appendix f

478 Pages·2014·6.29 MB·English

A F
PPENDIX
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment

April 17, 2014
San Francisco HQ

Atlanta
PHASE I
ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Chicago
Dallas
Property Identification:
2500 J Street
City & County of Sacramento, California 95816
Denver

AEI Project No. 329035

Irvine

Prepared for:
Hill Companies, LLC Los Angeles
8100 E Maplewood Avenue, Suite 220
Greenwood, Colorado 80111

Miami

Prepared by:
AEI Consultants
New York
1900 Point West Way, Suite 142
Sacramento, California 95815
[phone]
Phoenix

Portland
San Jose

PROJECT SUMMARY

2500 J Street, City & County of Sacramento, California

Report Section No REC CREC HREC Environmental Non-ASTM Recommended
Further Issues Considerations Action
Action
2.1 Current use of X
subject
property
2.2 Adjoining X
property
information
3.1 Historical X Contact the
Summary regulatory
oversight agency
in order to
determine which
activities must be
completed at the
site in order to
obtain regulatory
case closure
and/or complete
further subsurface
investigations
4.0 Regulatory X See above
Agency
Records Review
5.0 Regulatory X See above
Database
Records Review
5.2 Vapor X See above
Encroachment
6.3 Previous N/A
Reports
7.0 Site Inspection X
and
Reconnaissance
7.2.1 Asbestos- X X
Containing
Materials
7.2.2 Lead-Based X X
Paint
7.2.3 Radon X
7.2.4 Lead in X
Drinking Water
7.2.5 Mold X

Project No. 329035
April 15, 2014
Page i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AEI Consultants (AEI) was retained by Hill Companies, LLC to conduct a Phase I Environmental
Site Assessment (ESA), in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Standard
Practice E1527-13 and the Environmental Protection Agency Standards and Practices for All
Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR Part 312) for the property located at 2500 J Street in the City &
County of Sacramento, California. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are
described in Section 1.3 of this report.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The subject property, which consists of a multi-tenant office/commercial building, is located in
the south corner of the intersection of J Street and 25th Street in a mixed commercial and
residential area of Sacramento, California. The property totals approximately 0.293 acres and is
improved with a two-story, slab-on-grade building totaling approximately 11,144 square feet.
The subject property is currently occupied by The Coconut Thai Restaurant, Birkenstock of
Midtown, vacant living area, and as an office for the subject property owner Mr. Perry Yuen.
On-site operations include food preparation and sales, retail shoe sales, and administrative
activities. In addition to the subject property building, the property is improved with asphalt-
paved parking areas and associated landscaping.

The property was developed with the current improvements in 1971, and was occupied by
various office tenants and a clinical laboratory from 1971 to at least 1985, and by various retail
and commercial tenants from at least 1988 to present. Prior to the current site improvements,
the subject property was identified to consist of vacant land in at least 1895, residential
dwellings from at least 1915 to at least 1928, and residential tenants and a dry cleaners from at
least 1930 to at least 1968.

The subject property, listed as Red Feather Cleaners at 2500 J Street, was identified in the
regulatory database as a Spills, Leaks, Cleanup & Investigation (SLIC), ENVIROSTOR, and
Environmental Data Resources (EDR) United States (US) Historical Cleaners site, and is further
discussed in Section 5.1.
The immediately surrounding properties consist of the following:
Direction from Address-Tenant/Use
Site
Northwest 25th Street followed by Korshak, Kracoff, Kong & Sugano Attorneys at Law (2430 J
Street)
North Intersection of J Street and 25th Street followed by Thai Basil Restaurant and
apartments (2431 J Street)
Northeast J Street followed by apartments (2501 J Street)
East Art Ellis Art Supplies, currently vacant (2508 J Street)
South Jazz Alley followed by Sacramento Dental Complex (2525 K Street)
Southwest Jazz Alley followed by Solomon Dubnick Art Gallery (2503 K Street & 1017 25th
Street)
West 25th Street followed by a private residence (1018 25th Street)

