Western Hotel at the corner of Ocean and Soquel received approved for a major expansion. The north wall of the project is a flat (no building articulation at all) 3 story wall with many windows that look directly into my yard.
The Zoning Administrator was aware of this and as part of the Conditions of Approval required, ""The ZA indicated that the only remaining issue is to focus more on the landscaping. One of the things discussed is breaking up the north wall. There is a need to see something more substantial with evergreen trees. ..." (see original doc attached p.3)
To date, more than 25 years later, the Hotel is still out of compliance. I have worked with the City Arborist, Leslie Keedy, over the years and she has been very helpful, but has limited power.
The City has declined to take stronger measures against the Hotel to force compliance.
If the Ocean Street project is approved, I hope that the City will use its full power to ensure compliance with any Conditions of Approval, especially those that could mitigate harms to existing neighbors.
Respectfully,
-Eric Grodberg
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: eric grodberg <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
43.888
Sent: Thursday, May 1, 2025 at 05:59:49 PM PDT
Subject: Fw: Exhibit A Conditions for 500 Ocean St., No 99-023 ----- Forwarded Message -----
From: eric grodberg <[email protected]>
To: Leslie Keedy <[email protected]>; Jenna Wilson <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 09:37:42 AM PST
Subject: Exhibit A Conditions for 500 Ocean St., No 99-023 Hi Leslie,
I'm sorry. I thought that you were working directly off the City document - Conditions Exhibit A Conditions for 500 Ocean St., No 99-023. I have forwarded an old email that has it attached. Note that on page 3, it states:
"The ZA indicated that the only remaining issue is to focus more on the landscaping. One of the things discussed is breaking up the north wall. There is a need to see something more substantial with evergreen trees. ..."
As I wrote in my prior email, what they've planted is neither substantial, nor does it break up the north wall. I don't see how they have complied - especially after being 20 years late.
Also on Page 1, Item 11 refers to and discusses requirements of a landscaping plan. The requirements include minimum 15 gallon size trees
permanent maintenance
fully automated irrigation
The current plantings don't meet these requirements.
Thanks,
-Eric
On Thursday, February 28, 2019, 8:47:33 AM PST, Leslie Keedy <[email protected]> wrote:
HI Eric, as I work in Parks -can you please provide Jenna & me with all of the written conditions & approval language that you are privy to & reading from so she & I can understand what our clear authority is in this case. We as staff need to reasonably interpret what has been written & approved, we have no authority past that even if it seems reasonable to you, staff cannot mandate above & beyond what was approved & the written expectation so anything you have for our enforcement consideration will be helpful. Thanks L
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: eric grodberg <[email protected]>
To: Martin Bernal <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 3, 2018, 12:21:10 PM PDT
Subject: Fw: Corridor rezoning and 500 Ocean St (Best Western) Martin,
For Background - one of the issues I want to discuss with you tomorrow. My attempts to deal with this through normal channels have gone on for more than 15 years.
43.889
-Eric
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: eric grodberg <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Leslie Keedy <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2017, 9:04:48 AM PDT
Subject: Corridor rezoning and 500 Ocean St (Best Western) Hello Michelle,
I own 115 May Avenue, - the backyard abuts a commercial Ocean Street lot, and the side yard is the third lot from the corner of Soquel.
In 1999 the Best Western received a permit for expansion along Ocean Street. To date, the hotel has still not complied with the Conditions of Approval (attached.) I object to any beneficial rezoning (as part of the Corridor Rezoning) of this property until the owners comply with the terms of the the 1999 Conditions.
Over the years I have made numerous complaints to both City officials and Hotel Management. These include Mike Ferry, Leslie Keedy, Linda Garner, former Mayor Lynn Robinson and others.
Mike wrote them two letters demanding compliance, which they ignored. Linda prompted them to clean up some debris. Leslie has made numerous attempts to make them comply with the planting requirements along the north wall and I greatly appreciate her efforts, but to date, they have not been successful. Although there are other issues of non-compliance, the my greatest concern is the landscaping of the Hotel's north wall.
The Hotel's inaction has a material and significant negative effect on my property. I would welcome the chance to meet with you to finally resolve this issue. You can also contact Leslie for background. If you think this would be more properly handled by another member of the Planning staff, please direct me to that person.
I have long email chains documenting my (and City Officials') efforts at resolving this. I have included in this letter just a short one that includes the Conditions of Approval as attachments.
Thanks.
Sincerely,
Eric Grodberg
43.890
831-334-1705
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: eric grodberg <[email protected]>
To: Leslie Keedy <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 8:01 AM
Subject: Conditions 500 Ocean St
Hi Leslie,
Attached is "Exhibit A" Conditions for 500 Ocean St., No 99-023. My scanner is down, so I took photos of the pages. My apologies for the quality. I can come by your office today with the document.
A few items to note:
1. Page 3: "The ZA indicated that the only remaining issue is to focus more on the landscaping. One of the things discussed is breaking up the north wall. There is a need to see something more substantial with evergreen trees. ..."
2. Page 1, Item 11 refers to and discusses requirements of a landscaping plan.
3. Page 2, Item 22. I know that this is not in your ambit, but they did not comply with the screening requirements on the North side of the building - the side I'm concerned with. I'll send photos documenting this in a separate email.
Thanks so much. I greatly appreciate your help!
-Eric
From: Leslie Keedy <[email protected]>
To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 4:51 PM
Subject: email address
Hi please email me info as you find it, happy to help L
43.891
43.892
43.893
43.894
Brittany Inclan
From: Santa Cruz YIMBY <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2025 1:21 PM
To: City Council
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Deny the Appeal of 530 Ocean - Agenda #43 on June 24 2025 Attachments: Santa Cruz YIMBY input to Agenda #43, June 24 2025.pdf Mayor, Vice Mayor and Council Members,
Please see Santa Cruz YIMBY's attached letter re: item #43 on June 24, 2025 agenda.
We support the staff recommendation and urge you to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision at your hearing on June 24th.
Thank you,
Gavin Roth
Jocelyn Wolf
Ryan Meckel
Rafa Sonnenfeld
Elizabeth Madrigal
Janine Roeth
Leads, Santa Cruz YIMBY
43.895
June 23, 2025
To: Santa Cruz City Council
Re: 530, 542, 548 Ocean St & CP24-0071, ArtHaus Ocean
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor and Council Members,
Santa Cruz YIMBY advocates for abundant housing at all levels of affordability to meet the needs of a growing population in Santa Cruz County.
We are writing to provide input on Item #43 of your June 24, 2025 agenda on the Appeal of Planning Commission’s Decision Regarding CP24-0071 for 530, 542, and 548 Ocean Street. We support the staff recommendation and urge you to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision at your hearing on June 24th.
The Planning Commission’s decision was well-founded in law: with the density bonus incentives to which this project is entitled, it is compliant with zoning and the general plan. As Monchamp Meldrum LLP stated in their June 16, 2025 Response to Supplement to Eric Grabiel’s Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Development Project No. CP24-0071 at 530, 542, and 548 Ocean Street, none of the issues listed in the appeal provide a basis to reverse the decision of the Zoning Administrator or the Planning Commission.
Therefore, the appeal must be denied and the decision must be upheld.
Furthermore, if the city were to deny the project, the Housing Accountability Act, Government Code Section 65589.5(b), requires that an environmental analysis of the impact of the denial be studied: “It is the policy of the state that a local government not reject or make infeasible housing development projects, including emergency shelters, that contribute to meeting the need determined pursuant to this article without a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action and without complying with subdivision (d).”
ArtHaus Ocean is a 225-unit mixed use project with 39 affordable units. It is centrally located, with restaurants, parks, and recreation within walking distance. It will be located less than one half mile from two major transit stops. In addition, ArtHaus Ocean is also a half mile from both Downtown Santa Cruz and the beach. This project June 23, 2025
43.896
is consistent with the city’s goal of providing all of its residents with livable, walkable, and bikeable places to live.
The project's proximity to everyday necessities, jobs, and schools will provide its residents with the ability to walk, bike, and take public transit. By supplying its tenants with the opportunity of low and zero emission transport, this project will contribute to reducing emissions. This project also helps the environment by limiting development in our forests and greenfield spaces. Finally, apartments also reduce per person CO2 emissions by up to twenty percent, further protecting the globe.
ArtHaus Ocean is consistent with this city’s commitment to reducing emissions and preserving the environment.
By including 39 affordable units, this project is rooted in helping real people who need housing now. Affordable units help the most vulnerable in our community by shielding them from paying more than thirty percent of their income toward rent. By approving this project, Santa Cruz stays consistent with its goal of improving equity citywide.
Additionally, this project is consistent with the values of the City of Santa Cruz: it makes our city more livable, helps the environment, and protects our vulnerable neighbors. For all of these reasons, we urge the Council to deny the appeal.