Project No. 329035
April 15, 2014
Page ii
The adjacent site to the south, listed as Pamela Ditomasso DDS, Chung H Fong DDS, Gerald G
Swanson DDS, Edward K Ishii DDS, Gary J Vedenoff DDS, Hal Hanefield DDS, James W Dallosta
DDS, Gregory Nahorney DDS, Ronald J Rott DDS, Kent S Daft DDS, R Jackson Heise DDS,
Central Dental X Ray Laboratory, Jeannette Okazaki DDS, Wesley K Fong DDS, Cyril C Owens
DDS, and David GS Fong DDS at 2525 K Street, was identified in the regulatory database as a
Sacramento County Masters List (ML) site.
The adjacent site to the southwest, listed as Sacramento Oral Surgery at 2503 K Street, was
identified in the regulatory database as a Sacramento Co. ML site.
The adjacent site to the northwest, listed as Roche Biomedical Laboratory at 2430 J Street, was
identified in the regulatory database as a Sacramento Co. ML, Historical Underground Storage
Tank (UST), and Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System (SWEEPS) UST site.
Please refer to Section 5.1 for further discussion of the identified adjacent sites.
Based upon groundwater monitoring data obtained from the Regional Water Quality Control
Board’s (RWQCB) GeoTracker website for 2828 J Street located 0.27 mile southeast of the
subject property, the direction of groundwater flow beneath the subject property is inferred to
be to the south-southeast. Based on subsurface investigations for the subject property in 2004,
groundwater is presumed to be present at an estimated depth of 22 feet below ground surface
(bgs).
FINDINGS
Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) are defined by the ASTM Standard Practice E1527-
13 as the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in,
on, or at a property: (1) due to release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a
release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future
release to the environment. AEI’s assessment has revealed the following RECs associated with
the subject property or nearby properties:
 Based on review of historical sources, the subject property was occupied by a dry cleaning
facility from at least 1930 to at least 1968. Sanborn Fire Insurance maps from 1951 and
1952 indicate the presence of a hazardous materials storage area and solvent tank located
in the southern corner of the subject property. The dry cleaners operated during a period
of time with little to no regulatory oversight; therefore, the contents of the solvent tank are
unknown. Additionally, the subject property was identified in the regulatory database as an
SLIC and ENVIROSTOR site. According to the Subsurface Investigation Report prepared by
Lush Geosciences (Lush) on April 5, 2004, the site was occupied by Red Feather Cleaners
from at least 1952 to 1970. On March 22, 2004, Lush advanced two borings at the site in
order to collect two groundwater samples and one soil sample. Groundwater was
encountered at 23 feet, and the soil sample was collected at five feet. The groundwater
samples were analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons as Stoddard solvent (TPHss) and
for tetrachloroethylene (PCE). Groundwater from boring B1 contained concentrations of
contaminants at 0.49 parts per million (ppm) TPHss and 0.0047 ppm PCE. The
groundwater sample from boring B2 contained concentrations of contaminants at 0.26 ppm
TPHss and 0.0022 ppm PCE. Although Stoddard solvent was present in the groundwater,
Lush indicated that the compounds more closely resembled hydraulic oil than Stoddard
solvent. The soil sample collected from B1 was found to contain concentrations of TPHss at
Project No. 329035
April 15, 2014
Page iii
3.5 ppm, but no PCE was detected. Lush indicated that although PCE was detected in the
groundwater at the site, concentrations of PCE were less than California drinking water
quality standards (0.005 ppm). Lush noted that although levels of detectable TPHss were
low, the Sacramento Environmental Management Department (SCEMD) would require
additional work at the site to assess the extent of hydraulic fluid impact. Additionally, the
borings at the site were advanced in locations outside of the former dry cleaning building,
limiting the scope of the soil investigation.
Based on review of correspondence from the SCEMD, the subject property owner, Mr. Perry
Yuen, failed to respond to their requests for further investigation, and the case was referred
to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. The release case is currently
open but inactive. The identification of contamination at the site and the lack of continued
investigation represent an REC.
Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions (CRECs) are defined by the ASTM Standard
Practice E1527-13 as a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has
been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority, with hazardous
substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of
required controls. AEI’s assessment has revealed the following CRECs associated with the
subject property or nearby properties:
 No on-site CRECs were identified during the course of this assessment.
Historical Recognized Environmental Condition (HREC) is defined by the ASTM Standard Practice
E1527-13 as a past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products that has
occurred in connection with the property and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the
applicable regulatory authority or meeting unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory
authority, without subjecting the property to any required controls. AEI’s assessment has
revealed the following HRECs associated with the subject property or nearby properties:
 No on-site HRECs were identified during the course of this assessment.
Environmental Issues include environmental concerns identified by AEI that warrant discussion,
but do not qualify as recognized environmental conditions, as defined by the ASTM Standard
Practice E1527-13. These can include, but are not limited to risks which can have a material
environmental or environmentally-driven impact on the business associated with the current or
planned use of the subject property. AEI’s investigation has revealed the following
environmental issues associated with the subject property or nearby properties:

 Based on review of regulatory agency records and the regulatory database, the subject
property was identified for a release of PCE and TPHss associated with the former use of
the site for dry cleaning activities. A limited subsurface investigation was conducted at
the site in 2004. The soil sample was found to contain concentrations of TPHss at 3.5
ppm, and the groundwater samples were found to contain concentrations of TPHss up
to 0.49 ppm and PCE up to 0.0047 ppm. According to the SCEMD, further investigation
was requested, but never completed. Based on this information, it is AEI’s opinion that
a vapor encroachment condition (VEC) cannot be ruled out. AEI recommends further
investigation to assess whether a VEC exists at the subject property.