Thank you,
Gavin Roth
Jocelyn Wolf
Ryan Meckel
Rafa Sonnenfeld
Elizabeth Madrigal
Janine Roeth
Leads, Santa Cruz YIMBY
June 23, 2025
43.897
530, 542, 548 Ocean St
(CP24-0071)
Planning and Community Development
43.898
Site Information
R-L zone
Subject property
Hotel
C-C zone
C-C zone
43.899
Public Outreach
• Size of Project: Significant (1,000-foot noticing radius) • Community Meeting held on May 20, 2024
• Approximately 66 members in attendance
• Concerns/Support
• Notice of Application Submittal Posted: Sep. 4, 2024
• ZA Public Hearing: Mar. 5, 2025
• Applicant had individual meetings with neighbors
• PC Public Hearing: May 1, 2025
• Neighborhood Meeting #1: May 15, 2025
• Neighborhood Meeting #2: June 18, 2025
• City Council Public Hearing: June 24, 2025
43.900
Soil Contamination
1. Staff awareness
2. No unusual circumstances.
3. State oversight
43.901
Parking
43.902
Location of Ocean St, Property Line, Building
43.903
Why can’t the building be shifted forward?
43.904
Design Change
43.905
Voluntary Changes to Project to Date
• Commercial space
• Up to $100k to bike path
• Rear façade
• Design
• Frosted windows
• Blinds
• Rear setback
• Solar panels compensation
• Mural
• Fence along bike path
43.906
New COAs
62. Final building permit plans shall show that the
entire building, including window trims and assembly,
falls within the property lines, aside from the
balconies along the front façade, which are permitted
to encroach into the public ROW up to 3 feet.
63. Final building permit plans shall show that the
windows on floors 2 and 3 will have frosting on the
lower 18” of the windows facing May Ave.
64. Final building permit plans shall show that the
windows on the rear elevation will have blinds that
pull from the top down.
65. Final building permit plans shall show that the
fence proposed along the north elevation is removed.
43.907
Recommendation
• Staff recommends denial of the
appeal, upholding the Planning
Commission’s approval with
revised conditions of approval
43.908
Site Plan and First Floor
43.909
Second Floor
43.910
Third and Fifth Floor
43.911
Fourth and Sixth Floor
43.912
43.913
Front Elevation (facing Ocean St)
43.914
Rear Elevation
43.915
North (Creek) Elevation
43.916
South Elevation
43.917
Landscape Plan
43.918
State Density Bonus Law
Remove development standards that have the
effect of physically precluding the construction of
the density bonus project. Unlimited waivers.
1. Building height and stories
2. Rear yard setback
3. Common usable open space per dwelling unit
4. Private usable open space per dwelling unit
5. Maximum building length
6. 15’ wide sidewalk – 24.12.185.4.a.ii
7. 15’ wide sidewalk – 24.12.185.5.e
8. Rear yard landscape buffer
9. Open space
10. Neighborhood transition
11. Building modulation – front façade
12. Unfenestrated elevations
13. Common open space per FDU
14. FAR
15. Watercourse development setback
16. Building modulation – ground floor of rear
façade
Waivers Incentives/Concessions
Intended to lower the cost of construction of
housing in order to provide for the affordable
housing units. Project is allowed three
incentives/concessions.
1. Use of vinyl windows on mixed-use buildings
over three stories in height
2. Waive requirement of providing METRO passes
to all residents in the building
43.919
Trees on Adjacent Properties
43.920
Modified COA
Condition of Approval #15 modified:
Four Heritage-sized trees will be removed with the project and one Heritage-sized tree may be pruned by more than 25-percent, if written consent of the adjacent property owner(s) expressly authorizing removal or irreversible damage to the affected heritage tree(s) on adjacent properties APN 010-011-03 and 010- 011-02 is provided by the project applicant to remove/prune more than 25-percent of the canopy of the Heritage-sized tree(s) located on the adjacent properties. In accordance with the replacement tree requirements, either one 24-inch box sized tree or three 15- gallon trees shall be paid for and planted by the project applicant for each heritage tree removed.
If such consent is not obtained, the applicant shall (1) revise the project plans so that it no longer requires a heritage tree permit as determined by the City Arborist and in accordance with Chapter
9.56 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code, or (2) provide evidence that pursuant to a court order or judicial decree, that they are entitled as a matter of law to remove encroaching roots and/or branches up to the property line. This condition is intended to ensure compliance with applicable laws governing private property and tree protection, and to prevent unauthorized removal or harm to trees located on property not owned or controlled by the applicant or City. 43.921
Environmental Cleanup GIS Layer
43.922
Cossart-Daly Law, A.P.C.
Appeal of Planning Commission Approval
of Proposed Development
530, 542, 548 Ocean Street,
Santa Cruz, California
Project Site
Source: Google Earth
43.923
The Planning Commission’s approval on May 1,
2025, is being appealed due to:
• AZlacRul heritage tree reYobal \erYit_ iZaPe]uate
_etNacW Pe_igZ
• 5ZbaliP /E=- edeY\tioZ
• Caiber oR creeW _etNacW_ catercour_e \rotectioZ_
• AZcarraZteP \arWiZg eliYiZatioZ
• 5Z_uRRicieZt ebiPeZce to caibe Nu_ \a__ re]uireYeZt
A//$al 4,,ary
/o__art0ale 8ac -P/ 43.924
$r(ta&$ r$$ P$r,(ts
! $ ;ceaZ St
Source: Google 9a\_
• /ite caZZot lacRulle i__ue a \erYit Ror >eYobal oR 4eritage @ree_ oZ aPjaceZt \ro\erte ocZer_ \ro\erte
• /ite a\\robeP \erYit_ Ror reYobal oR ! 4eritage @ree_ • tree_ locateP oZ aPjaceZt \ro\ertie_ Zot ocZeP Ne >iaf /a\ital • /ite caZZot lacRulle \erYit Pe_tructioZ oR ZeighNor_ \ro\erte • Biolate_ /ibil /oPe "!$ ""
' coZ_titute_ tre_\a__
>e]uested -Otion:
• @he /ite caZZot lacRulle i__ue heritage tree reYobal \erYit_ Ror aPjaceZt \ro\ertie_
• /ite Yu_t eZ_ure Zo harY to heritage tree_ oZ aPjaceZt \ro\ertie_ • @here Yu_t Ne _uN_taZtial ebiPeZce iZ the recorP that the Project _etNacW cill \re_erbe the 4eritage @ree_¿ root _tructure aZP cill Zot harY the 4eritage @ree_
/o__art0ale 8ac -P/ 43.925
Unlawful CEQA Infill Exemption
• The Project does not comply with Santa Cruz zoning regulations, including the watercourse development permit requirements. • There is a reasonable possibility that it will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances:
▪ The Project is located immediately adjacent to residences and Branciforte Creek.
▪ The Project is 16.2 feet into the Watercourse Development Permit development setback.
▪ Riaz Capital would engage in demolition and construction within the setback set by the City of Santa Cruz’s Municipal Code and the City-Wide Creeks & Wetlands Management Plan.
▪ Hazardous waste at the Project site designated by the Department of Toxic Substances Control ("DTSC").
• According to the DTSC, the Project site is an “active” clean-up site as of October 1, 2024.
Branciforte Creek
530, 542, 548 Ocean St.
Source: Google Maps
Cossart-Daly Law, A.P.C. 43.926
-law%4l C
A
7$,/t(o-Ś
a9ar#o4s
ast$ at Pro)$"t (t$
/oZtaYiZateP _oil i_ clo_e to .raZciRorte /reeW
oZ ! $ aZP !
;ceaZ St Zear the ePge oR the
ri\ariaZ haNitat
• -r_eZic u\ to
YgWg iZ _oil Zear the
_outherZ NorPer oR !
;ceaZ Street
• /hloroRorY ba\or_ u\ to
gYJ iZ _oil
iZ the ea_terZ \ortioZ oR ! $ ;ceaZ Street
• @etrachloroetheleZe P/E ba\or_ u\ to
gYJ iZ _oil iZ the ea_terZ \ortioZ oR ! $
;ceaZ Street
• @he_e edceeP re_iPeZtial _creeZiZg lebel_
▪ 0@S/¿_ >e_iPeZtial ScreeZiZg 8ebel_ Ror
-r_eZic are
YilligraY_ \er WilograY
▪ >e_iPeZtial _creeZiZg lebel_ Ror P/E are
" gYJ
/o__art0ale 8ac -P/ 43.927
Unlawful CEQA Infill Exemption
Possibility of significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances at Project Site (Continued):
◦ Proximity (about 35 feet) to Branciforte Creek, which supports Steelhead Trout, Monarch Butterflies, and Yellow Warblers and Yellow-breasted Chats.
◦ Steelhead Trout are threatened species under the Federal Endangered Species Act.
◦ Monarch Butterflies are currently being considered for endangered species status.
◦ Yellow Warblers and Yellow-breasted Chats are California Department of Fish and Game species of special concern.
◦ The Creek flows into the San Lorenzo River, which “has been designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as critical habitat for Steelhead Trout,” and the San Lorenzo River flows into the Pacific Ocean.
Requested Action:
• The Project cannot lawfully be exempted from CEQA.
• Complete a full environmental review for the Project as required by CEQA.