Project No. 329035
April 15, 2014
Page iv
Non-ASTM Considerations may include the presence of environmental conditions such as
asbestos containing materials, lead-based paint, radon, mold, lead in drinking water, etc. which
can affect the liabilities and financial obligations of the client, the health & safety of site
occupants, and the value and marketability of the subject property. AEI’s assessment has
revealed the following Non-ASTM considerations associated with the subject property or nearby
properties:
 Due to the age of the subject property building, there is a potential that asbestos-containing
materials (ACMs) are present. All observed suspect ACMs were in good condition and are
not expected to pose a health and safety concern to the occupants of the subject property
at this time. In the event that building renovation or demolition activities are planned, an
asbestos survey adhering to Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) sampling
protocol should be performed prior to demolition or renovation activities that may disturb
suspect ACMs.

 Due to the age of the subject property building, there is a potential that lead-based paint
(LBP) is present. All observed painted surfaces were in good condition and are not
expected to pose a health and safety concern to the occupants of the subject property at
this time. Local regulations may apply to lead-based paint in association with building
demolition/renovations and worker/occupant protection. Actual material samples would
need to be collected or an XRF survey performed in order to determine if LBP is present. It
should be noted that construction activities that disturb materials or paints containing any
amount of lead may be subject to certain requirements of the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) lead standard contained in 29 CFR 1910.1025 and 1926.62.
CONCLUSIONS, OPINIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
We have performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for the property located at 2500 J
Street in the City & County of Sacramento, California, in conformance with the scope and
limitations of ASTM Standard Practice E1527-13 and the Environmental Protection Agency
Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR Part 312). Any exceptions to, or
deletions from, this practice are described in Section 1.3 of this report. This assessment has
revealed no evidence of RECs or CRECs in connection with the property except for those
previously identified in the Findings section. Based on the limited scope of the subsurface
investigation in 2004 and open listing of the SLIC and ENVIRSTOR cases, AEI recommends the
owner or their representative contact the appropriate regulatory oversight agencies in order to
determine which activities must be completed at the site in order to obtain regulatory case
closure and/or complete further subsurface investigations.

Project No. 329035
April 15, 2014
Page v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0  INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1 
1.1 SCOPE OF WORK ........................................................................................................................... 1 
1.2 SIGNIFICANT ASSUMPTIONS ............................................................................................................. 1 
1.3 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 2 
1.4 LIMITING CONDITIONS/DEVIATIONS ................................................................................................... 3 
1.5 DATA GAPS AND DATA FAILURE ......................................................................................................... 3 
1.6 RELIANCE .................................................................................................................................... 3 
2.0  SITE AND VICINITY DESCRIPTION .....................................................................................4  
2.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................... 4 
2.2 SITE AND VICINITY CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................................................. 4 
2.3 PHYSICAL SETTING ........................................................................................................................ 5 
3.0  HISTORICAL REVIEW OF SITE AND VICINITY ....................................................................6  
3.1 HISTORICAL SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 6 
3.2 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH REVIEW ........................................................................................................... 7 
3.3 SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAPS ....................................................................................................... 7 
3.4 CITY DIRECTORIES ........................................................................................................................ 8 
3.5 HISTORICAL TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS .................................................................................................... 10 
3.6 CHAIN OF TITLE .......................................................................................................................... 10 
4.0  REGULATORY AGENCY RECORDS REVIEW .......................................................................11 
4.1 REGULATORY AGENCIES ................................................................................................................ 11 
5.0  REGULATORY DATABASE RECORDS REVIEW ....................................................................15 
5.1 RECORDS SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 15 
5.2 VAPOR ENCROACHMENT ................................................................................................................ 17 
6.0  INTERVIEWS AND USER PROVIDED INFORMATION ........................................................18 
6.1 INTERVIEWS .............................................................................................................................. 18 
6.2 USER PROVIDED INFORMATION ....................................................................................................... 19 
7.0  SITE INSPECTION AND RECONNAISSANCE ......................................................................20 
7.1 SUBJECT PROPERTY RECONNAISSANCE FINDINGS.................................................................................. 20 
7.2 NON-ASTM SERVICES .................................................................................................................. 21 
7.3 ADJACENT PROPERTY RECONNAISSANCE FINDINGS ................................................................................ 25 
8.0  SIGNATURE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS ........................................................26 
9.0  REFERENCES .....................................................................................................................27 

Project No. 329035
April 15, 2014
Page vi