Project Site: 530, 542, 548
Ocean Street
Source: Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District Cossart-Daly Law, A.P.C. 43.928 (ss(-&
-5(ro-,$-tal A-alys(s
• PlaZZiZg /oYYi__ioZ aZP FoZiZg -PYiZi_trator re\ort_ oYitteP Wee iZRorYatioZ relebaZt to chether thi_ Project ]ualiRie_ Ror the 5ZRill 0ebelo\YeZt EdeY\tioZ >e\ort_ RaileP to Pi_cu__ or ebeZ YeZtioZ:
▪ @odic Yaterial_ at the Project _ite
▪ EZbiroZYeZtal Site -__e__YeZt 5ZRorYatioZ
▪ 0@S/ cleaZu\ _tatu_
▪ S\ecie_ iY\act_ iZ the .raZciRorte /reeW aZP SaZ 8oreZfo >iber ▪ 5Y\act_ to huYaZ health
• @he Railure to coY\le cith the lac _uNbert_ the \ur\o_e_ oR /E=- iR it oYit_ Yaterial Zece__are to iZRorYeP Peci_ioZYaWiZg aZP iZRorYeP \uNlic \artici\atioZ /a_e lac i_ clear that iZ _uch ca_e_ the error i_ \rejuPicial½ Sierra /luN b /ouZte oR 2re_Zo
$ " /al!th !
!
>e]uested -Otion:
• -__e__ coZtaYiZatioZ ecological hafarP_ iZ aZ eZbiroZYeZtal rebiec \ur_uaZt to /E=-
Project Site:
!
!
! $
;ceaZ Street
Source: /ite oR SaZta /ruf G5S Serbice_
/o__art0ale 8ac -P 43.929 /
.raZciRorte /reeW
Source: ;\eZ >iber_ 2uZP
• @he Project caZZot oNtaiZ a caiber oR the Catercour_e 0ebelo\YeZt PerYit¿_ re]uireP _etNacW_ RroY .raZciRorte /reeW Necau_e it coulP habe aZ aPber_e iY\act oZ \uNlic health aZP _aRete
• Project eZcroache_
"
Rt iZto the !
Rt YaZPatore creeW _etNacW S9/
$
%
' PlaZZiZg /oYYi__ioZ >e\ort \
• >iaf /a\ital i_ Zot eZtitleP to a caiber oR the /reeW _etNacW uZPer the 0eZ_ite .oZu_ 8ac 0ebelo\er_ utilifiZg PeZ_ite NoZu_e_ Yae Ne eZtitleP to caiber_ uZle__ thee habe a ¼_\eciRic aPber_e iY\act´ oZ health or _aRete½ Gob /oPe "!%
!e
G¼@he cite or couZte i_ Zot re]uireP to caibe or rePuce Pebelo\YeZt _taZParP_ iR the caiber or rePuctioZ coulP habe a _\eciRic aPber_e iY\act´ oZ health or _aRete½I
• @he Project _ite i_ coZtaYiZateP Zear the creeW ePge cith ar_eZic chloroRorY ba\or_ aZP @etrachloroetheleZe ¼P/E½
• SaZ 8oreZfo >iber Rloc_ iZto the PaciRic ;ceaZ clo_e to SaZta /ruf¿_ YaiZ Neach /ocell¿_ /hilPreZ¿_ SurRiZg -rea aZP SteaYer 8aZe _urR _\ot_ chich \ut_ _urRer_ Neachgoer_ YariZe liRe aZP other oceaZ bi_itor_ at ri_W Cr$$* $t!a"*
a(5$r (s -sa%$ Ĝ ll$&al
/o__art0ale 8ac -P/ 43.930
• Project Poe_ Zot ]ualiRe Ror the eliYiZatioZ oR \arWiZg re]uireYeZt_ uZPer -.
%# Zor the SaZta /ruf 9uZici\al /oPe
• 0ebelo\er _eeW_ fero \arWiZg uZPer -.
%#:
ƕ >iber 2roZt @raZ_it /eZter i_ oZle teY\orarile o\eZ PuriZg PeYolitioZ aZP rePebelo\YeZt oR the 9etro PaciRic StatioZ /oY\led ƕ .e the tiYe re_iPeZt_ Yobe iZto the Pebelo\YeZt the clo_e_t Yajor traZ_it _tatioZ cill Ne locateP at the 9etro PaciRic StatioZ aNout "
$
Yile_ RroY the Project
• @hi_ cill _uNbert the \ur\o_e oR -.
%# chich i_ Pe_igZeP to \erYit a
rePuctioZ iZ \arWiZg cheZ re_iPeZt_ cill u_e \uNlic traZ_it • Project cill not \robiPe the oZgoiZg traRRic relieR coZteY\lateP Ne the _tatute or the 9uZici\al /oPe aZP cill liWele re_ult iZ a Yajor rePuctioZ iZ abailaNle _treet \arWiZg
>e]uested -Otion:
• >e]uire Pebelo\er >iaf /a\ital to coY\le cith the edi_tiZg 9uZici\al /oPe ParWiZg re]uireYeZt_
Par*(-& Co-s(#$rat(o-s
Source: .raZciRorte /reeW :eighNor_
/o__art0ale 8ac -P/ 43.931
• >iaf /a\ital re]ue_teP a caiber oR the re]uireYeZt that it \robiPe 9etro .u_ \a__e_ to all \roject re_iPeZt_
• >iaf /a\ital ha_ Zot \robiPeP Pata to _hoc that \robiPiZg 9etro .u_ \a__e_ to re_iPeZt_ coulP \he_icalle \recluPe the coZ_tructioZ oR a Pebelo\YeZt a_ re]uireP Ne GoberZYeZt /oPe _ectioZ "!% !e
• Cithout _uN_taZtial ebiPeZce oR thi_ iZ the recorP >iaf /a\ital i_ Zot eZtitleP to thi_ caiber
>e]uested -Otion:
• 9aiZtaiZ 9etro .u_ Pa__ re]uireYeZt Ror the Project aZP Ror all \roject re_iPeZt_
Pro5(s(o- o% $tro 4s Pass$s
/o__art0ale 8ac -P/
Source: 7ebiZ PaiZchauP 8ooWout SaZta /ruf
43.932
/o__art0ale 8ac -P/
• A\holP a\\eal aZP re_ciZP Project a\\robal
• EZ_ure u\PateP \roject Pe_igZ cill Zot harY the heritage tree_ oZ aPjaceZt \ro\ertie_
• >e]uire Rull /E=- rebiec to aPPre__ creeW coZtaYiZatioZ haNitat ri_W_ iY\act to re_iPeZce_
• 0eZe creeW _etNacW caiber aZP re_tore !
Rt NuRRer
• >eiZ_tate \arWiZg re]uireYeZt_ uZPer SaZta /ruf 9uZici\al /oPe • 9aiZtaiZ Nu_ \a__ coZPitioZ uZle__ ebiPeZce PeYoZ_trate_ Nu_ \a__e_ coulP \he_icalle \recluPe the \roject
Conclusion:
• @hi_ \roject biolate_ /aliRorZia eZbiroZYeZtal lac_ threateZ_ \ro\erte right_ \uNlic health aZP the eZbiroZYeZt
• SiZce Project_ a\\robal ca_ Na_eP oZ uZlacRul \erYit_ aZP iZaPe]uate eZbiroZYeZtal rebiec ce re_\ectRulle re]ue_t the /ite /ouZcil graZt the a\\eal aZP re_ciZP a\\robal oR the Project
4,,ary o% $04$sts
SiZgle 2aYile 4oYe_
.raZciRorte /reeW
Source: -rthau_ /oYYuZite 9eetiZg Pre_eZtatioZ
43.933
Co-ta"t -%or,at(o[email protected]
cossartdalylaw.com
805.380.8408
Eli_e /o__art0ale
/o__art0ale 8ac -P/ 43.934
ArtHaus Ocean
530, 542, 548 Ocean Street
City Council
June 24, 2025
Santa Cruz, California 95060
43.935
Who We Are
Riaz Capital is an Oakland-based development
and asset management company, focused on
creating and innovating entry-level housing
throughout California.
For over 20 years, we have been building and
operating a portfolio of stylish, transit-oriented,
and attainable housing. Our units are specifically
designed for middle income earners – teachers,
nurses, non-profit employees, transit workers,
hospitality and restaurant industry, retirees on
social security.
100% of our current units are priced at or below
moderate income rent limits. We do all of this with
private capital and financing and do not use any
public subsidies.
20+ Years of Bay Area Development
2200+ Units Under Management
1500 Units in Development
10 Projects Completed from 2020 - 2024
1000+ Jobs Created
$72k Median Resident Income
43.936
Riaz Capital Projects
ArtHaus Mandela ArtHaus Brush ArtHaus Ninth
43.937
Why Santa Cruz?
● The Median Sale Price for a Home in Santa Cruz is $1,399,500 ○ Income Required: $283,040
● The Median 1 Bedroom Apartment Rent in Santa Cruz is $2540 ○ Income Required: $101,600
● Median Income in Santa Cruz County is $132,800
● Median Teacher Salary in Santa Cruz County is $66,000 (Max for a 220 day teacher w/ 25 years of experience is $130,335)
We appropriately size units, amenities, and parking to provide more apartments at attainable rents, so while the project will provide 39 restricted affordable units our studio rents will also likely be less than the restricted moderate rental rate.
Who lives in less than 400 SF?
The urban workforce is generally young, single, and financially stable. This demographic’s urban lifestyle prioritizes location and affordability over space, creating demand for well-located, small-format housing in urban locales. Urban workforce housing provides the teachers, nurses, and EMTs that make up the urban workforce the private, quality housing they deserve.
43.938
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
548 Ocean Street 542 Ocean Street 530 Ocean Street
Aerial of combined site
● 4 existing commercial buildings with surface parking. ● Buildings are 30-65 years old, inefficient, and were
mostly vacant at the time of purchase and remain
that way.
● Narrow 6’ sidewalks along Ocean Street with no street trees and no stormwater treatment.
● No residential units.
43.939
PROPOSED PROJECT
● 225 residential units
○ 151 Flexible Density Studios
○ 4 One bedrooms
○ 70 Two bedrooms
● 39 deed-restricted affordable units
● Resident amenity spaces on 1st and 2nd
floors
○ 6,300 SF Podium Terrace (open to air)
● 84 automobile parking spaces
● 225 Class I and 58 Class II bike stalls
● 3,396 SF ground floor commercial space
● 280’ of new 15’-wide sidewalk with
landscaping
43.940
PROJECT BENEFITS
● 225 Residential Units, 39 of which will be deed restricted affordable. ● 3400 sf of new commercial space.
● 70 full-time equivalent jobs created during 24 months of construction ● 5 full-time ongoing operational jobs
○ 1 property manager, 2 assistant property managers/ leasing agents, 2 maintenance technicians ● 270’ of new 15’ wide public sidewalk lined with drought resistant landscaping and new street trees ● Conversion of mostly vacant property to a vibrant community ● $100,000 of funds for the City to complete the Branciforte Creek trail between May Avenue and Ocean Street ● $1,500,000 in development impact fees to fund fire, police, schools, childcare, parks and infrastructure ● $650,000 in annual property tax payments (nearly 10x increase from current site) ● The new building will be Title 24 compliant, employing the most efficient mechanical, electrical and plumbing equipment minimizing the per resident consumption of gas, electricity, and water. ● Rooftop solar panels will further offset the building’s electricity consumption.
43.941
PROJECT OUTREACH
● Community Meeting - May 2024
● Project Website and Signage listing Project Contact
information posted - May 2024
● Letters sent to adjacent property owners/renters
with contact information - August 2024
● Letters sent to surrounding businesses - Nov. 2024
● Project listed in 2 places in the disclosures for 129 May Avenue when it was listed on the market -
June 2024
● Offered to meet with multiple residents either
individually or in groups to discuss the project after
Zoning Administrator Hearing
● Neighborhood meeting #1: 5/15/2025
● Neighborhood meeting #2: 6/18/2025
43.942
PROJECT CHANGES FROM COMMUNITY & CITY FEEDBACK
COMMUNITY CONCERNS SOLUTION
Setbacks Increased the rear setback of the building to 3' on Floor 1. Floors 2-6 have a 5-8' setback.
Creek Additional articulation on the creekside, added landscaping and a mural.
Additional windows from common areas, removal of the fence along the creek property line Pathway will have a fence and gate that will be closed overnight.
Shadows/Solar Negotiate in good faith for compensation for neighbors whose solar will be affected.
Parking Project is providing 84 car parking spaces and 283 bike stalls.
Privacy
First 18" of the windows facing rear elevation on Floors 2 & 3 will be frosted.
All units on the rear elevation will also have blinds that pull from the top down.
No exterior building lights on rear elevation except on the first floor for safety.
Trees
Building setback increased, root exploration found no roots. If the trees do die during development they will be replaced with 48" box.
Articulation
Increased the articulation on the rear elevation of the building. The upper floors vary from 5'-8' setback from the property line.
CHANGES MADE FROM CITY FEEDBACK
Sidewalks Increased the Ocean Street sidewalk to 15' wide.
Branciforte Creek $100,000 payment to the City for the completion of the Branciforte Creek Trail Bike Parking Increased the bike parking
Commercial Space Increased the commercial space from 1400 SF to 3396 SF 43.943
REAR ELEVATION
● Ground floor setback on rear elevation (May
Street) was increased to 3’.
● Floors 2-6 have either a 5’ or 8’ setback from the
property line.
● Windows on Floors 2&3 will have frosting on the
lower 18” of the window.
● All windows on the rear elevation will have
blinds that pull from the top down.
43.944
NORTH ELEVATION (CREEK)
● Increased articulation on the
ground level.
● Added a mural on the first floor
level (design to be determined
at a later date).
● Added additional windows into
common areas to have a view
on to the creek.
● Removed the fence allowing for
additional landscaping to be
seen from the creek.
43.945
APPEAL RESPONSE SUMMARY
A. Tree Permit
a. The City can issue a Permit for the removal of heritage trees on adjacent property with permission from the property owner.
b. The City has added multiple conditions to require the tree owner’s permission prior to pruning or removal.
B. CEQA Exemption
a. The Project meets the requirements of the infill exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332. i. The project complies with all City zoning regulations, including the Watercourse Development Permit requirements.
ii. There are no unusual circumstances resulting in a reasonable possibility of a significant effect. Historic Contamination on an infill site does not constitute an unusual circumstance.
C. The Planning Commission properly found the project exempt under Guidelines Section 15332 a. The City’s determination was based on substantial evidence in the record. b. Appellant’s letter provides no substantial evidence to the contrary.
D. Watercourse Development Permit
a. The Project’s waiver of the Watercourse Development Permit setbacks from Branciforte Creek would not have an adverse impact on public health and safety.
b. The Project’s construction and operation will not expose the neighboring community, future residents, or Branciforte Creek to any contaminants in soil or soil vapor.
E. AB 2097 - Parking
a. The Project can eliminate parking pursuant to AB2097 because it is within ½ mile of a transit stop.
F. Transit Pass Concession
a. The project is using a density bonus concession so the applicant is not required to prove that providing metro bus passes would physically preclude construction of the Project. b. A concession is provided if it results in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs.
This concession provides for an actual cost reduction of $250,000/year for the Project. Nothing further is required.
43.946
TREES
OFF-SITE HERITAGE TREES:
T-9: Pruning necessary, no impact on roots
T-12: Will need to be removed
T-13: No Impact
● No roots found on Project property from T-9, T-10
or T-11.
● If any damage to trees T9-T11 occurs, replacement
trees will be provided. 43.947
SOIL CONTAMINATION
DTSC Oversight:
● The project voluntarily applied to the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) for oversight. ● DTSC will review the California Land Reuse and Revitalization Act (CLRRA) application, the Site Management Plan (SMP) and will oversee all environmental-related activities on the Project site to ensure that activities and the project are protective of human health and the environment.
● CLRRA is a voluntary process that provides additional legal protection as an incentive for landowners to clean up contamination not caused by them and transform vacant or blighted properties. ● DTSC has their own public notification process that will provide notice to the surrounding neighbors.
Soil Findings:
● There is no risk of contaminants spreading due to the proposed construction. ● There is no risk of exposure to the neighboring community, future residents, or Branciforte Creek from the contaminants in soil or soil vapor based on the proposed residential redevelopment's construction or operation. ● Overall Soil Quality: Soil concentrations do not exceed State of California or Federal (RCRA) hazardous waste criteria. If excavated, the soil can be disposed of as non-hazardous material.
● Heavy Metals: Concentrations in soil were below non-RCRA hazardous waste thresholds. ● Arsenic: One sample had elevated concentrations, which will be removed prior to construction and disposed of at a Class II Non-Hazardous landfill.
● Dust and air monitoring will be performed by a licensed environmental contractor during demolition and excavation. ● Soil Vapor:
○ The soil vapor originates from an off-site source, NOT from the site. ○ The project will install a soil vapor barrier to mitigate any potential vapor intrusion risk to the future residents. ○ Any soil vapors potentially released during construction would dissipate and not harm the neighboring community or creek.
43.948
WATERCOURSE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
● Project is not within the
riparian corridor.
● Current building is already in
the Watercourse Development
Setback.
● The proposed building will
reduce the square footage in
the Watercourse Development
Setback.
● Project has requested a density
bonus waiver for the
watercourse development
setback, but is complying with
the requirements of a
watercourse development
variance including providing
payment for the construction
of the trail.
43.949
TRANSIT & PARKING
● State law (AB 2097) prohibits cities
from imposing parking minimums
on developments located within a
half-mile of a major transit stop,
whether existing or planned.
● “Major transit stop” includes the
intersection of two or more major
bus routes with a frequency of
service interval of 20 minutes or
less during the morning and
afternoon peak commute periods.
● Per HCD guidance memo: The
distance to a major transit stop is
measured in a straight line from
the nearest edge of the parcel
containing the proposed project to
any point on the parcel or parcels
that make up the property upon
which a major transit stop is
located.
43.950
Thank You
43.951
43.952
43.953
43.954